Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    fitz0 wrote: »
    The contention being that, without a higher authority, rules, ethics, morals, laws have no meaning or worth. By meaning or worth I mean, functional value for preserving society in our present situation.
    No shared meaning, yes.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    By extension, self-governance is worthless because one holds themselves accountable to their conscience. We need someone watching over us, enforcing laws for them to have meaning?
    Not necessarily someone watching over us. But, yes, for the thing to have currency, there has to be submission.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    I don't put reason forward as a messiah, nor have I here.
    I'm not particularly saying you have - you've only started contributing today. But if you check back to the OP, you'll notice certain values being expressed that do contain a very idealistic view of "reason".
    fitz0 wrote: »
    I also challenge your contention that we choose this path.
    Fine, I don't see that as pivotal.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    As you say, we've no reason to say that a life spent in a faith is better or worse than one outside it.
    And that's chiefly what I'm saying.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    But I haven't put this notion forward, you're the one that seems to be saying that life in a faith has more ethical value than an independently derived ethical code because those in a faith have submitted to a higher power.
    Clearly, I've said nothing about life in a faith having more or less ethical value, because I'm saying there's no measure of what's better or worse.

    But what I'm also saying is that religious people are perfectly correct to say we don't have ethics as they understand them. We don't have a concept of something being intrinsically wrong or right.

    And, you'll understand, I absolutely haven't suggested that anyone, IMHO, has submitted to a higher power. What I've said is someone who believes that they have submitted to a higher power will act differently to someone who does not have that belief.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    I'm disagreeing because you have proposed that we need to submit to a higher authority for our ethics to have 'currency'.
    But, sure, for the thing to have currency - for it to be something we admit as a common obligation - it has to involve submission. If it doesn't, it hasn't currency.

    You contending that you standing on your own two feet, evaluating and learning on the basis of your experience to develop a personal ethical code just isn't consistent with formulating ethics that have currency with me and/or anyone else. In fact, even if our personal ethics were identical at a point in time, they still wouldn't have currency.

    Why? Because either of us can change the view at any time. For atheists, there's nothing that demands that you slow the pace of your personal development to mine or vice versa.

    And, hopefully to kill off a misunderstanding, I'm not saying that atheists need to invent something to submit to. I'm simply observing that there's nothing for us to submit to. It is perfectly reasonable for theists to comment that we don't conceive of morals in the same way as they do. So, taking comments on this thread
    HemlockOption wrote: »
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    <...>In the past, if you told people you were an atheist, many of them would have assumed that you were immoral <...>
    Unfortunately that attitude is not just in the past, and the Church's and certain high-profile media characters, are more than happy for that perception of atheists to continue. <...>
    the response is, simply, that we are never going to be what theists would regard as moral. We'll be following our own lights, and it will just be happenstance if that looks like anything that theists regard as moral behaviour.


  • Options
    #153
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,481 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    kiki wrote: »
    Will the following split be called ... A++ ?

    A#.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #154
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    So religion is good, to the extent that it encourages human co-operation?

    Certain aspects of religion do encourage human cooperation, those aspects are good. But they can be far better.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    However, the point is you didn’t (and I don’t know if you still don’t) get the point that the significance of the tragedy of the commons (and the second example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma which I supplied when I saw you didn’t comprehend the significance of the first) is that observance of rules doesn’t follow from understanding them.

    The point of the tragedy... is that people working entirely in their own self interest will use up a shared resource despite that not being in their own long term self interest (which is a contradiction, btw). The problem, for you, with this hypothetical is that starts with people who are working apart i.e. the premise of the hypothetical is the conclusion you want to make. Which is spectacularly logically flawed.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Arbitrary authority might not reflect any understanding at all. However, to be successful, a religion presumably has some understanding of human needs.

    But more or less understanding than systems that allow for re-evalutaion?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Ah, FFS, don’t try to make a virtue of imbecility and then take offence when you get a slap.

    Another ad hominem. You are testing my patience. Do I need to point out that throwing about insults is against the charter?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Wrong, and proof that you still don’t understand the tragedy of the commons.

    *Citatation needed.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Why?

    Because you made an assertion without justifying it.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Relate that to your request for a citation.

    Or, you know, you could point out who said it did?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    But if the ‘nonsense’ lasts a lifetime, you’d be a damn fool not to recognise it as part of reality.

    It might be a part of the reality of how they behave, but it isn't part of the reality of what the text actually means. So it is irrelevant to the question of what the text actually means, or to relate to what we were actually discussing, whether we can describe morality as self interest with PR.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I’ve no idea. Are you actually trying to say anything at this stage?

    I've been trying to argue my points since I first posted. You are the one who has replied with empty assertions and insults and, now it seems, pseudo-intellectualism.


  • Options
    #155
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Certain aspects of religion do encourage human cooperation, those aspects are good. But they can be far better.
    Yeah. Of course, atheism is pretty awful at encouraging human co-operation. I expect that means it must be bad.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The point of the tragedy... is that people working entirely in their own self interest will use up a shared resource despite that not being in their own long term self interest (which is a contradiction, btw).
    The point is that securing the long term self interest requires co-operation. You might end up with all the cost, while the other guy gets all the benefit.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But more or less understanding than systems that allow for re-evalutaion?
    We've no way of telling, as "reason" might be so unreliable that we'd be better off not trying.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are testing my patience.
    I'm testing much more than that.


  • Options
    #156
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yeah. Of course, atheism is pretty awful at encouraging human co-operation. I expect that means it must be bad.

    No, atheism doesn't say anything about human cooperation so it's, ethically speaking, neither good nor bad in of itself.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    The point is that securing the long term self interest requires co-operation. You might end up with all the cost, while the other guy gets all the benefit.

    Which is not an argument against cooperation, its an argument for cooperation. Which is the point. Did you forget that?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    We've no way of telling, as "reason" might be so unreliable that we'd be better off not trying.

    Would you apply that thinking while crossing the road?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm testing much more than that.

    No, still just testing my patience with pseudo-intellectualism. You do realise what forum you are on right, wishy washy pseudo-philosophical answers which don't really answer anything wont get you anywhere here.

    I look forward to the rest of your response.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, atheism doesn't say anything about human cooperation so it's, ethically speaking, neither good nor bad in of itself.
    Hmm. But I thought you judged things by their outcomes? Religion seems to promote all kinds of human co-operation. Think of the wonderful sight of people of all races, from all parts of the world, joining together in St Peter's Square or in Mecca, all with a common purpose.

    Compare it to all these atheists growling at each other via the interweb. Seems to fail dismally by your standard.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Which is not an argument against cooperation, its an argument for cooperation. Which is the point. Did you forget that?
    It's an illustration of why co-operation doesn't automatically follow from a common understanding of a common interest. I know exactly the point I'm trying to inject into your cerebral cortex.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Would you apply that thinking while crossing the road?
    You know, Hume says exactly the same thing. You could do much worse than giving him a read.

    http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/hume-dialogues.pdf

    Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You do realise what forum you are on right, wishy washy pseudo-philosophical answers which don't really answer anything wont get you anywhere here.
    Gosh, no definitive answers on an atheism & agnosticism forum. What was I thinking of.


  • Options
    #158
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    No shared meaning, yes.

    Moving the goalposts? So now meaning is only applicable in larger groups. That's surely what gives religious ethics currency, since large groups follow the same 'leader.' So what of humanists? Or other secular groups that share a common ideology such as communists? Do their communal ethics have any currency?

    What about doctors, the largest group that shares common ethics derived from purely secular considerations? Their medical ethics surely have great currency, yet are beholden to no higher power.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm not particularly saying you have - you've only started contributing today. But if you check back to the OP, you'll notice certain values being expressed that do contain a very idealistic view of "reason".

    Ok, we'll leave that one then. :)

    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    And that's chiefly what I'm saying. Clearly, I've said nothing about life in a faith having more or less ethical value, because I'm saying there's no measure of what's better or worse.

    But what I'm also saying is that religious people are perfectly correct to say we don't have ethics as they understand them. We don't have a concept of something being intrinsically wrong or right.

    And, you'll understand, I absolutely haven't suggested that anyone, IMHO, has submitted to a higher power. What I've said is someone who believes that they have submitted to a higher power will act differently to someone who does not have that belief.But, sure, for the thing to have currency - for it to be something we admit as a common obligation - it has to involve submission. If it doesn't, it hasn't currency.

    Finally, your own argument! Not a mention of a philosopher to be seen. :)

    Now, while you say that we don't have ethics as the religious understand them, I'm confused. Does their understanding of our ethics lend it some credibility?

    On the matter of intrinsic values, the lack of them is common to all people. We are taught our values initially, we formulate our own later. Not everybody of the same religion or institution shares the same values. Do the deviants who claim a higher authority deserve the same weight to their ethics? What if the deviant is highly placed? If his/her ethics are out of line with everyone else's yet they fall under the same authority, do his morals have the same currency as the others'?

    How many groups have hurt others, through physical violence, Psychological means or institutional, cultural repression? Never mind the examples of suicide bombings and such that are trotted out. I'm talking about the repression of women in the name of most of the modern gods, the ostracising of unwed mothers and the families of suicides in Ireland over the past few hundred years. The negative impact that a group under a higher authority has on society when it cannot change with the times. Those that have submitted to this power will likewise not change.

    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You contending that you standing on your own two feet, evaluating and learning on the basis of your experience to develop a personal ethical code just isn't consistent with formulating ethics that have currency with me and/or anyone else. In fact, even if our personal ethics were identical at a point in time, they still wouldn't have currency.

    Why? Because either of us can change the view at any time. For atheists, there's nothing that demands that you slow the pace of your personal development to mine or vice versa.

    As an atheist, yes I have no basis for definite ethics. But I am not just an atheist. I would sincerely hope that nobody is an atheist and nothing else. Like I've said before, my moral code is informed by everything that has gone before. My experiences don't change, new ones may inform my morals over time but the same is true of everyone, whether they are religious or non-religious. It won't happen overnight, every new position I take is usually going around my head for months, back and forth, before it becomes established. As you say, they won't have currency with you, but why should they? They're mine to live by. We all have our own code and they all influence the larger morality of society which keeps those who are radically opposed in check.

    No code of law has remained constant throughout history. Not a single 'higher' authority has remained static, they have all changed to reflect the changing world, however slowly. Is it that rules under a higher authority take longer to change that you see them as having more clout?

    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    And, hopefully to kill off a misunderstanding, I'm not saying that atheists need to invent something to submit to. I'm simply observing that there's nothing for us to submit to. It is perfectly reasonable for theists to comment that we don't conceive of morals in the same way as they do. So, taking comments on this threadthe response is, simply, that we are never going to be what theists would regard as moral. We'll be following our own lights, and it will just be happenstance if that looks like anything that theists regard as moral behaviour.

    Here, we may be in mostly agreement. Let them judge us as immoral or whatever, it's only their own code they're offending.

    "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and all that.


  • Options
    #159
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Moving the goalposts? So now meaning is only applicable in larger groups.
    I don't intend it to move goalposts - I'm only acknowledging that personal ethics will have meaning to the individual holding them.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    What about doctors, the largest group that shares common ethics derived from purely secular considerations? Their medical ethics surely have great currency, yet are beholden to no higher power.
    I'd query how their ethics are purely secular - recall many discussions in our health sector have involved application of religious ethics. I'd also suggest that the medical profession has an unusually high level of internal policing as regards competence - and point out that its hard to establish the extent to which currency has been achieved.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/mutilated-by-brutal-surgery-of-last-resort-1470985.html
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Now, while you say that we don't have ethics as the religious understand them, I'm confused. Does their understanding of our ethics lend it some credibility?
    No - it's simply to say that they are right in their contention from their point of view. A potential misunderstanding develops if they and we use the term "ethics" or "morals" to mean things with significant differences. The misunderstanding is compounded when you find (including on this thread) some atheists making statements that seem to expect what we mean by ethics to become the same thing as what theists mean.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Do the deviants who claim a higher authority deserve the same weight to their ethics?
    How do we know what's a deviant?
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Is it that rules under a higher authority take longer to change that you see them as having more clout?
    Up to a point. If the rules are to alter behaviour, they have to be strong enough to withstand challenge. If the rules change to accommodate behaviour, then they're not regulating actions.

    That's (briefly) what Hobbes (and people who've generally taken that view) are concerned with. Bear in mind, Hobbes lived through a civil war, so he wrote with a picture of just how bad things can get when a society collapses. If you believe the alternative to be a serious breakdown of public order, you'll tolerate the idea of an occasionally brutal central authority.

    Incidently, in his lifetime Hobbes was accused of atheism.


  • Options
    #160
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Hmm. But I thought you judged things by their outcomes?

    Atheism is an outcome itself, not a driving force to any other outcome. Atheism doesn't imply any ethical notions, good or bad, its only a position on the existence of god.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Religion seems to promote all kinds of human co-operation. Think of the wonderful sight of people of all races, from all parts of the world, joining together in St Peter's Square or in Mecca, all with a common purpose.

    Except the people in St Peters Square have a different purpose than those in Mecca, and history has shown us how violently different those purposes can be.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Compare it to all these atheists growling at each other via the interweb. Seems to fail dismally by your standard.

    Have I missed the examples of these growling atheists suicide bombing each other or something?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    It's an illustration of why co-operation doesn't automatically follow from a common understanding of a common interest.

    Except that its a hypothetical specifically concerning people "acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest". There is no common understanding of a common interest. Even then the contradiction is still there, if these people where rationally consulting their own self interest, they would do so in the long term as well as the short term. That they don't means they aren't being rational.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You know, Hume says exactly the same thing. You could do much worse than giving him a read.

    You could do worse than answering our question, considering we asked the same thing.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Gosh, no definitive answers on an atheism & agnosticism forum. What was I thinking of.

    How should I know what you are thinking, your responses are getting more and more ambiguous and empty each time you respond.


  • Options
    #161
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Atheism doesn't imply any ethical notions, good or bad, its only a position on the existence of god.
    Sounds right to me.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Have I missed the examples of these growling atheists suicide bombing each other or something?
    Sure they detest each other so much, most of them can't stand being in the same street. Let alone get close enough to detonate a suicide bomb.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Except that its a hypothetical specifically concerning people "acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest". There is no common understanding of a common interest.
    What's absent is the assurance that others will respond; it's in each individual's interest for all other individuals to respect the common interest, while ignoring it himself.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You could do worse than answering our question, considering we asked the same thing.
    You mean there's more than one of you? In any event, I've already said there's no real answer, a while back
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    What he’s getting at is Hume’s problem of induction – on the one hand, there being no way that reason can be demonstrated to yield any knowledge while, on the other hand, it being a simple necessity to act as if we know what we’re doing.
    We're going over an awful lot of stuff again and again.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    How should I know what you are thinking, your responses are getting more and more ambiguous and empty each time you respond.
    Yup, that's atheism. At first glance, it all seems so reasonable. But there always has to be a catch.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Sure they detest each other so much, most of them can't stand being in the same street. Let alone get close enough to detonate a suicide bomb.

    Any serious response?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    What's absent is the assurance that others will respond; it's in each individual's interest for all other individuals to respect the common interest, while ignoring it himself.

    How can it be in each individuals interest to ignore the common interest if that is exactly what causes the negative result? It's the opposite. People are bad at realising this (especially when there is some short term gain), but that doesn't mean they should ignore it.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You mean there's more than one of you? In any event, I've already said there's no real answer, a while back

    Well I asked a question, and according to your Hobbes asked the same thing, so that's were "our" comes from. If there's no answer then how can we take your criticisms seriously/
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    We're going over an awful lot of stuff again and again.

    Largely because you contradict yourself or strawman others so much.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yup, that's atheism. At first glance, it all seems so reasonable. But there always has to be a catch.

    Yes, responses like that. Empty responses, which are generally critical with no real argument (or specific target) to them. Odd kind of ambiguity (not to mention target) to come from someone who calls himself atheist.


  • Options
    #163
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Any serious response?
    Only when humour isn't appropriate.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Odd kind of ambiguity (not to mention target) to come from someone who calls himself atheist.
    True. I should be reported to the House Committee on UnAtheistic Activities, and charged with Demonstrating Insufficient Naivete About The Value Of Reason.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How can it be in each individuals interest to ignore the common interest if that is exactly what causes the negative result? It's the opposite. People are bad at realising this (especially when there is some short term gain), but that doesn't mean they should ignore it.
    It does if you gain more by letting everyone else bear the costs, while you share the benefits. As I've said already.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Well I asked a question, and according to your Hobbes asked the same thing, so that's were "our" comes from.
    Hume said it - another atheist, later than Hobbes.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If there's no answer then how can we take your criticisms seriously
    If you think there's an answer to that one, you really need to take up a religion.


  • Options
    #164
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Just to clarify, this is not a draft manifesto for all atheists.
    It is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote the type of principles in the draft manifesto.
    I think these are the key points that some people are missing (those that correctly say atheism is nothing but an absence of belief in gods, and those that don't want to be "herded")
    I see the word "promote" is used a lot in the draft manifesto. Anyone promoting the "group values" in the manifesto could be interpreted as lobbying, or proselytizing, or being aggressive and/or militant.
    On the other hand, who wouldn't want to see society moulded to suit their own value system? Religious groups do it all the time. Why would you complain about religious control of schools, but then object to joining a group that promotes secular control?

    The idea of atheists giving to charity under the umbrella of "ethical atheism", as opposed to just giving money to charity is interesting.
    What possible use is it? I suppose it "promotes" atheists as better people (ie not the Stalin and Hitler stereotypes) and it counters the notion that "christian behaviour" (ethical behaviour) is something stemming from Christianity.
    Can society move towards secular ethics without organised Ethical Atheism? Yes, probably, but more slowly.


  • Options
    #165
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Only when humour isn't appropriate.

    Humour, by itself, is rarely an appropriate response to a serious question. Do you agree with what I originally said? Do you even understand what I originally said.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    True. I should be reported to the House Committee on UnAtheistic Activities, and charged with Demonstrating Insufficient Naivete About The Value Of Reason.

    Or you could stop messing everyone around and have an adult debate. Tell me, seeing as you are an atheist who doesn't see any value in reason or ethics-sans submission to arbitrary higher power, what exactly do you base you life choices on? How exactly do you decide what to do and why to do it?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    It does if you gain more by letting everyone else bear the costs, while you share the benefits. As I've said already.

    And if everyone does that, no one gets anything. Which is the problem with the analogy. The analogy is a group of people acting this way, not one single person acting thsi way while everyone else acts differently.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Hume said it - another atheist, later than Hobbes.

    So now there is three of us asking the same question. Any chance of an answer then?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    If you think there's an answer to that one, you really need to take up a religion.

    Normally I can see why someone thinks they can get away with a non sequitor, but this one doesn't make any sense. Which "one", the first question (about crossing the road) or the second one (about taking you seriously)?


  • Options
    #166
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you agree with what I originally said? Do you even understand what I originally said.
    Try asking if I care. You'll get an answer that's both serious and funny. At least, I'll find it funny.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How exactly do you decide what to do and why to do it?
    Mostly, I let my reptile brain make a choice based on whatever primal appetites it needs to satisfy at that particular moment. Then I work out some kind of quasi-rational explanation for whatever I've decided, to make it look like my conscious mind is in control of my life.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And if everyone does that, no one gets anything. Which is the problem with the analogy. The analogy is a group of people acting this way, not one single person acting thsi way while everyone else acts differently.
    I'm not sure what you're saying there. I can only repeat, as before, that the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma both illustrate that rational deliberation does not automatically create group co-operation to secure a common goal. And I don't see what remains to be explained on that.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So now there is three of us asking the same question. Any chance of an answer then?
    Absolutely none. Incidently, the other two guys know there isn't an answer.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Which "one", the first question (about crossing the road) or the second one (about taking you seriously)?
    Crossing the road.


  • Options
    #167
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    recedite wrote: »
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Just to clarify, this is not a draft manifesto for all atheists.

    It is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote the type of principles in the draft manifesto.
    I think these are the key points that some people are missing (those that correctly say atheism is nothing but an absence of belief in gods, and those that don't want to be "herded")
    I think you're right to remind us of that and, of course, people who feel this to be a useful thing should get behind it.

    I'd only repeat that I don't see why atheism would be the thing around which people will congregate to achieve some common result. I think a better starting point is simply around identifying what principles any person might find attractive.


  • Options
    #168
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Folks -- just a comment on posting style. I'm not sure if anybody else can read the quote-response-quote-reponse-etc posts, but I certainly can't. Gives me a headache with the color scheme I use. The usual posting style of just one or two quote boxes, plus longer responses is much easier on the eyes.

    :o


  • Options
    #169
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    robindch wrote: »
    Folks -- just a comment on posting style. I'm not sure if anybody else can read the quote-response-quote-reponse-etc posts, but I certainly can't. Gives me a headache with the color scheme I use. The usual posting style of just one or two quote boxes, plus longer responses is much easier on the eyes.

    :o

    Think that may actually be a result of people posting from their phones, that's how the mobile site handles quotes for me. And it's a bit of a bitch to correct them on your phone. :P


  • Options
    #170
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    I think the only way "ethical atheism" can get off the ground is if a society with membership is formed.

    This way, members are also open to sanction by the society for breaching its ethics.

    I guess that then you would have the teeth required to be taken seriously as a group, and also try and go forward to promote atheism in a positive light through the activities of the society. It would also distinguish you from the general atheist population. You get to take praise /blame for the activities of the society and its members only.

    I can also see the pitfalls...and maybe other groups forming ..claiming to be more ethical etc, ....but t'was ever thus from religion to politics.


  • Options
    #171
    kiki
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭kiki


    How about a poll re an ethical atheist org ?
    Might be a way to see if this has legs or not ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    This way, members are also open to sanction by the society for breaching its ethics.
    Kind of like the opposite to the Catholic Church. Sanctions within the society - I like it!


  • Options
    #173
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Try asking if I care. You'll get an answer that's both serious and funny. At least, I'll find it funny.

    I have asked it! Answer my damn questions.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Mostly, I let my reptile brain make a choice based on whatever primal appetites it needs to satisfy at that particular moment. Then I work out some kind of quasi-rational explanation for whatever I've decided, to make it look like my conscious mind is in control of my life.

    So you don't decide? You just satisfy whichever primal urge is greatest? Why exactly do you think anyone should listen to someone talking about ethics, when they are not in control of their own actions?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you're saying there. I can only repeat, as before, that the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma both illustrate that rational deliberation does not automatically create group co-operation to secure a common goal. And I don't see what remains to be explained on that.

    My points are pretty clear, the tragedy of the commons argument is logically flawed. If it isn't in each individuals best interest to allow a common resource to be depleted, then they wouldn't let it be depleted if they where actually thinking rationally about their self-interest. The tragedy... argument is not argument that rationality doesn't lead to cooperation, its an argument that humans aren't good at being rational. And the point is that they should be, if they don't want negative consequences like lost resources.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Absolutely none. Incidently, the other two guys know there isn't an answer

    Crossing the road.

    Except there is a simple answer and that answer is "No I don't apply that thinking ("reason" might be so unreliable that we'd be better off not trying)to crossing the road, because it would be suicidally stupid".
    That thinking is some absolute that people can use in everyday life, it's a philosophical quirk that poor philosophers will throw out as a last defence to deny any and all reasoned argument.


  • Options
    #174
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    <....> Why exactly do you think anyone should listen to someone talking about ethics, when they are not in control of their own actions?

    <....>The tragedy... argument is not argument that rationality doesn't lead to cooperation, its an argument that humans aren't good at being rational.

    <...>Except there is a simple answer and that answer is "No I don't apply that thinking ("reason" might be so unreliable that we'd be better off not trying)to crossing the road, because it would be suicidally stupid". <...>
    a) What made you think anyone is in conscious control of their own actions?

    b) You still don't understand the tragedy of the commons or the prisoner's dilemma.

    c) That simple answer simply misses the point; predictably, which is ironic in this context.


  • Options
    #175
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    a) What made you think anyone is in conscious control of their own actions?

    b) You still don't understand the tragedy of the commons or the prisoner's dilemma.

    c) That simple answer simply misses the point; predictably, which is ironic in this context.

    a) You are now aware that you are breathing. Nearly everyone is in conscious control of their actions.
    b) You notice how my points on it have all had explanation behind them, referencing the wiki, while yours have been assertions without explanation? Its pretty obvious who understands what they are saying and who is just pulling points from nowhere while attempting to support them with name dropping.
    c) Another assertion without logical explanation. Your posts would come across as, you know, actual arguments if you actually made arguments and just reference supposed points only apparent to you.


  • Options
    #176
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Nearly everyone is in conscious control of their actions.
    Ha ha.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    <....>supposed points only apparent to you.
    I'm not sure anyone else is having quite the same problem that you are in comprehending what's at issue.


  • Options
    #177
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I don't intend it to move goalposts - I'm only acknowledging that personal ethics will have meaning to the individual holding them.I'd query how their ethics are purely secular - recall many discussions in our health sector have involved application of religious ethics. I'd also suggest that the medical profession has an unusually high level of internal policing as regards competence - and point out that its hard to establish the extent to which currency has been achieved.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/mutilated-by-brutal-surgery-of-last-resort-1470985.html

    Granted, although the symphysiotomy scandal has the hands of the church and the state all over it, both arguably higher authorities. I'm starting to realise that I'm arguing a different point to you.

    Rather than arguing that higher authorities don't have laws with currency, I'm more concerned about why they do, and in particular why it's bad that they do. An ineffable authority whose accepted standard of ethical behaviour hurts those subject to it does not change without great effort and suffering.

    With a point of focus, more people become subjects creating more a mob ethics rather than carefully considered social values. This figurehead - pope, president, minister, king, priest, whatever - keeps them in line. Would I be correct in saying this is what you are proposing?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    No - it's simply to say that they are right in their contention from their point of view. A potential misunderstanding develops if they and we use the term "ethics" or "morals" to mean things with significant differences. The misunderstanding is compounded when you find (including on this thread) some atheists making statements that seem to expect what we mean by ethics to become the same thing as what theists mean.How do we know what's a deviant?Up to a point. If the rules are to alter behaviour, they have to be strong enough to withstand challenge. If the rules change to accommodate behaviour, then they're not regulating actions.

    That's (briefly) what Hobbes (and people who've generally taken that view) are concerned with. Bear in mind, Hobbes lived through a civil war, so he wrote with a picture of just how bad things can get when a society collapses. If you believe the alternative to be a serious breakdown of public order, you'll tolerate the idea of an occasionally brutal central authority.

    When the rules become intolerable though - discrimination, inequality based on unalterable things such as sexual orientation, gender, religion, skin colour - such a system resists all attempt to change it except through processes too slow to help the current generation or even the next one. These behaviours have been here for as long as people have, there have always been gay people, black people, women. Yet the current dominant ideology has been most unfair to these people due, in the main, to higher authorities dictating that it should be so.

    I see your point and I actually agree to some extent. I disagree that irreligious ethics have no value. Aside from the imposed laws of the land to which we are all subject if we want to remain in society, personal ethics hold our society together. If they didn't, society would fall apart even with government intervention. Religiosity in Ireland is in decline, or rather the irreligious are multiplying, so there are more and more people just relying on their own judgement and we haven't dissolved into anarchy yet.


  • Options
    #178
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Ha ha.I'm not sure anyone else is having quite the same problem that you are in comprehending what's at issue.

    So any answers to my questions, any at all? You don't even understand how a discussion forum works, do you?


  • Options
    #179
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    fitz0 wrote: »
    This figurehead - pope, president, minister, king, priest, whatever - keeps them in line. Would I be correct in saying this is what you are proposing?
    You'd be correct that this is what I'm describing - but I'm not proposing anything. I'm really just saying this is how things tend to operate - and to draw attention to how what we might call "personal ethics" differ from the (subjectively!) objective view of ethics you'll find in religions.

    When it gets to proposing, what I'd is that atheism has no strong binding element, such as would make it a vehicle for effective action. That's why I'd say that I've personally no interest in subscribing to an atheist manifesto. I wouldn't see the point of excluding theists who might share similar views on secular education and so forth.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Religiosity in Ireland is in decline, or rather the irreligious are multiplying, so there are more and more people just relying on their own judgement and we haven't dissolved into anarchy yet.
    But I think the issue here is around that point of Nietzsche, that even when the basis for religion goes the habits of thoughts persist. What you see are no so much personal ethics, in the sense of people drawing up a new view of the world with a clean sheet. What you see, by and large, are the habits of thought promoted by religion - concepts of judging things as right or wrong, despite the basis of such judgment being dispensed with.

    I see a value in looking back on what people have said on these topics, because these discussions have been had many times in the past. I think one of the best explorations of this slate of issues is in an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson "Self Reliance"
    I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil."

    No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he.
    That's a powerful statement - but totally impractical. It's like the moral equivalent of Hume's observation that reason cannot provide us with reliable answers. However, while Hume could recognise that we still need to act, there's nothing in Emerson (that I've read) where he sees that this absolutist position cannot be implemented. If I carry myself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but me, I'm going to get a bruising the first time I come up against a detachment of the Parachute Regiment.

    What am I on about? Just that I do see a point to Micheal's OP, to the extent that I don't see clear shared values replacing those that were previously sourced from the RCC. (This is not a defence of the RCC - or an attack - just an observation that the RCC was the source of our public morals). I certainly see a benefit in this kind of discussion. I've no destination in mind as to where it might end. I do believe that atheism is the wrong concept to have at it's centre. What's needed, if we can do it, is to find some appeal that anyone can subscribe to.

    That's probably enough for one post!


  • Options
    #180
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So any answers to my questions, any at all? You don't even understand how a discussion forum works, do you?
    What does the "thumbs up" button do? I pressed it while reading your post. Is that a bad thing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    What does the "thumbs up" button do? I pressed it while reading your post. Is that a bad thing?

    It indicates your "thanks" for my post (your name appears underneath). It indicates you agree with what I said or liked a joke. You can remove your thanks by clicking on "remove your thanks" on the left (in line where your name appears).

    Any answers then? Can we move the discussion along at all?


Advertisement