BF2S Forums Where do Atheists think they get the right?!?

apollo_fi wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense. It's not what moral relativism is though.

That would be objective morality. Which is very different.

Wrong.

doublestuforeo's description of moral relativism is correct.

doublestuforeo wrote:

However, if someone else doesn't, who are you to say that they are wrong.  If someone else wants my house, and they are bigger and stronger than me, who are you to say they can't take it?  Isnt that their right?  Survival of the fittest.  Where do we get "rights" from.  Why do you have the "right" to the pursuit of happiness?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-04 13:48:07)

lowing wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

MY POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  Read what I wrote, don't assume what I meant.  You dont know me.

As a religious person, I believe in an all powerful being who has expressed truthes that are eternal and unchangeable.  I believe that there are true morals, and that, no matter what my opinion is, these morals are still correct.  I believe that God, knowing all, has expressed what is truly "right" and "wrong."  I do not believe in moral relativism.  However, as I already stated, this has nothing to do with me.

You are all way to defensive to remain logical.  I may have worded my post in a way to seem hostile, but if you reread it, you will find it is logical, honest, and sucsinct.

Thank you Stingray24 for being able to read. +1

Your post has everything to do with religion. You may not see that, but if you don't you are seriously deluded.

Perhaps that's what you meant in your OP, it is not what it stated. It was also written in such a way as to lead replies. Logical, honest and succinct it is not.

Lets go through and answer the individual points:

doublestuforeo wrote:

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

What about moral pluralism? What about the multitude of other perspectives that this can be viewed from? It is also perfectly possible to take a morally absolutist viewpoint.

As an Atheist (which is totally irrellevant to the point), personally my views depend upon the situation and are based upon my own instincts and the values that have been instilled in me through my social environment. This does not preclude me from taking a morally absolutist stance on some issues.

What is the logic behind that statement? Why can't you understand how someone who doesn't believe in God can come to the same viewpoint on ethical issues?

You make a lot lot of grandiose references to philosophical ideals, without seeming to understand what they mean. If you do understand what they mean, you are not expressing yourself properly.

doublestuforeo wrote:

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

I believe that human instinct developed through genetic evolution and plays an important role in our own perceptions of what is 'right' and 'wrong'. It is interesting that you brought up rape, which is often used as an example by biologists to demonstrate points very similar to this (Prof. Robert Winston's book Human Instinct goes into some detail on this). It is far more likely that a woman will become pregnant after being raped than after consentual sex, this is a throwback to when rape was an important evolutionary device which would result in the strongest being the most successfull at passing on their genes. When humans became a more social species living in communities such behaviour was shunned, as those who survived best in a community were those who worked together and respected those alongside them. This point in time is considered by many to be an crucial period for the formation of morals on both the genetic and social level.

I've explained that very badly, but hopefully you'll get the gist.

doublestuforeo wrote:

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

This is where your post becomes really quite offensive and indicative of your apparent delusions on this topic. Morals are there because humans are social creatures and require a 'social code' of sorts to coexist harmoniously. Until humans became social creatures morals didn't matter.


Of course. On the same grounds as everyone else. Everyone has the right to make moral judgements. What is right or wrong is determined by what society finds to be acceptable or not.

I probably understand more about philosophy than you might give me credit.

I am not going to argue about how offensive you found my original post.

To calm all the Atheists down, I will explain something.  I left God out of this debate, because you can not argue religious beliefs.

In all fairness, you can not single out "Atheists" only without having religion, or the belief in GOD being a part of the discussion. ..................................Can you???

doublestuforeo wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

wait wait wait...if you don't believe in moral relativism...and can claim that homosexuality is wrong while -- seeing that another individual i.e. myself  does NOT VIEW HOMOSEXUALITY AS WRONG doesn't that by definition equate to, in your perception of a definitive moral, now just become relative to you and I?

Or look at it this way -- if morals were none relative how come Human beings, from a Christian view point here, whom are created in the imagine of a deity, that holds the correct form of being, not give vis a vi your creation give you these hard wired morals -- but later required for it to be written on some Rocks? Should they not be so well known that an omnipotent being would leave no shadow of a doubt as to what is right and wrong then?

I apologize to all of you who think I am arguing that everyone believes in the exact same morals.

I had no idea that anyone could think that anyone was that stupid.

doublestuforeo wrote:

topal63 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?

No... and it is incorrect.

Morals for the record (factually) are relative... from time to time and place to place - society to society - religion to religion - person to person even. Subjective determinations of right and wrong are all over the place. MORAL RELATIVISM is a FACT. You believing in an absurdity does not change the reality of it.

You can't cheat on your wife if she says to you it's not cheating (no violation of trust; it is consented to).
You are not cheating on your wife (one) if you're allowed to have many (wives).

The desire to remain in a relationship is an ethical question of consequences for actions taken. Who is emotionally harmed if cheating is deemed a violation of personal trust? God or spouse? It is obvious - the spouse... not God.

Are you thinking that anyone on this earth would argue that everyone believes in the same morals?

That is one interpretation, a literal interpretation that is so elementary that I didn't even take the time to consider it.  My bad.  What I am arguing about is if there is one truth or not.

If there is a God, and there is a true right and wrong, there is no moral relativism.

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Regardless of what you state now, your thread title is kind of asking for a fight. Its as if yourdismissing Atheists rights. as if they were "below" you. Not saying it means that, but thats what I thought when I first saw it.

It's what it says. Whether it's what he means or not is debatable, but it clearly says that.

Not only that... but philosophically scientifically factually MORAL RELATIVISM is a FACT - not worth debating... since it is a FACT. If one wants to behave according to a mode of social conduct, one assumes to be thoughtful, or of higher value, ethics are the next step and thus the credo:

Actions taken have consequences.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

However, if someone else doesn't, who are you to say that they are wrong.  If someone else wants my house, and they are bigger and stronger than me, who are you to say they can't take it?  Isnt that their right?  Survival of the fittest.  Where do we get "rights" from.  Why do you have the "right" to the pursuit of happiness?

We get our rights from centuries upon centuries, generations upon generations of humans living and interacting with each other.  They are the result of society.

Much like morals, they are shaped by time and people.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I asked about the stoning because in either Leviticus or Dueteronomy it states that that's exactly what should be done to a woman who has been raped but didn't scream, rather oddly.

Bertster covered the rest I think. Cheers B.

You assume I take the bible literally.  How did this become about me and my beliefs?

Regardless of what you state now, your thread title is kind of asking for a fight. Its as if yourdismissing Atheists rights. as if they were "below" you. Not saying it means that, but thats what I thought when I first saw it.

doublestuforeo wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

You assume I take the bible literally.  How did this become about me and my beliefs?

Regardless of what you state now, your thread title is kind of asking for a fight. Its as if yourdismissing Atheists rights. as if they were "below" you. Not saying it means that, but thats what I thought when I first saw it.

I will agree with that.  The thread title (which was meant to draw attention e.g. ?!?) was aggressive.  My "showmanship" in the OP and title have totally derailed this thread.

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It does make sense. It's not what moral relativism is though.

That would be objective morality. Which is very different.

Apparently, our universities use different semantics, but the concept is what matters.

The real objection I had to your use of the term was in your insistance that moral relativism is the only viewpoint Atheists could embrace. I'm waiting for a reason why that should be the case.
Why not moral pluralism? Why not a different stance from a morally absolutist perspective? What possible reason is there that Atheists could not hold these views?

KylieTastic wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

KylieTastic wrote:

I guess thats the problem, I have no real idea what you mean by "moral relativism" and I think probably quite a few of the other readers and respondants dont either.

Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?

Ok I think I understand what you mean now (but as always in D&ST there will be arguments over semantics)

I can understand why you say you don't believe in "moral relativism" for the big things like adultery in your example. If I did believe in a God, and for instance that they had given the Christian 10 commandments, then I would absolutely follow them. I don't understand why people who do say they believe consistently ignore 'the rules'

So I would have thought it was more a case of "Where do religious people they they get the right [to second judge God]?"

An Atheist has to make judgements on the big stuff (murder, rape, adultery, etc.) the same as the small stuff.

Do you not believe in "moral relativism" for the small stuff not set down by God? Such as "People shouldn't use cheats when playing BF2"?

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Apparently, our universities use different semantics, but the concept is what matters.

The real objection I had to your use of the term was in your insistance that moral relativism is the only viewpoint Atheists could embrace. I'm waiting for a reason why that should be the case.
Why not moral pluralism? Why not a different stance from a morally absolutist perspective? What possible reason is there that Atheists could not hold these views?

An Atheist can absolutly base their morals on Utilitarianism, or Existentialism, or Kant or even Neitzsche for all I care.

I simply want to know what you base your morals on, and why you believe that set of morals gives you the grounds to proclaim something "right" or "wrong."

Do you believe in moral pluralism?