[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]
Are we having a completely secular argument?
If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.
As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.
There are two ways to go, as I see it.
-
None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”
-
Faith-based.[/quote]
So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]
Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.
Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.
The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good and evil, on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author, as these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent creatures.
[/quote]
Moral laws don’t need to be extrapolated from the concept of God or Gods. Virtue theory is a single example, different versions of virtue theory have been around, quite a bit longer than Christ was for example.
Aristotle’s asked the question, what is it to be a good human being? You must be physically and mentally flourishing/ mentally virtuous? This is what they may have considered morality, back then…
An example here, perhaps you have a general who is brave, vs. a general who is fool hardy, vs. a general who is a coward. The virtuous general is simply the one inbetween fool hardy and a coward. And there you go, that’s how you can get morals.
Also, keep in mind for Aristotle, God was more a deist god in the form of an unmoved mover or first cause.
[/quote]
Aristotle made no assertion whatsoever outside the cosmological argument. His exposure to religion was polytheistic. Which makes his argument all the more interesting since in his case, it was derived solely on where the evidence led, rather than any preconceived notion.
[quote]
The Categorical imperative, on it’s own doesn’t need God attached either. There are many forms of secular morality. [/quote]
That’s a silly thing to say since the Categorical Imperative is one of the premises for the Moral argument for God’s existence…
Now while morality is, in it’s own way an ‘Identifiable particular’ it doesn’t exist baselessly or without cause.
Secular morality is an oxymoron. The only secular morality is relativism. It’s the only way to keep morality purely secular. This naturally tosses all notions of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ out, since it is in the eye of the actor. And so long as something seems good to him, it’s just as moral as anything else.
Secular morality has no actual meaning.