Keith Devens .com

Being an athiest doesn't proclude a code of morality and decency. It just doesn't base it on an immutable set of rules. The bible has some great stuff in it. It also has what many people might consider some rather silly laws that haved caused a certain level of strife and violence in the world. Just as the lack of a strict moral guide causes great problems, a too dogmatic interpretation often results in things like the witch burnings of Salem or some wack job piloting planes into tall buildings.

The world is one big grey area in which no set of absolute rules will most likely ever work. Laws can be changed and amended. Relgiouse laws and codes tend to be much harder to evolve as society does. Many laws are ruled by concensus of those who live under them and while this can often backfire with a mob mentality. The best of us have tried to make sure we protect both the majority and the minorities within our society.

Just my thoughts.

I'd strongly disagree with you here Keith. The previous comment says it quite well. I'd also point out some of the silly "moral laws" endorsed by faith including the Jewish "Don't eat shellfish" which was a dietary restriction that probably arose from pollution (shellfish are bottom feeders). Now it's codified to "moral law" and makes absolutely no sense.

People seem to consider me a fairly moral person but I don't subscribe to any of the religious views that you follow.

I would disagree with the previous poster on "in which no set of absolute rules will most likely ever work". There are some moral absolutes. Random Killing, Hatred, bigotry, genocide. It's hard to find any situation where you can condone them. Absolutes aren't easy and one man's absolute isn't another but those are four pretty good ones.

We don't tackle punishment that "fits the crime" due to a constitutional prohibition against it. "Cruel and unusual punishment" if you recall. One of the additional reasons behind this is that at least what we do is reversible. People that work in criminal justice know just how fallible the system is and don't want the moral burden of say torture when someone is later proven innocent.

But your views are your views and you're certainly entitled to them.

Just my .02.

Scott

On thing I have to respect about Keith is at least he talks about things like this. Even though it may be unpopular or at the least a touchy subject with some. Kudos to that.

James,

A quote:

"The uninformed life is not worth living"

I'd definitely agree with you on this one -- I totally respect Keith's opinions. And the pure guts to take a position.

As you say "Kudos" except I'd make it "HUGE KUDOS".

Nice job Keith, nice job.

Scott

Riddle me this: when you use the word "moral", what do you mean by it? What do you use the word to mean?

BTW Scott, the shellfish law you cited and laws like it aren't considered "moral laws". They're typically referred to as "ceremonial" laws that specifically apply to the covenant between God and Israel. They aren't intrinsically moral - it wouldn't be totally innacurate to refer to them as arbitrary, and some theologians have used that very word. Since that old covenant has passed away (and been fulfilled), that entire category of laws is no longer in force. Much has been written on this topic.

And what do you mean by the word "objective"? ;-P

You sound as if you're asking the question rhetorically - as if there is no objectivity. But you don't really believe that, or it would have been impossible for you to ask your question. Deep down, you really know what objectivity means, or you wouldn't be able to go about your daily life.

But I'll play your game... something that is objective is something that is outside of us and not contingent upon us. We call science objective because it deals with facts that are open to all and independent from its observers. Something objective exists independently from its knower, and is not dependent on his knowing it for its existence.

Whereas, something that is subjective actually depends on the observer. For instance, preferences for a flavor of ice cream depend on the individual, and are in that sense subjective. However, it is objectively true that the person has the particular preference.

One important aspect of objectivity is that things can be objectively true whether we currently know them or not. Lastly, it can be argued that what we as individuals do is always subjective, i.e. that we subjectively come in contact with objective knowledge. So our knowledge itself is subjective, but comes in contact with objective reality. Or, the referent of our knowledge is objective, while we hold onto it subjectively. Though, this is far too much philosophy for a question that was probably not meant seriously in the first place...

It was a serious question. You said it quite well in your third paragraph. I wish I could remember who said it (Hume maybe?) - but something like "whoever gets out of bed in the morning is a philosopher."

I only wanted to point out that morality's objective basis is rather tenuous because of our subjective perception.

That's a great quote, I think I've heard it but I'm not sure who it's from. Bahnsen said something similar: "Everyone does philosophy, just not everyone does it well". In regards to people who buy into Eastern philosophy, he said "even they look both ways before crossing the street".

I'll say this... you can't pick and choose. If you can't know what's moral because you don't have objectivity, then you can't claim to know anything at all objectively.

As a side note, I never understood the tendency to conclude that we can't know things, or we can't be objective, simply because there's a perceiver involved. To me, that doesn't seem to follow.

I would say that something doesn't need to be objective to be right. Take the golden rule. In the west it was developed as a God given truth. The same concept developed in the east, but without the divine connotations. Yet in both places it was considered to be a fine example of pure ethics.

You might want to check out Kant (if you can stand to read him -- he's worse than Joyce). This is exactly the problem he was trying to solve -- of being unable to percieve the noumenonal world.

I actually find eastern philosophy more useful than the modern western stuff (less of a headache).

"Stop thinking, and end your problems." --Lao Tzu