‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted.’

[BidenPresident]

The modern form of the philosophical (or meta-ethical) problem of moral realism may be thought to confront a greater test than its predecessors. Its peculiar challenge was famously expressed in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: ‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted.’

Among the more influential philosophical doctrines of the twentieth century was logical positivism which claimed that moral statements are essentially meaningless since they are factually uncheckable. Ethical judgements were defined by the leading English proponent of logical positivism, Freddie Ayer (1910-1989), as emotional ejaculations entirely devoid of reason.

https://drb.ie/articles/climbing-mount-improbable/

 

[Yakuda]

The modern form of the philosophical (or meta-ethical) problem of moral realism may be thought to confront a greater test than its predecessors. Its peculiar challenge was famously expressed in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: ‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted.’

Among the more influential philosophical doctrines of the twentieth century was logical positivism which claimed that moral statements are essentially meaningless since they are factually uncheckable. Ethical judgements were defined by the leading English proponent of logical positivism, Freddie Ayer (1910-1989), as emotional ejaculations entirely devoid of reason.

read://https_drb.ie/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrb.ie%2Farticles%2Fclimbing-mount-improbable%2F

Besides the fact that God isn't dead, without God there is no valid reason to prohibit anything.

 

[archives]

Besides the fact that God isn't dead, without God there is no valid reason to prohibit anything.

Not a lot of heavy thought there, it isn’t about God as an entity, rather the reality that less people think of God, as a thought, he is diminished in today’s world, and a society prohibits activity that it defines as a danger or threat to the society itself, not because God is watching

 

[BidenPresident]

Not a lot of heavy thought there, it isn’t about God as an entity, rather the reality that less people think of God, as a thought, he is diminished in today’s world, and a society prohibits activity that it defines as a danger or threat to the society itself, not because God is watching

God the Father. A child afraid their parents will find out who broke the vase and get punished.

 

[Cypress]

‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted.’

I've read The Brothers Karamazov, and have an electronic copy, and that line doesn't actually appear in the book. But there is an urban legend that it does because it tracks with the metaphysics Dostoyevsky was writing about.

The character Ivan Karamazov stated that there is no law of nature or biology that makes men love their neighbors, there is no law of nature or biology than man should love mankind. Belief in universal love is a consequence of a belief in immortality. And if you were to destroy the belief in immortality, the force maintaining the belief in universal love would dry up. As a consequence, nothing would be immoral.

 

[Yakuda]

Not a lot of heavy thought there, it isn’t about God as an entity, rather the reality that less people think of God, as a thought, he is diminished in today’s world, and a society prohibits activity that it defines as a danger or threat to the society itself, not because God is watching

Talk about a lack of heavy thought. Sadly what you say is absolutely true and will lead to our ultimate destruction. I would undertake to try and explain why God being diminished is not a good thing but I'm not sure what good it would do. If it's not clear to you by now that humans are lousy at defining what is a danger or a threat to society then nothing will make it clear to you.

 

[archives]

I've read The Brothers Karamazov, and have an electronic copy, and that line doesn't actually appear in the book. But there is an urban legend that it does because it tracks with the metaphysics Dostoyevsky was writing about.

The character Ivan Karamazov stated that there is no law of nature or biology that makes men love their neighbors, there is no law of nature or biology than man should love mankind. Belief in universal love is a consequence of a belief in immortality. And if you were to destroy the belief in immortality, the force maintaining the belief in universal love would dry up. As a consequence, nothing would be immoral.

It comes from Bishop Robinson of the 1960’s, and was popularized by a Time Magazine cover

 

[archives]

Talk about a lack of heavy thought. Sadly what you say is absolutely true and will lead to our ultimate destruction. I would undertake to try and explain why God being diminished is not a good thing but I'm not sure what good it would do. If it's not clear to you by now that humans are lousy at defining what is a danger or a threat to society then nothing will make it clear to you.

How could my post “lack thought” when you continued on to say it was “absolutely true?”

And all societies don’t base their morals or laws on an abstract religious entity, some even f*ck up the world cause they do, and if you want to go there, who is to say which society’s God is the authority

 

[BidenPresident]

I've read The Brothers Karamazov, and have an electronic copy, and that line doesn't actually appear in the book. But there is an urban legend that it does because it tracks with the metaphysics Dostoyevsky was writing about.

The character Ivan Karamazov stated that there is no law of nature or biology that makes men love their neighbors, there is no law of nature or biology than man should love mankind. Belief in universal love is a consequence of a belief in immortality. And if you were to destroy the belief in immortality, the force maintaining the belief in universal love would dry up. As a consequence, nothing would be immoral.

I think Dostoevsky actually said it himself.

 

[Yakuda]

How could my post “lack thought” when you continued on to say it was “absolutely true?”

And all societies don’t base their morals or laws on an abstract religious entity, some even f*ck up the world cause they do, and if you want to go there, who is to say which society’s God is the authority

Try again. Look at the quotation marks and see if you can find the difference between what I actually said and what you
quote me as saying. Im always amazed at how difficult you people make it to be polite to you.

You're not suggesting purely secular societies havent f*cked up the world are you? Upwards of 100 million people killed in the 20th century by nonreligious societies. I want to take you seriously

 

[Jarod]

Besides the fact that God isn't dead, without God there is no valid reason to prohibit anything.

Sure there is, lots of reasons. The rights of man, the efficiency of Capitalism. The allowing each to make their own choices as to how to live. Just a few off the top of my head.

 

[BidenPresident]

Parfit advocates Non-Religious Ethics.

"Belief in God, or in many gods, prevented the free development of moral reasoning. Disbelief in God, openly admitted by a majority, is a recent event, not yet completed. Because this event is so recent, Non-Religious Ethics is at a very early stage."

https://drb.ie/articles/climbing-mount-improbable/

 

[BidenPresident]

Sure there is, lots of reasons. The rights of man, the efficiency of Capitalism. The allowing each to make their own choices as to how to live. Just a few off the top of my head.

Aristotle produced one of the most sophisticated texts on ethics. And it had nothing to do with God.

 

[Jarod]

Parfit advocates Non-Religious Ethics.

"Belief in God, or in many gods, prevented the free development of moral reasoning. Disbelief in God, openly admitted by a majority, is a recent event, not yet completed. Because this event is so recent, Non-Religious Ethics is at a very early stage."

https://drb.ie/articles/climbing-mount-improbable/

Morality is older than the concept of God.

 

[BidenPresident]

Morality is older than the concept of God.

Probably. As I said, ancient Greeks did not conceive morality as a relation to God.

 

[Cypress]

Aristotle produced one of the most sophisticated texts on ethics. And it had nothing to do with God.

Ethics change and evolve.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is essentially about how to create a flourishing life for yourself, how to maximize happiness in your own life.

The ethics of the Jewish prophets and Jesus were focused to a large extent on service to others.

 

[Cypress]

I think Dostoevsky actually said it himself.

Maybe, that I don't know myself

 

[BidenPresident]

Ethics change and evolve.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is essentially about how to create a flourishing life for yourself, how to maximize happiness in your own life.

The ethics of the Jewish prophets and Jesus were focused to a large extent on service to others.

Wrong about Aristotle. Haven't you admitted you never read the Ethics?

 

[Cypress]

Wrong about Aristotle. Haven't you admitted you never read the Ethics?

I've read the Nicomachean Ethics, and while it has great insights, there's not much in there about charity, mercy, service to others.

The emphasis is eudemonia, which is about the virtues needed to create a flourishing, purposeful life for oneself. Which is great, if you take it for what it is.

 

[BidenPresident]

I've read the Nicomachean Ethics, and while it has great insights, there's not much in there about charity, mercy, service to others.

The emphasis is eudemonia, which is about the virtues needed to create a flourishing, purposeful life for oneself.

Charity is a virtue you choose to have. Aristotle never argues against it.
He is talking about a person's relations to other people.