Story Comments
Posted by: Dionys 10 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
60%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So what's the framework for an atheist's moral and ethical system?
Reply
It can't be science, because most social systems favor the greedy person/animal who seizes and controls resources and ultimately punish those who cooperate selflessly.
I'm just curious..-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So what's the framework for an atheist's moral and ethical system?"
Reply
It depends on the person. I am a Rationalist with a smattering of Taoism, others might be Secular Humanists, or Existentialists.
"It can't be science, because most social systems favor the greedy person/animal who seizes and controls resources and ultimately punish those who cooperate selflessly."
Actually, those are mostly only in human social constructs. There are plenty of fine examples of cooperation, generosity, even altruism among social non-human species.-
33%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There are plenty of fine examples of cooperation, generosity, even altruism among social non-human species."
Reply
True enough. But I did think we were talking human morality and ethics with regards to the radio program.
"I am a Rationalist with a smattering of Taoism, others might be Secular Humanists, or Existentialists"
But many Taoists are theists. And what is "the way" if it is not simply another name for a deity? ;)-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are two forms of Taoism, as there is with most religions. The philosophical form of Taoism looks to examples in nature to guide human behavior by analogy. For example, rocks are hard and unyielding, yet the constant flow of supple water will eventually erode the rock away, so hardness is not always best confronted by hardness. In Lao Tsu's estimation, 'The Way' is simply extant by example, to be discovered through active contemplation, not some higher power, consciousness, or force that requires worship, lays down edicts, promises rewards, or threatens punishment.
Reply
Yes, there is a 'magical' form of Taoism that seeks immortality through a kind of alchemy and reveres certain personifications of natural forces, but that is not the form to which I'm referring.
The same dichotomy exists in Buddhism. Mahayana (Zen) is much more a contemplative philosophy than a religion, while Hinayana focuses more on the 'worship' of the Buddha himself. Sufi Islam is far more internal and meditative than Shia or Sunni. Christianity has a vast range of sects, from the contemplative deism, to the actively 'magical' Santeria.-
100%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"To the ignorant man, a tree is a tree, and a river is a river.
Reply
To the learned man, a tree is not a tree and a river is not a river.
To the wise man, a tree is a tree, and a river is a river - but they are not the same tree or the same river that the ignorant man sees."
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys, I believe a better question would be, "What's the framework for a moral and ethical system that is not based on the existence of God?" In other words, not all athiests agree on one framework (just as not all religions, and not all adherents to any single religion agree on one either), there are some very good secular ethical frameworks out there.
Reply
For instance, in his influential 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls posited a system in which people first imagine they could each awaken the next day to find themselves in any possible position in society--anywhere from the lowest to the highest. Then and only then they make societal rules. I'm obviously oversimplifying and paraphrasing here, out of necessity, but it's hard to find fault with the fairness of a system like that.
Though Rawls' system comes close to Kant's Categorical Imperative and the "golden rule" found in almost every religion, it assumes no higher power.-
100%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"posited a system in which people first imagine they could each awaken the next day to find themselves in any possible position in society--anywhere from the lowest to the highest"
Reply
"it assumes no higher power."
Sure it does.
It assumes that a higher power made it posible for people to awaken into their ideal position in society.
But I hear what you're saying. Unforuntately it would only work in an ideal system because there would always be one or two (or three hundred or four thousand...) people who would want to be "the highest" in the form of a dictator.-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It assumes that a higher power made it posible for people to awaken into their ideal position in society."
Reply
Just because something exists doesn't mean it was willed/planned into existence.
A agree that many people have the tendency to be at the highest echelon, but I also think that is largely learned behavior, at least as far as it is entwined with an overriding sense of self-worth. Me? If I could raise my kids and be reasonably artistic, I'd be perfectly content. -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to disagree that Rawls' system necessarily assumes a higher power...it's simply a thought experiment. To say that there must be a cause of the possibility that people could become something other than what they are overnight, simply because it's unrealistic is to make the same argument that a God or gods exist because we were granted life (for lack of a better way to put it) in the first place.
Reply
Mind you, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God--I consider myself more agnostic than atheist, and more of a pragmatist than anything else. I've always thought belief in a deity works for some and not others, and see no reason to try to dissuade the faithful from their beliefs.
But of course the system proposed by Rawls is idealistic--but so is any system relying on a theistic basis for morality. Religious bases work only when everyone believes in the same interpretation of the directives of the underlying entity. Aren't we talking about what possible frameworks for ethics there can be without relying on the existence of a deity?
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
Progressive
FrauBlucher
ForrestPhelps
juvel
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.