I'm reading The Concept of Sin by Josef Pieper. http://staugustine.net...
This morning I read this surprising paragraph:
"Of course, reason can only possess this power to obligate a person if, in the act of knowledge itself, somehow a kind of participation in the divine Logos is taking place and if the interior word-character of things by which we are cognitively orientated to them simultaneously points to the creative aboriginal Word [Ur-Wort] of God himself" p. 46
This question comes to mind:
For the atheist or non-believer , what foundation or property or element or power or whatever in human reason obligates the reasoner?
I have long thought that the atheist or non-believer actually recognizes as moral wrongs only those human actions that are defined as crimes in his or her particular criminal law. In other words, moral reasoning attains certainty only in the criminal law. Other than in the criminal law, moral reasoning does not obligate the reasoner.
What do you think?
 Posts: 40
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 6:29:44 AM Posted: 3 weeks ago |
 Posts: 293
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 7:27:48 AM Posted: 3 weeks ago At 10/30/2009 6:29:44 AM, dogparktom wrote: Religion is just another law that obligates the person to follow a moral reasoning. It is no different than the criminal law. Just with a different enforcer, and a different punishment. The obligation that I have, is that i want to live in a society. It doesnt take God, or religion, or some higher power to want to live in society. Here is a simple scenario where this is true: I dont want to die. I dont care if i lose the ability to kill anyone i please. Therefore, i will band with people who think like me, and we will create a society that bans murder. I clearly cannot live by myself. Therefore, the obligation comes from the fact that i want to live in a society. And in a society, it benefits us all if we are nice to each other and outlaw things that harm people. |
 Posts: 87
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 7:41:11 AM Posted: 3 weeks ago At 10/30/2009 6:29:44 AM, dogparktom wrote: |
 Posts: 293
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 7:43:26 AM Posted: 3 weeks ago I would suggest that our laws come from ourselves. Ourselves being the source of goodness, justice, righteousness etc. Certainly I think these things can be developed only when we interact with others, but we evolved to do so, and evolved our nature of thinking, including thinking in terms of goodness.
|
 Posts: 5,343
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 9:17:32 AM Posted: 3 weeks ago Obligates the reasoner to what?
There are no absolute obligations, only ones conditional upon one's chosen goal--in my case, to live. First and current President of DDO. Or dictator, I don't really care. If you aren't prepared to kill for something, you shouldn't make a law about it. |
|
Posts: 40
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 2:49:30 PM Posted: 3 weeks ago "Obligates the reasoner to what?"
REPLY: The reasoner is obligated to seek to do good and to avoid doing evil. In the Catholic Christian the FOUNDATION for this obligation is the Natural Law which is a part of the Divine Law. (The foundation is external to the reasoner) In contrast, instead of the authority of religion, the non-believer points to Reason as his or her substitute for (instead of religion) and authority in moral reasoning. What I want to know is what is the FOUNDATION IN Reason for an OBLIGATION to obey the judgment that results from the process of moral reasoning? (Is the foundation internal or external to the reasoner?) At 10/30/2009 9:17:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote: |
 Posts: 129
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 3:30:54 PM Posted: 3 weeks ago What is the obligation to act upon 5 + 7 = 12 as being true? There are times when it would be more convenient to believe it to be something else, or to suppose that the facts ought not be a compelling reason to act accordingly. The ultimate reason for acting reasonably is that not doing so gets a person into trouble, whether there are relevant laws or not. In the case moral reasoning, "trouble" means bad relationships with family, friends, community, and society. The moral person is happier, and the moral society a better one to live in.
|
|
Posts: 40
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 8:24:11 PM Posted: 3 weeks ago At 10/30/2009 3:30:54 PM, RoyLatham wrote:_____________________________________ Hi Roy: Happy Halloween. If I understand your reply correctly, you hold that the FOUNDATION for the OBLIGATION to act in accordance with the judgment of Reason is the production of Good Consequences.1 No human action is inherently good or bad. The moral quality of a human action is determined by its consequences after the action has occurred. Or the moral quality of the action is provisionally judged by predicting the probable consequences of the act. Lets consider this common fact situation: A married man works with a beautiful young single woman. They acknowledge a mutual sexual attraction. They begin talking about having a sexual affair. They leave work at lunch, get a hotel room, and have sex. They enjoyed the sex. They return to work separately and no other person suspects that they have just had sex. I put this question to you: Is their act of sexual intercourse a morally right or morally wrong or morally indifferent act? Tom 1. consequentialism Any normative theory holding that human actions derive their moral worth solely from the outcomes or results that they produce. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that typically identifies happiness or pleasure as the favored consequence. One of the difficulties inherent in the practical application of any such theory is our notoriously feeble ability (or willingness) to predict accurately what consequences our own actions will produce. http://www.philosophypages.com... |
|
Posts: 5,343
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 8:53:59 PM Posted: 3 weeks ago At 10/30/2009 2:49:30 PM, dogparktom wrote:That's basically redundant. Good has no meaning aside from goals which one sets for oneself, and evil has no meaning but blocking them. The choice of goal sets the obligation, if it can be called an obligation. First and current President of DDO. Or dictator, I don't really care. If you aren't prepared to kill for something, you shouldn't make a law about it. |
|
Posts: 40
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
10/30/2009 9:28:13 PM Posted: 3 weeks ago At 10/30/2009 8:53:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:At 10/30/2009 2:49:30 PM, dogparktom wrote:That's basically redundant. Good has no meaning aside from goals which one sets for oneself, and evil has no meaning but blocking them. The choice of goal sets the obligation, if it can be called an obligation. Hi R. Happy Halloween. What is the moral character of this goal: I find Keith Olbermann to be obnoxious so I decide (adopt a goal) to kill him? Tom |