Archived

Moral Argument

Read 17949 times

John Prytz

  • **
  • 13 Posts
    • View Profile
Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« on: October 13, 2016, 05:04:40 am »
Morals / ethics do not stem from religious texts but religious true believers adopt the naturalness of human morality and assign that trait to the teachings of their particular religious texts. It's putting the cart before the horse. Even some of the higher animals can show moral / ethical behaviour and they aren't into the teachings of various religious texts. In any event, the Old Testament and the Koran are hardly textbook examples in morality and ethics. There are obviously good people (many religious) who do good things and bad people (some religious) who do bad things but as been oft said, it takes religion to get good people to do bad things - dare one mention Northern Ireland as an obvious recent (one of many) example. As far as the morals / ethics of atheists are concerned, atheists have never burned anyone at the stake. Atheists have never stoned anyone to death. Atheists have never flown planes into buildings or been suicide bombers. Atheists didn't participate in the Crusades. On the other hand, true believers well and truly like to spill blood as one can ascertain from reading or watching the daily news. All up, atheists are way more tolerant of true believers than true believers have been and are tolerant of atheists or of other but differently inclined true believers.

1
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2016, 06:53:45 am »
If I were theistic apologist my objection to what you wrote would go along these lines:

Why you think it's evil to blow up other people? We're just animals that evolved in such a way that we have tendency to do so, how is it morally worse than situation in which she-mantis eats her husband, or when lions brutally kill antelope?
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

2

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2016, 01:56:49 am »
"For animals are not moral agents. As I have often pointed out, when a lion kills a zebra, it kills it, but it does not murder it. For lions have no moral obligations to fulfill or prohibitions to obey. Zebras have no more right to life than a lion has a right to eat. Nature is just morally neutral because animals are not rational agents endowed with moral duties.

Now if the lion does no wrong in killing the zebra, why is a human being wrong in killing the zebra? It cannot be simply because the zebra would experience pain, for the pain is the same in either case. If the zebra had an inherent right not be harmed, why would that right evaporate when the perpetrator is a lion rather than a human being?

Rather it seems clear that the basis for the ethical treatment of animals must lodge, not in the fuzzy idea of animal rights, but rather in the moral duties of human beings, who are, after all, moral agents and who therefore can have certain duties about how animals are to be treated. That’s why we can morally distinguish between a lion’s tearing a zebra limb from limb, and a human being’s doing the same. While the lion violates no moral duties (since it has none) in so doing, a human being may be violating a moral duty he has in so treating a zebra (say, if he just does it for sport).

Here’s where things get really desperate for the atheist. Given naturalism, why think that human beings have any objective moral duties toward other animals? Why is it wrong for humans, who are just relatively advanced primates, to inflict pain on other animals? Who or what prohibits them from so doing? Obviously, we’re right back to the old problem of finding any objective basis for moral values and duties in an atheistic world, only this time the focus is on our duties toward other animals"



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-and-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals#ixzz4NnKaWBi9
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

3

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2016, 08:06:44 am »
"For animals are not moral agents. As I have often pointed out, when a lion kills a zebra, it kills it, but it does not murder it.

Let me go ahead and stop Craig right there.  Murder is the killing of a person by another person with the intent to kill, so by definition the lions don't murder.  That's a legal distinction, not a moral one.  Lions do in fact have a moral system.  It's not the same as ours, but they do have morality and are moral agents.  Craig is blatantly wrong when he makes this claim. 

Quote
For lions have no moral obligations to fulfill or prohibitions to obey. Zebras have no more right to life than a lion has a right to eat. Nature is just morally neutral because animals are not rational agents endowed with moral duties.

Now if the lion does no wrong in killing the zebra, why is a human being wrong in killing the zebra? It cannot be simply because the zebra would experience pain, for the pain is the same in either case. If the zebra had an inherent right not be harmed, why would that right evaporate when the perpetrator is a lion rather than a human being?

Humans and lions are different.  Lions don't have a choice other than to eat other animals.  Humans do.  Not eating would kill the lion.  The lion killing a zebra to eat is analogous to a human killing a zebra that is trying to kill the human.  Nobody would say that it is immoral to defend yourself against a wild animal trying to kill you.  Lions don't kill for sport, but humans do.  Killing for sport can certainly be immoral.

Quote
Rather it seems clear that the basis for the ethical treatment of animals must lodge, not in the fuzzy idea of animal rights, but rather in the moral duties of human beings, who are, after all, moral agents and who therefore can have certain duties about how animals are to be treated. That’s why we can morally distinguish between a lion’s tearing a zebra limb from limb, and a human being’s doing the same. While the lion violates no moral duties (since it has none) in so doing, a human being may be violating a moral duty he has in so treating a zebra (say, if he just does it for sport).

As I explained before, the lion and the human are not analogous in that way.  Lions don't tear zebras limb from limb for sport.  They actually kill the zebra as fast as they can, and eat it in the only way they can. 

Quote
Here’s where things get really desperate for the atheist. Given naturalism, why think that human beings have any objective moral duties toward other animals?

That's a very controversial claim, but sentience may be the determining factor that you're looking for.

Quote
Why is it wrong for humans, who are just relatively advanced primates, to inflict pain on other animals?

Sentience, and because it hurts the other animals.

Quote
Who or what prohibits them from so doing?

The conscience of those people.

Quote
Obviously, we’re right back to the old problem of finding any objective basis for moral values and duties in an atheistic world, only this time the focus is on our duties toward other animals"

I've been over this with you before in great detail.  It's not my fault that you don't understand it.  Basically, reality is that objective basis.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

4

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2016, 09:02:27 am »
"For animals are not moral agents. As I have often pointed out, when a lion kills a zebra, it kills it, but it does not murder it.

Let me go ahead and stop Craig right there.  Murder is the killing of a person by another person with the intent to kill, so by definition the lions don't murder.  That's a legal distinction, not a moral one.  Lions do in fact have a moral system.  It's not the same as ours, but they do have morality and are moral agents.  Craig is blatantly wrong when he makes this claim. 

Lions as moral agents? That is utter nonsense. Lions do not have OUGHT's. Morality in the animal kingdom is nothing but an adaptation to help propagate species and enhance survival.

We see Lions often kill cubs (infanticide) all the time. Are they doing anything wrong? No, it is what lions do.




Quote
For lions have no moral obligations to fulfill or prohibitions to obey. Zebras have no more right to life than a lion has a right to eat. Nature is just morally neutral because animals are not rational agents endowed with moral duties.

Now if the lion does no wrong in killing the zebra, why is a human being wrong in killing the zebra? It cannot be simply because the zebra would experience pain, for the pain is the same in either case. If the zebra had an inherent right not be harmed, why would that right evaporate when the perpetrator is a lion rather than a human being?

Humans and lions are different.  Lions don't have a choice other than to eat other animals.  Humans do.  Not eating would kill the lion.  The lion killing a zebra to eat is analogous to a human killing a zebra that is trying to kill the human.  Nobody would say that it is immoral to defend yourself against a wild animal trying to kill you.  Lions don't kill for sport, but humans do.  Killing for sport can certainly be immoral.

Really? So you completely ignore as i said above where Lions often kill Cubs? Infanticide is rife in the Lion kingdom. As i maintain, there are no ought's for animals.



Quote
Rather it seems clear that the basis for the ethical treatment of animals must lodge, not in the fuzzy idea of animal rights, but rather in the moral duties of human beings, who are, after all, moral agents and who therefore can have certain duties about how animals are to be treated. That’s why we can morally distinguish between a lion’s tearing a zebra limb from limb, and a human being’s doing the same. While the lion violates no moral duties (since it has none) in so doing, a human being may be violating a moral duty he has in so treating a zebra (say, if he just does it for sport).

As I explained before, the lion and the human are not analogous in that way.  Lions don't tear zebras limb from limb for sport.  They actually kill the zebra as fast as they can, and eat it in the only way they can. 

Again, you go on a rant about Lions, read up on Lions and infanticide. Furthermore, we see plenty and plenty of examples of animals killing for sport. You dont have to go past my backyard where my cat who is very well fed, gets a mice and tortures the damn thing for hours and hours, the mouse is slowly bleeding and squeeling, the cat continues this more and more until it dies. The cat then NEVER eats the mice and has no intention of eating it because as i said it is already well fed.

We see plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where killing for sport occurs. For examples we see gangs of male dolphins pick on and kill younger and weaker dolphins with no intention of eating them.

I could go on and on. Is the Lion or the dolphins doing anything wrong? Of course not...if i kill a young baby for fun, have i dont anything wrong?
Under atheism, humans are nothing but animals, animals with more complex nervous systems but still just animals. As has been demonstrated above, animals kill for reasons other than food/survival, why is not wrong for them but wrong for me to kill? Because we as humans are moral agents who have duties, animals dont.

Quote
Here’s where things get really desperate for the atheist. Given naturalism, why think that human beings have any objective moral duties toward other animals?

That's a very controversial claim, but sentience may be the determining factor that you're looking for.

How does added complexity to nervous systems makes us have any objective duties towards other animals under naturalism?

Quote
Why is it wrong for humans, who are just relatively advanced primates, to inflict pain on other animals?

Sentience, and because it hurts the other animals.

So what if it hurts other animals? Look at my examples of the Lion and cat. They inflict pain all the time, is it wrong for them?

Quote
Who or what prohibits them from so doing?

The conscience of those people.

Which people? Stalin? Hitler? Pot? Why are they wrong? According to what? Who?

Quote
Obviously, we’re right back to the old problem of finding any objective basis for moral values and duties in an atheistic world, only this time the focus is on our duties toward other animals"

I've been over this with you before in great detail.  It's not my fault that you don't understand it.  Basically, reality is that objective basis.

No, you dont seem to understand. Stop imposing duties and claiming those are objective such as "because it hurts the other animals"...Where did this obligation come from under naturalism?
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

5

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2016, 09:53:20 am »
Sorry Rostos.  Learn how to work the quote system.  I'm not even going to go through the trouble of fishing through the quote in order to figure otu what you're trying to say.  Formatting is extremely easy.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

6

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2016, 05:52:47 pm »
Sorry Rostos.  Learn how to work the quote system.  I'm not even going to go through the trouble of fishing through the quote in order to figure otu what you're trying to say.  Formatting is extremely easy.

Bottom line is, we see animals all the time kill for sport, that is with no intention to eat or self defense. Animals are not moral agents, they dont have any oughts.

Humans do.
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

7

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2016, 10:38:35 pm »
That is quite the assertion. Perhaps you would like to prove them.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

8

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2016, 12:15:45 am »
So Lions dont kill cubs in the Wild?

As i said we see Lions kill for cubs all the time and not for food.

Are they doing anything wrong? Do they have a duty not to kill cubs?

Under atheism, humans are just animals...Why is wrong for a human to kill a baby? But not wrong for a Lion to kill a cub?

You cant have it both ways
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

9

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2016, 12:54:37 am »
So Lions dont kill cubs in the Wild?

As i said we see Lions kill for cubs all the time and not for food.

Are they doing anything wrong? Do they have a duty not to kill cubs?

Under atheism, humans are just animals...Why is wrong for a human to kill a baby? But not wrong for a Lion to kill a cub?

You cant have it both ways

Under theism humans aren't just animals, so then why are babies not held responsible for their actions? You can't have it both ways.


These things have been explained to you a hundred times over Rostos, why do you keep asking the same questions over and over if you're not interested in learning?

10

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2016, 01:38:44 am »
So Lions dont kill cubs in the Wild?

As i said we see Lions kill for cubs all the time and not for food.

Are they doing anything wrong? Do they have a duty not to kill cubs?

Under atheism, humans are just animals...Why is wrong for a human to kill a baby? But not wrong for a Lion to kill a cub?

You cant have it both ways

Under theism humans aren't just animals, so then why are babies not held responsible for their actions? You can't have it both ways.

What? That doesnt even make sense.


These things have been explained to you a hundred times over Rostos, why do you keep asking the same questions over and over if you're not interested in learning?

Was i talking to you?
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

11
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2016, 07:57:02 am »
When lion kills its cubs it's not evil

If human does it is evil.

Why? Because by definition morality applies to us humans even though we're part of animal kingdom.

Also god doesn't help in anything. You either define god as being that possess property of being good. Then you still need objective moral standard by which god is good. Or you can say that god is good itself. Given that god wasn't created it implies good didn't require creator either. At best you may need god to actually enforce moral laws but I think we can agree lack of judge doesn't mean laws don't exist.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

12

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2016, 11:15:22 am »
So Lions dont kill cubs in the Wild?

As i said we see Lions kill for cubs all the time and not for food.

Are they doing anything wrong? Do they have a duty not to kill cubs?

Under atheism, humans are just animals...Why is wrong for a human to kill a baby? But not wrong for a Lion to kill a cub?

You cant have it both ways

Rostos, my dear friend, wherefore must you ask the same questions to me when you're clearly not interested in the answer? 

Yea, lions kill cubs under certain conditions.  Lion morality isn't the same as human morality.  It may or may not be immoral.  Go ask a lion.

Stop talking about "under atheism".  You don't understand it well enough to come up with decent questions for it.  You're making yourself look foolish and should stop.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

13

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2016, 11:29:42 am »
So Lions dont kill cubs in the Wild?

As i said we see Lions kill for cubs all the time and not for food.

Are they doing anything wrong? Do they have a duty not to kill cubs?

Under atheism, humans are just animals...Why is wrong for a human to kill a baby? But not wrong for a Lion to kill a cub?

You cant have it both ways

Under theism humans aren't just animals, so then why are babies not held responsible for their actions? You can't have it both ways.

What? That doesnt even make sense.

Yeah, because I'm parodying you. But haven't you noticed that babies, like the other animals, are not capable of doing right or wrong? So maybe the reason that the other animals cannot do wrong is the same reason that the other animals cannot do wrong? Can you think of any such reasons?

14

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2016, 06:22:44 pm »
When lion kills its cubs it's not evil

If human does it is evil.

Why? Because by definition morality applies to us humans even though we're part of animal kingdom.

Also god doesn't help in anything. You either define god as being that possess property of being good. Then you still need objective moral standard by which god is good. Or you can say that god is good itself. Given that god wasn't created it implies good didn't require creator either. At best you may need god to actually enforce moral laws but I think we can agree lack of judge doesn't mean laws don't exist.

Why is it evil to ONLY humans? Under atheism, humans are no different to any other animal. All are the result of a blind process that occurred by chance.

What makes it evil to us and not to animals?
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12