Role model in your community

[Lynx]

You forgot one crucial thing:
The prophets (pbut) received codes of morals and guidance directly from God.

Meanwhile, let me ask you again:
Would it have been possible that Kant's ethical system written up by a local somewhere in deep Papua 200 years ago?

If the local was as smart as Kant, sure.

Now you can answer my question, which would end the whole discussion.

in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief?

 

[Ramadhan]

If the local was as smart as Kant, sure.

Are you even serious?

Some tribes in Papua were cannibals even 50 years ago, and they considered eating killed enemies as being "good will" and came from "duty", and hence according to Kant, killing and eating enemies are absolutely a good thing.

in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief?

This is Kant:

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg, the capital of Prussia at that time, today the city of Kaliningrad in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast. He was the fourth of eleven children (four of them reached adulthood). Baptized 'Emanuel', he changed his name to 'Immanuel'[4] after learning Hebrew. In his entire life, he never traveled more than a hundred miles from Königsberg.[5] His father, Johann Georg Kant (1682–1746), was a German harnessmaker from Memel, at the time Prussia's most northeastern city (now Klaipėda, Lithuania). His mother, Regina Dorothea Reuter (1697–1737), was born in Nuremberg.[6] Kant's grandfather had emigrated from Scotland to East Prussia, and his father still spelled their family name "Cant."[7] In his youth, Kant was a solid, albeit unspectacular, student. He was reared in a Pietist household that stressed intense religious devotion, personal humility, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, Kant received a stern education – strict, punitive, and disciplinary – that preferred Latin and religious instruction over mathematics and science.[8] Of the common myths concerning Kant's personal mannerisms are enumerated, explained, and refuted in Goldthwait's introduction to his translation of Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.[9] It is often held that Kant lived a very strict and predictable life, leading to the oft-repeated story that neighbors would set their clocks by his daily walks. He never married, but didn't seem to lack a rewarding social life - he was a popular teacher and a modestly successful author even before starting on his major philosophical works.

So, you totally discount kant's religious background and claimed that Kant's work was NOT influenced by religion one way or another?
Are you indirectly suggesting that kant received ideas totally absoloutely disconnect from christianity, maybe from god?
and since you don't believe in god, maybe from aliens?

this is from wikipedia:

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

And you are still suggesrting Kant was never influenced by religion one way or another?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Its always been in a religous context - Jesus pbuh being Jew I dont think he'll be too happy with your subjective ideas - your right it is incomplete thats why religion has always been part of the golden rule - Something moral for you like eating Pork chops or beef burgers clearly is not moral for the majority of the world - you may enjoy rape, killing people as well - for atheist as you have shown it is preety much an open game.

Um no.... as I've posted above a few times now, if this were so then atheists would not behave morally like they do and the religious would be dramatically more moral, which they are not. I am weary of people who actually believe that without religion they would be killing and raping people. Those would be sociopaths. Doing good to please an authority figure (God) is not morality at all.

 

[Zafran]

Um no.... as I've posted above a few times now, if this were so then atheists would not behave morally like they do and the religious would be dramatically more moral, which they are not. I am weary of people who actually believe that without religion they would be killing and raping people. Those would be sociopaths. Doing good to please an authority figure (God) is not morality at all.

People do it for autority all the time - thats why nations and societies have laws and governments enforce them eg not to steal, rape etc - ofcourse the reason given is for a better, safer and moral society to prevail you have to have someone enforcing the laws. Your last reply showed how subjective morality can be without an authority figure. DIY your own morality. Ofcourse in any serious or lasting moral system authority is always been behind it - giving it and enforcing it.

 

[Lynx]

Are you even serious?

Some tribes in Papua were cannibals even 50 years ago, and they considered eating killed enemies as being "good will" and came from "duty", and hence according to Kant, killing and eating enemies are absolutely a good thing.





This is Kant:

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg, the capital of Prussia at that time, today the city of Kaliningrad in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast. He was the fourth of eleven children (four of them reached adulthood). Baptized 'Emanuel', he changed his name to 'Immanuel'[4] after learning Hebrew. In his entire life, he never traveled more than a hundred miles from Königsberg.[5] His father, Johann Georg Kant (1682–1746), was a German harnessmaker from Memel, at the time Prussia's most northeastern city (now Klaipėda, Lithuania). His mother, Regina Dorothea Reuter (1697–1737), was born in Nuremberg.[6] Kant's grandfather had emigrated from Scotland to East Prussia, and his father still spelled their family name "Cant."[7] In his youth, Kant was a solid, albeit unspectacular, student. He was reared in a Pietist household that stressed intense religious devotion, personal humility, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, Kant received a stern education – strict, punitive, and disciplinary – that preferred Latin and religious instruction over mathematics and science.[8] Of the common myths concerning Kant's personal mannerisms are enumerated, explained, and refuted in Goldthwait's introduction to his translation of Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.[9] It is often held that Kant lived a very strict and predictable life, leading to the oft-repeated story that neighbors would set their clocks by his daily walks. He never married, but didn't seem to lack a rewarding social life - he was a popular teacher and a modestly successful author even before starting on his major philosophical works.

So, you totally discount kant's religious background and claimed that Kant's work was NOT influenced by religion one way or another?
Are you indirectly suggesting that kant received ideas totally absoloutely disconnect from christianity, maybe from god?
and since you don't believe in god, maybe from aliens?

this is from wikipedia:

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

And you are still suggesrting Kant was never influenced by religion one way or another?

That's very informative. Who would've thought 17th century Europe was so religious! I don't know what's so hard to understand; you've made the claim that secular moral systems have a basis in religion and all you have to do to show this is point out which precepts of these ethical systems come from religion. It doesn't matter if Kant lived in a church all his life; the point is can a reasonable moral system be created without God? If the answer is yes, which is the position I am putting forward, then it is not true that nonreligious moral viewpoints are 'baseless'.

 

[Ramadhan]

That's very informative. Who would've thought 17th century Europe was so religious! I don't know what's so hard to understand; you've made the claim that secular moral systems have a basis in religion and all you have to do to show this is point out which precepts of these ethical systems come from religion. It doesn't matter if Kant lived in a church all his life; the point is can a reasonable moral system be created without God? If the answer is yes, which is the position I am putting forward, then it is not true that nonreligious moral viewpoints are 'baseless'.

My evidence is that ethical systems have always been created in societies who believed in deity and existence of the creator of the universe and had some sort of religions, including kant.
Do you have proof that an ethical system can be created in a society which is 100% atheists?
Do you have an example of that?

It should be an easy question yes or no, right?

 

[Lynx]

My evidence is that ethical systems have always been created in societies who believed in deity and existence of the creator of the universe and had some sort of religions, including kant.

And yet your reasoning here does not imply the religions are what *caused* the creation of such systems.

Do you have proof that an ethical system can be created in a society which is 100% atheists?
Do you have an example of that?

It should be an easy question yes or no, right?

You are bringing in irrelevant things again. What I've been saying repeatedly is that I think it is possible to have an ethical system that does not involve God or any specific religious beliefs. I gave you two distinct examples of such systems: Kantian ethics & Utilitarian Ethics. Now, you're claiming that these ethical systems have a basis in religious morality and I've been asking you over and over again for evidence of this claim. The easiest way to prove your claim, and the most convincing way, is to show that there are some important parts of these ethical systems that have been derived from religion; in other words, show me specific examples of principles found in these systems that have a basis in religion.

 

[Ramadhan]

And yet your reasoning here does not imply the religions are what *caused* the creation of such systems

It is still supporting evidence.

You are bringing in irrelevant things again. What I've been saying repeatedly is that I think it is possible to have an ethical system that does not involve God or any specific religious beliefs. I gave you two distinct examples of such systems: Kantian ethics & Utilitarian Ethics. Now, you're claiming that these ethical systems have a basis in religious morality and I've been asking you over and over again for evidence of this claim. The easiest way to prove your claim, and the most convincing way, is to show that there are some important parts of these ethical systems that have been derived from religion; in other words, show me specific examples of principles found in these systems that have a basis in religion.

From Wikipedia:
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",[50] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[51] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[52] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).[53]

Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein [54] An interesting sidenote is that his dissertation began with the basmala, the Arabic invocation of God, the merciful and the compassionate



I have answered your question ( a couple of times, whether you want to accept it or not),
now can you answer my question:
Has there been any completely new moral/ethical standards invented within a 100% atheistic community/state?

 

[جوري]

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason

one thing you must realize about these atheists early on. Every time you refute them, they'll inject the dialogue with a completely arbitrary topic to steer the thread into comfortable grounds for them. and when on their own territory they're losing ground, they'll come up with even more impossible task for you to extricate themselves from any critical or abstract thought.. in fact as you have done above. bring them something that which word for word panders to their need, they'll still not be satisfied, since that is by their very nature why they are atheists.. and when all else fails they tend to travel in groups (but don't call it tribal) and come to respond to one another in a congratulatory fashion with the 'I get you, it is so obvious, must be religion that is making them so dense' -- pretty much how they spend their life until death seizes them.. it is rather pitiful!

 

[Pygoscelis]

People do it for autority all the time - thats why nations and societies have laws and governments enforce them eg not to steal, rape etc - ofcourse the reason given is for a better, safer and moral society to prevail you have to have someone enforcing the laws. Your last reply showed how subjective morality can be without an authority figure. DIY your own morality. Ofcourse in any serious or lasting moral system authority is always been behind it - giving it and enforcing it.

Those laws exist to prevent or minimize the damage of those who would not otherwise behave morally. You (I hope) do not need to be told there is a law against murder to stop you from killing people. And were you in international waters on some island where there is no law, you (I hope) would not suddenly take up murdering people. Even if you were to murder somebody or steal from somebody I expect that you would do so despite knowing and feeling it is wrong, and probably feel guilty about it. You don't need a law or a God for that. Morality and Obedience are not the same thing, and it is a distinction that I fear too often gets blurred by religion.

 

[Lynx]

It is still supporting evidence.

From Wikipedia:
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",[50] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[51] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[52] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).[53]

Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein [54] An interesting sidenote is that his dissertation began with the basmala, the Arabic invocation of God, the merciful and the compassionate



I have answered your question ( a couple of times, whether you want to accept it or not),

Jeez I don't know how else to say it. You keep doing the same thing over and over. You're focusing on Kant rather htan the system he came up with. Okay, Kant's ethical system is complicated so maybe you're put off from actually looking it up so you're focusing on the biographic details. Let's take a look at utilitarian ethics which is super simple. What are some details of utilitarian ethics that come out of religion? For the love of God don't look up biographies.

FYI stay away from wikipedia or at least see if there are citations in the things you're pasting. The 'sidenote' you mentioned that Kant wrote basmala before his dissertation clearly says 'citation needed'. What do you think that means?

Has there been any completely new moral/ethical standards invented within a 100% atheistic community/state?

No, why would there be completely new moral/ethical standards invented anywhere? The only place that this might happen is an alien planet with a completely different history and a race of beings with completely different psychologies.

 

[جوري]

And were you in international waters on some island where there is no law, you (I hope) would not suddenly take up murdering people.

We hope the same for you indeed it is the ones who give in to their lowly animal desires that we would worry about in such a case!

Jeez I don't know how else to say it

We have noticed, so why do you keep with the desire to invent new things and introduce them as if part of the dialogue.. It seems you are the only one with a serious difficulty reconciling what is written with what you desire as a direction for this topic.. You don't handle a miserable defeat very well do you?

and on this note I go break my fast on this day of 3rafat, I hope you too could find something fulfilling with which to spend your days!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

We hope the same for you indeed it is the ones who give in to their lowly animal desires that we would worry about in such a case!



We have noticed, so why do you keep with the desire to invent new things and introduce them as if part of the dialogue.. It seems you are the only one with a serious difficulty reconciling what is written with what you desire as a direction for this topic.. You don't handle a miserable defeat very well do you?

and on this note I go break my fast on this day of 3rafat, I hope you too could find something fulfilling with which to spend your days!

all the best

Thank you for your play-by-play commentary. You are about as irrelevant as naidamar's obsession with Kant's life story.

 

[جوري]

Thank you for your play-by-play commentary. You are about as irrelevant as naidamar's obsession with Kant's life story.

You tell yourself whatever you need to, to get through this!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

Jeez I don't know how else to say it. You keep doing the same thing over and over. You're focusing on Kant rather htan the system he came up with.

Didn't Kant write kantian ethical system?

Or did the system write himself up?

As an atheist, I know that it must be very difficult for you to understand that anything in this universe must have a creator to come into being, including kantian system.

I know it must be a habit for you to discount and pretend that the writer of kantian system did not exist, but let me tell you, it did exist!

Just like you pretend the universe does not have its creator, so let me tell you a little secret: it does.

 

[Zafran]

Those laws exist to prevent or minimize the damage of those who would not otherwise behave morally. You (I hope) do not need to be told there is a law against murder to stop you from killing people. And were you in international waters on some island where there is no law, you (I hope) would not suddenly take up murdering people. Even if you were to murder somebody or steal from somebody I expect that you would do so despite knowing and feeling it is wrong, and probably feel guilty about it. You don't need a law or a God for that. Morality and Obedience are not the same thing, and it is a distinction that I fear too often gets blurred by religion.

Not just by religion but by the state and parents as well - Everybody has to be told - a child has to be told whats moral and not - the basic idea of parenting and possibly our biggest sense of morality is based on authority (what our parents tell us is a moral and not). You even have laws like dont use phone whilst driving or dont drink drive - what if you drink drive and dont get caught or answer your phone whilst driving and nobody sees you - do people realy feel "bad", guilty or wrong - I dont think many people do. Thats the messege i get from a lot of people. I disagree I think the source of morality ultimatley is authority be it parents, family members, the state, God, the clergy or a random philosopher and his or her philosophy.

 

[Ramadhan]

No, why would there be completely new moral/ethical standards invented anywhere? The only place that this might happen is an alien planet with a completely different history and a race of beings with completely different psychologies.

Ah. So moral/ethical standards have always been borne in societies who believe in some sort of diety, correct?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Not just by religion but by the state and parents as well - Everybody has to be told - a child has to be told whats moral and not

I fundamentally disagree. A child knows it is wrong to hurt other people. You do not have to tell a child that. They know. It takes some social programming to convince them otherwise (religion can help with that as can other ideology).

what if you drink drive and dont get caught or answer your phone whilst driving and nobody sees you - do people realy feel "bad", guilty or wrong

I do. You don't? Perhaps some people don't because they feel more in control than they actually are and don't imagine themselves hitting somebody etc. But do these same people feel no guilt when causing another person pain? Do these people not feel inclined to help those in need when they see suffering? Do you think authority is the sole impetus for charity and the sole inhibitor of cruelty? Really?

Again, morality and authority are not one and the same thing. Authority may enforce morality and keep people in line or remind them and give an added kick to get them to do what they inherently know is right, but they do inherently know its right. Sometimes authority actually creates arbitrary or even counter-moral rules. And it is then that morality leads people to strive to change the system.

It is extremely dangerous to confuse obedience for morality. Obedience to your master can actually lead you to do evil things.

 

[Zafran]

I fundamentally disagree. A child knows it is wrong to hurt other people. You do not have to tell a child that. They know. It takes some social programming to convince them otherwise (religion can help with that as can other ideology

a child doesnt know its wrong to hurt people - until someone actually tells its wrong to hurt people - bullying is a great example of that. Similar to to putting the hand in the fire - it doesnt know until it sees the consquences of its actions - If a child hit another kid and everybody said he did a good thing I'm sure he'll think he did a great thing. Its all about the reaction.

I do. You don't? Perhaps some people don't because they feel more in control than they actually are and don't imagine themselves hitting somebody etc. But do these same people feel no guilt when causing another person pain? Do these people not feel inclined to help those in need when they see suffering? Do you think authority is the sole impetus for charity and the sole inhibitor of cruelty? Really?

Again, morality and authority are not one and the same thing. Authority may enforce morality and keep people in line or remind them and give an added kick to get them to do what they inherently know is right, but they do inherently know its right. Sometimes authority actually creates arbitrary or even counter-moral rules. And it is then that morality leads people to strive to change the system.

It is extremely dangerous to confuse obedience for morality. Obedience to your master can actually lead you to do evil things

You drink and drive??? in the UK thats seen as immoral and realy dangerous (any drinker knows that in the UK). Doesnt matter if you imagine running someone over or not - the main issue is thats highly dangerous and could have put many peoples life at risk, so is breaking the law of the answering the phone whilst driving. Some people dont know this inherently - thats why people break these laws or moral codes. We can also apply this to rapist and killers.

authority doesnt just enforce it also gives out morality. That can be reformed or changed but only by another authority.

why should people feel guilty or pain only? people can feel happy as well when they see someone they hate suffering or in pain - or if someone has killed people then he or she is killed as well out of revenge etc etc.

reducing moralty to feelings is dangerous in itself. Morality has I said before has an authority to actually come about - your feelings can be the authorty as well in deciding whats good and bad.

Charity is always given by the one who actually has the money -The one in power.

 

[Lynx]

Ah. So moral/ethical standards have always been borne in societies who believe in some sort of diety, correct?

Consider: the flu has only existed in societies where religions or belief in some deity took place. Therefore, the belief of a deity has been the cause of this sickness. Sound wrong? Well according to you it's supporting evidence.

Didn't Kant write kantian ethical system?

Yes, I would the guy who basically started the enlightenment era did not plagiarize.

As an atheist, I know that it must be very difficult for you to understand that anything in this universe must have a creator to come into being, including kantian system.

I am not an atheist actually.

I know it must be a habit for you to discount and pretend that the writer of kantian system did not exist, but let me tell you, it did exist!

Of course he existed. Who said otherwise? His existence is just not relevant when you are saying his particular theory is based on another theory. In typical discussions, the person making that sort of claim should be able to look at Kant's work and point out which parts of his theory came from religion. You are unable to do this and that is obviously because you didn't know who Kant was when you made your initial generalization. You made a claim about a topic that you have no clue about. You know, there's something called the principle of charity when it comes to discussions; you are supposed to take your opponents viewpoints in their strongest form before you choose to rebuttal it. There are too many religious people, perhaps more than non religious people, that don't even try to understand where other people are coming from.

Just like you pretend the universe does not have its creator, so let me tell you a little secret: it does.

I am very happy for you