godelian wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:25 am
These are universal values, e.g. of evil acts to be avoided by any normal human being are;
1. No human wants to be killed by other humans or non-humans.
2. No human wants to be enslaved
3. No human wants to be raped
4. No human wants to be subject to violence
5. No humans wants to be suppressed in terms of freedom and peace
6. No humans wants to be dehumanized as apes, pigs, etc.
7. Etc.
So, is this the canonical atheist theory of morality? How many other people subscribe to exactly this definition? Is it published somewhere else too?
It has nothing to do with atheism at all.
It has everything to do with the universal inherent human nature within ALL human being.
Do YOU want to be killed, enslaved, raped, subject to violence, dehumanized as apes, pigs, etc.?
Do a survey with your mother, father, brothers, sisters, relatives, friends and strangers, what are the chances, they will agree to the above evil to be acted upon themselves?
Show me evidences where any
normal human beings had agreed to the above evil upon themselves?
I don't have the exact reports published, however, I believe whatever had been reported throughout the history mankind, no normal human beings had
voluntarily [without threats or coercion] agreed to be victims the above evil acts.
The exceptions are when a religion rewards its believers extraordinarily for being suicide bombers.
By the way, "7. Etc" is not a valid clause in a canonical definition. In fact, it could make your entire definition invalid. What if "8." says ",not 1 and not 2 and ... and not 6" ?
Ignorant of the context above is childish thinking.
Another problem. "No human want ..." is not a categorical imperative. It does not forbid anything to the person who commits to these rules. It merely expresses a wish.
As I stated, the above are evil acts that are
inherently and
universally avoided by all humans as part of human nature.
E.g. if no human wants to stop breathing, then the oughtness to breathe [human nature] is a categorical imperative.
Same applies to the above 1-6.
By the way, how would you convince anybody to commit to obeying these rules (if they were phrased as rules)? Islam has around two billion people committing to its rules. How many people besides yourself do you expect to adopt your theory? Is there anybody else who actually does that?
I don't believe morality-proper is about obeying rules.
Morality is about cultivating and development the human moral function within all humans [as guided by the categorical imperative] such that one acts morally in a spontaneous way [not obeying rules upon threats or force], naturally and without being aware of it.
This is already happening in
some ways where the majority of humans naturally and spontaneously do not go about killing another human arbitrary.
The morality of religion is pseudo-morality because threats of hell are used to enforce compliance with God's moral commands.
If God's
definitive documented moral code in his holy-text is to kill non-believers because they disbelieve [or are of the slightest threat], then the believer must kill non-believers [else non-compliance mean going to hell] which is against his normal moral instinct of not wanting to kill humans.