this is an assertion not an argument. its an assertion i disagree with. the concept of god is a contradictory concept, that is no help in explaining or justifiying anything, let alone morality
since you freely grant your ignorance as to what god hath decreed for aliens, perhaps you will tell us how you can know what he hath agreed for humans, did jesus tell you? or buddha?
First, if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us? Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science from the University of Guelph, writes,
The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .
As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among homo sapiens a sort of “herd morality” which functions well in the perpetuation of our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true.
Moreover, on the atheistic view there is no divine lawgiver. But then what source is there for moral obligation? Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, writes,
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.
Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.
Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.
He concludes,
Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.
Yes.
ok, well, i dont come to mises.org to talk about faith in the divine.
so this conversation between you and i is over. of course if others want to discuss thats fine by me.
No, but you came to this thread to discuss childrens’ rights, as did I. To say that some humans have rights while others do not is arbitrary. I merely state that the concept of objective rights and morality in the absence of God is absurd.
its not arbitrary. arbitrary is just whimsically without reason. i gave a reason. my reason is rationality. presence or absence. even if you think i am a godless heathen please have the grace to concede that my stance is not arbitrary since it is justified.
Arbitrary - adjective - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion.
I used the word correctly.
your use of it was arbitrary
your concept of god is arbitrary.
arbitrary arbitray arbitrary.
explain how linking moral agency to rationality is at my discretion, and not necessary. it is surely necessary.
Can you first define “moral agency” for me so I’m sure I answer your question appropriately? Does that term mean “has moral rights” or does it mean “is able to understand and act morally” or something else entirely?
What do you mean by wrong? In the legal sense, that we cannot justifiably convict such a person of a crime?
I agree that we cannot be 100% certain the child has been harmed against his or her will, but neither can we know the opposite. And the opposite - beating or killing a child who wishes not to be beaten or killed - is a grave atrocity. I suppose what you say still can make sense depending on how you’re defining a “wrong.” It seems that for legal purposes we wouldn’t want it to be acceptable to kill a vagrant orphan toddler, say, but it seems you make a distinction between “an act that is not acceptable” and “a wrong.” Can you articulate the difference?
Moral agency is a person’s responsibility for making moral judgments and taking actions that comport with morality
A Moral agent is “a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong”
This is of course what makes your definition of a human so arbitrary. How can we test your defintion if someone is a human or not? Who would administer the test? Presumably, one could fluctuate from being human to non-human over the course of a lifetime. How do we resolve the disagreement between who is human and who is not?
By your defintion, all people not capable of acting with reference to right and wrong (however you are defining that) are not human. So for historical example the defining of Jews by the Nazi’s as sub-human is something that should in your mind seriously be debated.
wrong. where have i tried to define human?. ive been discussing moral agency.
It is comments like this that have me confused in my learning and understanding of liberty. I’m still fairly new to this line of thinking and maybe I don’t understand all the implications, but claiming that parents have a “right” to torture and harm their children sounds rather morbid and absurd. I don’t understand how a political philosophy based on NAP could lead to such ends or conclusions. In similar fashion, how is a child any different than someone who is asleep or incapacitated or handicapped? If Stephen Hawking didn’t have a computer to speak for him and “grant or withhold consent”, would he just be like a wild animal for the taking? Please shed some light on this since it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Note: I am not advocating any positive rights or entitlements to these people, only that their negative rights not be infringed.
Thanks for the definition. It seems to me that one must be rational to act morally. However, one need not be rational to have moral value or rights.
Do not be confused. Those who think there’s nothing wrong with torturing children are confused as that kind of behavior has nothing to do with liberty.
yes, you want to make a special case for things with souls in them. the ‘soul theory of moral value’ its not worthy of serious discussion in my honest opinion.
You are using your moral agency arguement to define humans. If we are discussing human rights then what is the definition of a human is the only defintion that matters.
no. i am not. im leaving it undetermined as to whether some biologically human body is a moral agent or not. that depends on things like, is the human body rational or not . (hint: most of the live ones are)