| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2011 10:11:51 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK all you blue-eyed atheists who like to understand morality through the system of liberty, now's your chance to speak out.
|
I will freely admit that I really AM dumb, as I have no idea what that means. What is a "system of liberty"? Seriously. I don't understand. |
A libertarian system of morality might state that "all things are permissible as long as they do not harm another". The system might become more complex than than, but this would be the founding "truth". This system has come up in conversations on varied topics such as drugs, sexuality, religious beliefs, or other things of such nature. Since it gets brought up, I thought it would be interesting to explore it in the context of a less polarizing, but still complex scenario. Is the system robust? Are people who adhere to it comfortable with applying it in an unbiased manner regardless of the conclusions, or do they pick and choose to apply it when it suits their preconceived notions?
Honestly, it's a perfectly legit line of discussion, though that doesn't quite seem to be the feeling here. I care less about whether it represent a sizeable group of atheists as much as I care that it gets brought up in conversations I take part in and I might as well see what lies behind the curtain.
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 22:12:55. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:17:07 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Honestly, it's a perfectly legit line of discussion, though that doesn't quite seem to be the feeling here. I care less about whether it represent a sizeable group of atheists as much as I care that it gets brought up in conversations I take part in and I might as well see what lies behind the curtain. |
...but you see Doc...while the question is valid in itself, there is no direct corrolation between it and a person's belief in a diety or lack thereof.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:25:00 PM · #428 |
Ray, I fully, totally, 100% understand that.
On the other hand, the system is expressedly non-religious and thus the majority of people who subscribe to it likely share the characteristic of being atheist/agnostic. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:27:08 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the system is expressedly non-religious and thus the majority of people who subscribe to it likely share the characteristic of being atheist/agnostic. |
Nonsense. The system is secular, and employed by a wide variety of societies and religions. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:39:23 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the system is expressedly non-religious and thus the majority of people who subscribe to it likely share the characteristic of being atheist/agnostic. |
Nonsense. The system is secular, and employed by a wide variety of societies and religions. |
A secular system widely employed by religion seems a bit of an oxymoron. At the least it seems it would only be a subset system which is subservient to more central religious ideas.
Butonce again this portion of the conversation is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 11:18:09 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A secular system widely employed by religion seems a bit of an oxymoron. |
Yeah, I meant that the "system" you refer to forms the basis of many (most?) legal systems, whether the country in question is primarily Christian, Muslim, Atheist/Agnostic, etc. Historically, whenever the church is put in charge of morality the results tend to get ugly. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 12:06:01 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A secular system widely employed by religion seems a bit of an oxymoron. |
Yeah, I meant that the "system" you refer to forms the basis of many (most?) legal systems, whether the country in question is primarily Christian, Muslim, Atheist/Agnostic, etc. Historically, whenever the church is put in charge of morality the results tend to get ugly. |
Well, that is a much more interesting conversation, but still not the one at hand. :) |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 09:59:11 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it's completely fair for Deb to ask my my opinion and I'll give one after others have weighed in. One thing I've noticed is that lots of people on this site become strangely silent about questions like this but are more than happy to speak up when knocking someone else's view down. |
"Lots of people" are legitimately bemused by how your question has anything at all to do with atheism.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A libertarian system of morality might state that "all things are permissible as long as they do not harm another". The system might become more complex than than, but this would be the founding "truth". This system has come up in conversations on varied topics such as drugs, sexuality, religious beliefs, or other things of such nature. Since it gets brought up, I thought it would be interesting to explore it in the context of a less polarizing, but still complex scenario. Is the system robust? Are people who adhere to it comfortable with applying it in an unbiased manner regardless of the conclusions, or do they pick and choose to apply it when it suits their preconceived notions?
Honestly, it's a perfectly legit line of discussion, though that doesn't quite seem to be the feeling here. I care less about whether it represent a sizeable group of atheists as much as I care that it gets brought up in conversations I take part in and I might as well see what lies behind the curtain. |
While a "sizeable group" of atheists might also be libertarians, libertarianism is a political/social philosophy and is no more atheist than liberalism, conservatism, utilitarianism, democratic-socialist, marxist, et al. There is nothing about libertarianism that demands atheism and nothing about atheism that demands libertarianism. Libertarianism is not a "subset" of atheism, even if a certain amount of atheists also happen to be libertarian.
I personally know Christian libertarians. Granted, I don't understand how their libertarianism can be reconciled with scripture, but then I don't really get libertarians generally or understand how scripture can be reconciled with reality, so no surprise there.
The title of this thread (that you started) is "?s about atheism but were afraid to ask." What you seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp is that while you may be directing your question at atheists, your question is not about atheism.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2011 10:30:55 AM · #434 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The title of this thread (that you started) is "?s about atheism but were afraid to ask." What you seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp is that while you may be directing your question at atheists, your question is not about atheism. |
You see, I just disagree, although the link is indirect. Most religious codes are keenly interested in their moral frameworks. It would probably even be part of the definition of religion. Most religious people get the large majority of their moral frameworks from their religious beliefs.
As someone who is part of that world and system, I am asking about people outside that world and system. We know atheists have moral systems, but we would like to know more about them. I'm inquiring about one in specific (a general inquiry probably would be far too chaotic to successfully converse).
But if all that still doesn't make sense. Who cares? Since when does a Rant thread stay on topic? Nobody got all wound up when religious threads started talking about evolution (although many religious people believe in evolution and thus, by your measure, you would be talking at Christians and not about them.)
I'm mostly bemused at the metaconversation and how much energy has gone into it versus the energy to actually discuss the question I had.
Message edited by author 2011-02-22 10:32:19. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 10:55:50 AM · #435 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As someone who is part of that world and system, I am asking about people outside that world and system. We know atheists have moral systems, but we would like to know more about them. |
You have never sufficiently answered the question "Why?". Why do you want to know more about "atheist moral systems" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? What is the ultimate purpose behind this line of questioning? What's the end goal? What do you want to learn, what do you want to have happen? When will you get a satisfactory answer, and once you have one, what do you intend to do with it?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm inquiring about one in specific (a general inquiry probably would be far too chaotic to successfully converse). |
But that's all that makes sense. Individual opinions are all you can hope for. It doesn't make sense to target a disparate, unconnected group of strangers and ask them to decipher an odd health-care related quasi-conundrum in order to get at what kind of morality they have. What's similar about these people that would make such an exercise anything but chaotic. Not only that, it's already been demonstrated to you that two people self-described as "atheist" have polar views in your scenario, but you ignored that, and chose to needle the non-participants. You're being disingenuous.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm mostly bemused at the metaconversation and how much energy has gone into it versus the energy to actually discuss the question I had. |
You just said that Rant never stays on topic, and who cares? Now you're offering your own critique of others' participation. Disingenuous.
I've never been happy with your demands in these threads. You routinely direct the conversation in unusual ways, then scold those who don't want to play. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 11:00:33 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most religious people get the large majority of their moral frameworks from their religious beliefs. |
Poppycock. ALL people get the large majority of their moral frameworks from their parents, peers and personal experiences. There is no direct correlation between religion and morality. People already have a pretty good idea of what's right and wrong long before they have any comprehension of religion. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 11:05:50 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Why do you want to know more about "atheist moral systems" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? |
Because he still suffers the delusion that morality is directed by religion and cannot comprehend any other possibility... sort of like an indian tribesman wondering how anyone can even manage to walk upright without a "spirit guide." |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 11:12:24 AM · #438 |
From the system of Deb, for that is the only system I know: let her keep the cats but by all means explain to her the harm it causes. Were she a rich bitch, no one would even question whether having the cats affected society or not. From the "but the public is paying the poor woman's health costs" perspective, consider that by keeping the cats she'll probably die sooner and therefor cost less in the long run.
People who can afford to pay for liver transplants don't have to stop drinking to get them. Is that moral on the physician's part? |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 11:15:26 AM · #439 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
From the system of Deb, for that is the only system I know: let her keep the cats but by all means explain to her the harm it causes. Were she a rich bitch, no one would even question whether having the cats affected society or not. From the "but the public is paying the poor woman's health costs" perspective, consider that by keeping the cats she'll probably die sooner and therefor cost less in the long run.
People who can afford to pay for liver transplants don't have to stop drinking to get them. Is that moral on the physician's part? |
...And that's telling it like it is! Yay Deb! |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 12:13:06 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We know atheists have moral systems, but we would like to know more about them. I'm inquiring about one in specific (a general inquiry probably would be far too chaotic to successfully converse). |
But you aren't inquiring about an atheist moral system, you are inquiring about a moral system used by some atheists (and some Christians). As I, and others, have already said, there is nothing inherently atheist about libertarianism.
You appear to disagree. To paraphrase a (sometimes) reasonable friend of mine: "Sorry, you're wrong. I don't know how to better explain it to you."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But if all that still doesn't make sense. Who cares? Since when does a Rant thread stay on topic? Nobody got all wound up when religious threads started talking about evolution (although many religious people believe in evolution and thus, by your measure, you would be talking at Christians and not about them.) |
I simply don't believe that you don't get the distinction between a discussion about science/evolution vs. faith/creationism and a discussion about a political system whose only relation to atheism is that some number of atheists ascribe to the system. The role and implications of faith versus "other ways of knowing" is inherently a question about Christianity/religion.
Would it be legitimate for me to go into the "?s about Xtianity" thread and start asking questions about Kenesian economics on the justification that some Christians are Kenesians? Of course not, while there are certainly Christians who are Kenesians - perhaps even Christians whose Kenesianism is informed by their faith - there is nothing inherently Christian about being a Kensesian, just like there is nothing inherently atheist about being a libertarian.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm mostly bemused at the metaconversation and how much energy has gone into it versus the energy to actually discuss the question I had. |
If you would listen to what is being said to you in the metaconversation versus pedantically holding to your (non)point of argument, you might realize that the metaconversation is addressing your question - it is calling into question the premise of your question in the context of the broader discussion.
You: I want to discuss the implications of the atheist moral structure of libertarianism.
Us: But Libertarianism is not an atheist moral structure.
You: Answer the question!
|
|
|
|
02/22/2011 01:46:13 PM · #441 |
Me: I want to discuss the implications of the atheist moral structure of libertarianism.
You (plural): But Libertarianism is not an atheist moral structure.
Me: I know that, but some atheists here hold it.
You: No, you don't know that.
Me: Yes, I understand it pefectly well. I want to talk about it because it comes up in other conversations that I have with the same atheists.
You: No, you don't. This is an atheist thread. You aren't allowed to do that.
Me: Would this all go away if I changed threads or would I still not get it?
You: I'm guessing you still wouldn't get it. Did we mention that libertarianism isn't an atheist moral structure?
Me: Sigh...
Message edited by author 2011-02-22 13:46:39. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 01:49:46 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by Louis:
You have never sufficiently answered the question "Why?". Why do you want to know more about "atheist moral systems" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? What is the ultimate purpose behind this line of questioning? What's the end goal? What do you want to learn, what do you want to have happen? When will you get a satisfactory answer, and once you have one, what do you intend to do with it? |
I answered this already:
A libertarian system of morality might state that "all things are permissible as long as they do not harm another". The system might become more complex than than, but this would be the founding "truth". This system has come up in conversations on varied topics such as drugs, sexuality, religious beliefs, or other things of such nature. Since it gets brought up, I thought it would be interesting to explore it in the context of a less polarizing, but still complex scenario. Is the system robust? Are people who adhere to it comfortable with applying it in an unbiased manner regardless of the conclusions, or do they pick and choose to apply it when it suits their preconceived notions?
I want to understand the framework so when it comes up in other conversations I can tell whether people are being faithful to their framework or whether they are employing other frameworks or are just giving the answer they want. It doesn't work too well to stop the "Should people be able to shoot up heroin in their own home?" conversation and say, wait, time out, what do you think about this? There's a lady with a cat on public insurance... |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 01:57:45 PM · #443 |
| So you want the ability to trap people based on your interpretation of an invented scenario you yourself set up. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 02:02:20 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Me: Would this all go away if I changed threads ...? |
I believe your question belongs in the ?'s About Libertarianism ... thread.... |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 02:03:16 PM · #445 |
Well, perhaps if you had stated: "I know this doesn't have anything to do with atheism, but I have a question for those of you on this thread that would identify as libertarians . . . " But that doesn't actually appear to be what you are saying, except for when people call you on the fact that the question doesn't really fit the stated topic of the thread.
Also, if that is what you are truly asking, then why all the fuss about only a few of the posters answering your hypothetical? My guess is that only a few of the posters would self-identify as libertarians, and likely not even all of the ones who have already answered. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 02:08:01 PM · #446 |
You people are giving the man no place to go. In his world, morality derives from religious teachings. He is trying to understand the roots of morality for non-religious peoples. You won't let him discuss "atheist morality", you won't let him discuss "libertarian morality", however he tries to frame it you're slamming him on semantics.
Why is it so hard just to get into a discussion of the foundations of morality in non-religious peoples? Sheesh...
R.
Message edited by author 2011-02-22 14:08:18. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 02:13:10 PM · #447 |
| He didn't frame his question like that at all. First, he invented an "atheist moral system", then he scolded people for not participating in a discussion of it. He has no room to go by his own action. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 02:15:26 PM · #448 |
| You're trying to disqualify him on semantics, Louis. That's not what he was trying to do, that's an INTERPRETATION of his intentions. He's repeatedly tried to back away from that, and nobody will let him. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 02:24:36 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by Louis:
He didn't frame his question like that at all. First, he invented an "atheist moral system", then he scolded people for not participating in a discussion of it. He has no room to go by his own action. |
Let's head to the wayback machine and look at my original posts:
Originally posted by DrAchoo's first post:
Moral dilemma of the week:
Jazmin is a young, severe asthmatic who is allergic to cats. She owns four cats at home. Her FeNO, a marker of allergic lung inflammation is very high at 105. Jazmin's asthma is frequently out of control and she utilizes lots of medication, makes frequent trips to the ER and is admitted to the hospital many times a year. Jazmin has state insurance funded by tax dollars.
Let us consider the moral framework I will dub "DPC Liberty" (primary axiom: All actions are permissible as long as they are not harmful to others). Would Jazmin's owning cats be considered moral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is correct), immoral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is incorrect), or amoral (DPC Liberty cannot help inform us or declares the action to be without a moral dimension)? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo's second post:
Ray asked:Did you not suggest a while back in some other thread that "Atheists" were amoral...so how could they possibly even begin to hope to help? :O)
That was tongue-in-cheek. I know atheists have moral systems. I just want to explore them. (And, yes, before someone says the blatantly obvious, I understand there is no single "atheist morality". I chose this one because it's commonly mentioned here on DPC.) |
It all went downhill at post #395 when SP asked "But seriously, Doc - what does any of this have to do with atheism?" and then it was a pigpile from there.
Message edited by author 2011-02-22 14:24:53. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 03:05:08 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by Louis:
So you want the ability to trap people based on your interpretation of an invented scenario you yourself set up. |
Who said this was invented? I certainly changed her name.
And this is no more a trap than anything else on Rant. We all poke and prod other positions and we all feel comfortable calling out inconsistencies. It would be crazy to think I am somehow unique in this and that somehow this isn't acceptable behavior in Rant.
Message edited by author 2011-02-22 15:06:45. |
|
