Let me preface this with: you are either very ignorant or very arrogant. If it is the former, I apologise somewhat for my offensive tone.
BradCube said:
Its all very well to in fact say that absolute morality is a construct of society and changes, but I think this a confusion of terms - or at least a new definition.
There is no confusion of terms. If you re-read what I said you'll understand why I used the term 'absolute' in that context. It's absolute in the sense that it is, at any one time, an inviolate moral system which acts as a guideline for societal interaction. Certainly, at any one time, a person's actions can be conclusively judged against it as well as any timeless absolute moral system. So stop trying to argue semantics.
I do agree with you though that there is a "firm" sort of standard at any one time of what is considered "good" and "bad in society.
Then what's your problem? Are you perhaps worried that society is moving away from the archaic, contradictory and arbitrary moral guidelines of the Bible, hmm?
I'm not trying to state that atheists don't have any moral distinction between right and wrong. I'm try to state that any moral position is unjustified by their own beliefs.
Yeah, well, that's the problem: you're making stuff up. Stop trying to shove words into our mouths. Stop pretending that morality is only consistent or valid if it exists by supernatural mandate.
I just explained how moral systems are supported by society, but they are also supported biologically (altruism). As long as society exists (i.e. any collection of humansis exists), morality will exist. It is independent of any specific religious or spiritual belief (or lack thereof).
You're simply trying to pigeon-hole atheism as amoral. To what end I do not know... it's almost like you do it because it makes it easier for you to reject atheism and reaffirm your own faith.
We cannot even say that restricting or hurting people is "bad" and increasing rights and pleasure is "good" since these things have no basis or truth claim to them.
More bullshit.
We can easily say that hurt = bad and pleasure = good because it is an ingrained psychological and biological truism.
The only reason we say these things, is so that we can interact and co-operate in any proper fashion - but even this cannot be defined as good. It is a noble lie, that we must jump to in order to survive.
Oh really? If you're telling me that pleasure isn't good, that pain isn't bad, then what is 'good' and what is 'bad'? Exactly what do you think you will accomplish by trying to tell somebody that,
no really, pain isn't actually bad - you just think it's bad because it hurts. Well no shit sherlock, that's the fucking definition of bad.
Human morality is a concept that is based around the existence of "better" and "worse" states of being. If you want to contradict this definition, then you're no longer talking about morality but some airy-faerie post-modern gibberish.
Alas, it seems we have been through this before
Yeah, and you were spouting the exact same post-modern bullshit then, too.
Tying back to the main post again, my intention was to see whether people thought that there was a point which we shouldn't cross over. For you, I'm guessing your position is that as long as rights are not restricted, anything is permissible. Under this, how do you feel about a public display of incest between two consenting family members? If it causes them no harm, and does not restrict their rights - surely this can be nothing but a good thing?
No, because it impacts negatively on society by increasing the probability of offspring that will need to be supported by society. I fully support societal safety nets such as welfare and healthcare, but obviously such things operate at maximum efficiency when we are also trying hard to eliminate stresses on them. Thus down syndrome and mental retardation are undesirable. Thus things that have a high likelihood of causing these are bad. Thus incest is bad.
Heck, even if that weren't the case, it could just be an arbitrary moral rule. Those exist (even in religion). That's perfectly fine. If people don't like it, it will change as society moves forward (or in the case of, say, the Middle East, it'll continue to be enforced through the tyranny of tradition).
Change in moral systems is normal, and it certainly didn't start with atheism/secularism; Christianity and Islam have been doing it for centuries. And moral systems existed before semitic monotheism (with many of the same rules).
Also on this point, I find the whole "restriction of rights" quite an interesting one. For it seems my rights are restricted if I am not able to stop someone elses unrestricted rights. For example, if I do not want to see public nudity, why should my rights be restricted by not be able to go to a certain public areas? It seems we are in a catch 22. What's "good" for me is "bad" for you - so who takes preference? The majority?
That has nothing to do with atheism or secular morality. It is a 'problem' that exists just as much for other moral systems (including Christian moral systems).
It is solved by utilitarianism. Go read about it.
Secularism has hedonistic utilitarianism, which is basically: actions which maximise the majority of people's rights are the best course. The caveat is this: fundamental human rights (especially the right to live, to safety, etc) should not be violated. Rights in this context generally refers to things which help us gain pleasure or avoid pain, and this includes all the human rights. Human rights are not equal (though each person has equal human rights) - it is exactly this premise which allows moral systems (specifically utilitarianism) to function.
My right to freedom of expression is higher than your 'right' oppose freedom of expression. My right to safety is higher than your right to inflict harm. Certainly in your example, you lose. You don't want to see tits on bikes? Don't attend the parade. Tits on bike does no harm to you, but causes good through increasing freedom of expression. You are allowed to say you don't like tits on bikes, but actively trying to subvert somebody else's freedom of expression is bad.
As another example, the right to live is more important than the right to freedom of expression. If your freedom of expression involves killing people, you are in the wrong, because that violates the more important right of existence.
There can be no quantitative evaluation of morality as you seek, and indeed such would cheapen life. Qualitative assessments on a case-by-case basis (with a large degree of consistency) are infinitely preferable.
Yeah, this post was fairly caustic. I'm just sick of you repeatedly claiming atheism means egoism.
