Covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism
Posted 10-20-2012 at 08:59 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
The covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism is that whether subjectively or objectively or both as my argument states, we humanists have a realistic and realist morality off which theists depend when they use reason and facts instead of our living off theirs as the so prattle.
I find it paradoxical that subjective and objective morality can be one. I call the subjective one the wide-reflective subjectivism-that of Hobbes and Hume- that requires one to use ones considered judgment instead of ones mere tastes and whims, for example, valuing bi-and homosexuality instead of ones distaste for both. And this includes the objectivity of [1] equality and [2] universality.
Mine is also objective in that it references the consequences to sentient beings and the environment just as science is objective -open to all- and like science,debatable,allowing for sociological relativism, but discounting moral relativism.
To produce arguments against consequential moralities ,people use consequences so they in effect affirm them!
We need no God to discern that murder,stealing and so forth are wrong! God adds nothing as the ignostic-Ockham argument and as the Euthyphro note. To prattle that why, His nature is good as Aquinas does, begs the question thereof.
Our moral sense aids us, but we ever have to refine it, which we have so that we now have a morality better than that of the Ages of Faith, we act better as Richard Carrier and Steven Pinker delineate.
Contrary to Clive Staples Lewis,even simple subjectivism in the hands of a Lord Russell can suffice. The simple subjectivism of any scriptures is flawed! Say no to that of the Qur'an, the Tanakh and the Testament. Theirs stems from miserable, miscreant misanthropes!
The ontology for this morality lies in us and reality, subjectively and objectively. Thus, not only can we be moral,we have a sufficient,ontological basis for our morality!
I find it paradoxical that subjective and objective morality can be one. I call the subjective one the wide-reflective subjectivism-that of Hobbes and Hume- that requires one to use ones considered judgment instead of ones mere tastes and whims, for example, valuing bi-and homosexuality instead of ones distaste for both. And this includes the objectivity of [1] equality and [2] universality.
Mine is also objective in that it references the consequences to sentient beings and the environment just as science is objective -open to all- and like science,debatable,allowing for sociological relativism, but discounting moral relativism.
To produce arguments against consequential moralities ,people use consequences so they in effect affirm them!
We need no God to discern that murder,stealing and so forth are wrong! God adds nothing as the ignostic-Ockham argument and as the Euthyphro note. To prattle that why, His nature is good as Aquinas does, begs the question thereof.
Our moral sense aids us, but we ever have to refine it, which we have so that we now have a morality better than that of the Ages of Faith, we act better as Richard Carrier and Steven Pinker delineate.
Contrary to Clive Staples Lewis,even simple subjectivism in the hands of a Lord Russell can suffice. The simple subjectivism of any scriptures is flawed! Say no to that of the Qur'an, the Tanakh and the Testament. Theirs stems from miserable, miscreant misanthropes!
The ontology for this morality lies in us and reality, subjectively and objectively. Thus, not only can we be moral,we have a sufficient,ontological basis for our morality!
Total Comments 0
