[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 143 KB, 1200x675, 1674441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21805569 No.21805569 [Reply] [Original]

How can someone believe in moral absolutism without being religious?
I don't see how atheists can justify anything but moral relativism, it is so clearly the correct philosophy.

>> No.21805576

>>21805569
read Aristotle and Confucius. Neither use God in their ethics.

>> No.21805583

>>21805569
Hobbes
Spinoza
Hegel
Deleuze
Geez i wonder

>> No.21805616

>>21805583
Hegel is religious and I don't know if Deleuze isn't a relativist and Hobbes is kind of gay but Spinoza is a good recommendation. Like Aristotle and Confucius Spinoza's ethics is based on human nature. That is basically how you avoid relativism. In terms of broad behavior ethics isn't relative because all humans share the same nature, it's only in the specifics of how you live your life that things become relative because then your nature is not just human nature but also your individual nature and the nature of your culture. But as for things like "don't murder" that obviously isn't relative any more than it is "relative" that all ants want to build an anthill. There's not any ant for whom it would be a good thing to abandon all other ants because ants are by nature eusocial organisms.

>> No.21805620

>>21805616
>hegel is religious
Big if true

>> No.21805625

>>21805620
His entire philosophy is basically justifying Christian eschatology and theology, didn't he literally call Christianity the absolute religion?

>> No.21805864
File: 304 KB, 2400x960, 7B1CCBF2-60DB-40FF-8E68-37705EC42F14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21805864

I’m wondering if given the tools to success at birth, would we see categorical deviations like amoral and moral or said differently would criminals exist even if those needs were initially met? Shortcuts are absolutely amoral. Are your intentions to be a productive member of society worth more than if you were forced to be productive? Obviously the one who made better choices is objectively better yet the experienced one may have equal desirable traits like creativity or humor. I can green text it
>be given all conceivable tools
>decide to be a leech anyway
If the outcome is to have everybody be a moral citizen, isn’t authoritarian governance of providing all conceivable tools the highest order since we aren’t eternal beings who can fail our way to success overtime?
>t. nazi ideolog if born during WW2

>> No.21806239

>>21805569
Moral realism doesn't require theological commitments

>> No.21806357

People who recognize that God is real will generally conclude that morality is real. But you can conclude that God is real by recognizing that morality is real. It can go in either direction.

If you want to believe in moral realism but deny the existence of God, my first question is "Why?" But secondarily I'd say you have to ground morality in something else-- the fact that human beings are social creatures with finite lifetimes, or in a pursuit of order as opposed to entropy. Both of those eventually lead back to God, but you can at least mostly play around at the lower levels and forget about what's above you.

>> No.21806360

>>21805569
>moral relativism, it is so clearly the correct philosophy.

You can literally see the Ten Commandments with the proper technology

>> No.21806369

>>21805576
Aristotle is a relativist pretending that some nebulous virtues are universal.
>>21805569
Atheists don't deny god/s because they believe it's a duty to do so because they don't exist or whatever, but because they don't want to believe, it can scare them because it trumps their belief system and will. Or they hate their parents

>> No.21806380

>>21806360
How the fuck could you see " Honor your father and mother" ?? are you deranged

>> No.21806402

>>21805620
Many people who claim to "understand" Hegel have literally never heard of, yet alone read, Herman Nohl's "Hegels theologische Jugendschriften," nor its (incomplete) English translation, Hegel's "Early Theological Writings," published by Penn Press.

>> No.21806421

>>21806360
>>21806380
I feel like you can tell what kind of atheist a person is by testing which of the ten commandments they leap to attack
In this case, it's just someone who hates his dad

>> No.21806832

>>21806421
I love my dad very much, spent all of yesterday hanging out with him. Some people just recognize the idiocy of religion

>> No.21808087

>>21806357
>If you want to believe in moral realism but deny the existence of God,
I believe in the opposite. That God is real but morals aren't.

>> No.21808115

>>21805576
>>21806369
Aristotle's ethics are not relativistic and rely on realism. How would his virtuous person get by if they were a relativist, when he doesn't have to convince himself to make correct decisions? He ranks this type of person below the man that doesn't have the feeling to go against reason, which can be thought of as the divine part of man (it's the intelligible part).

>> No.21808132

>>21805576
Aristotle quite literally requires a prime mover who moves through final causes (rather than efficient) and divine intellect to make his ethics intelligible as anything more than an opinionative piece. In NE he clearly outlines that this is the reason for the intellectual life being the most good, because it is most akin to the divine nature.

>> No.21808166

>>21808087
Interesting. How does that work? I don't think that moral realism has to come from a personal God that established divine commandments, rather I consider both morality and the existence of God (if not His specific nature) to be rationally deducible.

>>21808132
This is God, yes, but atheists who are primarily anti-Christian may not recognize it.

>> No.21808177

>>21805576
You don’t have to use God to have your moral worldview influenced by religion.

>> No.21808277

>>21805569
You do know if religiouscucks say morality comes from god then it is proof there is no god? Since morality so consequently changes with times and people's. "Oops guess gays are okay now, oops guess slavery is bad now." Etc etc. Where does morality come from then? Clearly not god, morality comes from the same place atheists or whoever gets them, from ourselves. Believing in Jewish god doesn't make your morals any less manmade.

>> No.21808414

>>21808115
He also writes an entire tract talking about virtues only to end it by telling you to just meditate bro.
Also, if you really want Aristotle to be a moral realist you are going to have to admit to the existence of the divine which excludes atheism

>> No.21808446

>>21805576
>Neither use God in their ethics.
Aristotle does as without God his whole system doesn't work. It's just not dealt with in Ethics.

>> No.21808464

>>21805569
Can you name a single benefit to morality being absolute? It has never stopped anyone from doing whatever they wanted. Only relativistic functions as imposed upon individuals in their specific life circumstances have ever done so.

>> No.21808627

>>21808115
Is intelligence really all there is to divinity? Is it not one thing among many?

>> No.21809182
File: 74 KB, 960x720, ellu03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21809182

>>21808087
Ellul-pilled.
>As Genesis shows us, the origin of sin the world is not knowledge, as is often said (as though God were interdicting our intellectual development, which would be absurd); it is knowledge of good and evil. In this context knowledge means decision. What is not acceptable to God is that we should decide on our own what is good and what is evil. Biblically, the good is in fact the will of God. That is all. What God decides, whatever it may be, is good. If then we decide what the good is, we substitute our will for God's. We construct morality when we say and do what is good, and it is then that we are sinners. To elaborate a moral system is to show oneself to be a sinner before God, not because the conduct is bad, but because, even if it is good, another good is substituted for the will of God.

>> No.21809247

>>21805569
>How can someone believe in moral absolutism without being religious?
You can't and anyone trying to convince you otherwise is trying to ensnare and bewitch you. This includes theologians and church dogma who often forgo genuine numinosity. Whereof one cannot speak one must be silent.

>> No.21809261

>>21809247
didn't mean to sage your thread bump

>> No.21809283

>>21805616
>All humans share the same nature
Which humans? And at what time?

>> No.21809308

>>21806357
>you have to ground morality in something else
This is literally what neo-Darwinian cultists do

>> No.21810106

>>21809283
the organisms present, past and future classified under the genus homo and the species sapiens.

>> No.21810244

>>21806832
you have to be 18 to post here