247 comments posted · 7 followers · following 4
Wrong. You have arbitrarily adopted one definition among the countless that have been historically proposed. You cannot build an axiom that way. Your definition of deity is not universal - certainly not universally agreed upon - and that renders your arguments nothing but a hypothetical.
The rest of your post is idle babbling deserving no attention.
Right? You're assuming that there is an ultimate societal ideal that could be achieved. No, societies can only be described on a continuum. The more you manage to maximise well-being for the highest possible number of people, the better the societal paradigm.
Your attempts at rationalising Biblical atrocities is both amusing and sad. Predicating an entire ethical system on the assumption that a deity can self-righteously perpetuate acts that the same ethical system defines as immoral is just schizophrenic. Definitely not a stable foundation for an ethical system.
Why do we bother to debate this argument? Because you creationists keep on proposing it. It's a very tedious exercise and I'd very much avoid it, but we can't let this kind of idiocy go unchallenged. Is torturing children wrong? Yes. Is it because your god said so? Of course not. That would be an absurd foundation for an ethical system, as we've already established. No, it is wrong because it reduces children's well-being without any societal gain.
No one was killed in the name of atheism in the 20th century or ever in history. Plenty of people, however, were killed by world views with universal aspirations. All-encompassing religious and political ideologies are really no different. Your deity is no different than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or any other dictator in history. Equally petty and equally detached from reality.
In a paradigm predicated on the existence of objective moral values, there is no place for ethical tenets that are culture or time specific. You are single-handedly destroying your own already precarious world view.
"They "rules" change only when you worship a god created in the image of man (as in secular humanism)."
Yet you've just admitted to the existence of culture-specific ethics, the essence of relativism. You're shooting yourself in the foot.
Notice the wording of my objection to the notion of objectivity: "That is one ridiculous definition of objective as it applies to morality." Factual objectivity exists, but morality will always interact with elements that are subjective and inherent to the human experience. Such is the fundamental nature of behaviour. There isn't and there can't be any such thing as an established ethical code unaffected by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice. Indeed, all of the great ethical revolutions in human history have been a function and an affirmation of personal feelings and interpretations. That doesn't mean factual knowledge cannot selectively support certain personal stances and interpretations. That's precisely why absolute relativism is just as absurd as absolute universalism. Neither view does the complexity of reality any justice.
Bottom line, I'm not re-defining anything. Your inability to grasp that is your problem, not mine.
Far from it. It merely means relinquishing the silly illusion that an ethical system can be determined which will be valid in each and every instance for all of eternity. I have just addressed this in my previous comment. Scroll up. Actually, let me just paste it for you and save you the trouble. Omniscience is not required for a utilitarian approach to work, since utilitarianism does not make claims to infallibility. The reliability of utilitarianism derives from the relative consistency over time of human physiology and cognition. As such, it allows for very good approximation of what constitutes well-being now and in the foreseeable future. Unforeseeable consequences don't render utilitarianism a bad approach any more than the death of the man in your example renders reciprocal altruism a bad approach.
Also, you might want to tone down the shameless arrogance, considering how poor your arguments are. I am very familiar with presuppositional apologetics (or, as it should be called, the stance of those too arrogant or too lazy to actually think). You might think that there's any depth to presuppositional reasoning, but the truth is that it is nothing but a self-referential bag of nothingness predicated on the unfounded claim that a specific book holds the key to the only correct understanding of reality. That kind of arrogance deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt.
Your claim that my definition of "objective" is any more arbitrary than your definition of "god" is simply laughable. The fact that a proposition is used as premise to a logical argument doesn't make that proposition axiomatic. Countless logical arguments have utterly failed precisely because their fundamental premise was baseless, much like yours. Until you can prove your god exists and exists as you describe it, your entire argument is nothing but an exercise in rhetoric - and a poor one at that. You may feel that you don't need to provide a working definition of "god," but that's simply because you know you're unable to provide any definition that could not be easily refuted on logical, ethical or physical grounds. Call me "arbitrary and inconsistent" all you like, pal, you know you've lost this one. Eventually you'll admit it to yourself and you'll retreat into silence. For the sake of your dignity, one can only hope that will happen soon enough.
Altruism makes perfect sense within an evolutionary framework, thank you very much. You're focusing on one instance in which reciprocal altruism failed to pay off for its initiator, not because reciprocal altruism is an inherently flawed mechanism but because of environmental circumstances. Of course you fail to mention how reciprocal altruism is something that each and everyone of us implements many times every day without it resulting in death. Really, rather than suggesting I look up speciesism, a notion I am wholly familiar with, I suggest you look up reciprocal altruism and learn a thing or two about the evolutionary foundations of human behaviour.
Omniscience is not required for a utilitarian approach to work, since utilitarianism does not make claims to infallibility. The reliability of utilitarianism derives from the relative consistency over time of human physiology and cognition. As such, it allows for very good approximation of what constitutes well-being now and in the foreseeable future. Unforeseeable consequences don't render utilitarianism a bad approach any more than the death of the man in your example renders reciprocal altruism a bad approach.
Once more you display a profound lack of any substance in anything you say. Tautologies and circular reasoning are the hallmark of a depressingly poor intellect. I advise you again to retreat from this conversation with what's left of your dignity.