Arbitrary:
1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/arbitrary
We choose the basis for our morals based upon our individual judgements and preferences, and those choices are not formed by necessity, reason, nor principle (I did not mean by chance by impulse, nor by whim, so Ican see where you might find that confusing). The basis is what we draw upon to reason and what we use to create principles, but neither is available to form that basis. The nature of reasoning is that you have to start with some arbitrarily chosen set of propositons you accept as being true, sans formal proof. For example, "other beings have as much right to live as we do" is an arbitrary standard. You can try to justify by picking other standards that can derive it, but then those other standards must be "picked" arbitrarily, and are usually chosen to derive precisely the results you wish to see.
What does form the basis? In my case: empathy, herd instinct, compassion. All of that feeds into what I think the role of a person and a society should be.
Ah, well I see where you're coming from. You're a Samuel Beckett kind of guy?
But I have to disagree. There are certain truths about life that we can deny in our speech but never in practice.
For instance, we must all believe, necessarily, that our lives are meaningful. If we didn't believe this, then there could be no motivation for performing any one action over another. It's all well and good to have a spoken belief of nihilism, but the fact is that any such claim is inherently self-contradictory. A nihilist is more and more a hypocrite with every breath he takes. Without some goal, some meaning, even if it simply be to stay alive and see what happens next, we could not actually function. As far as meaning itself is concerned, the content is somewhat vague and arbitrary, but the bare fact of believing in *some* meaning is a necessity. I find Tillich's conception of "Ultimate Concern" here very helpful. Schubert Ogden also wrote a classic essay that centers around this sort of concern called
The Reality of God.
And perhaps I too was a little too hasty and imprecise in giving as an example "other beings have as much right to live as we do" as a morality. I belief that this principle
can be logically and ethically deduced
a priori, but the way it's phrased it's in a more conclusionary form, I skipped some steps. The most basic statement is more accurately the golden rule as it relates to murder/killing. It is simply a fact of social existence that prohibitions against murder are in everyone's self-interest, because *you* don't want to die. No coincidence that it's pretty much always Rule #1 in any code of morals. Now, you can certainly go on claiming that it's still an arbitrary rule, but if that's arbitrary, then I'm not quite sure what isn't, except for pure mathematics.
Suffice it to say that other rules begin to follow from the necessity of meaning and the prohibition of killing which are logical and necessary by the very nature of social systems... but I won't argue the point any further here. I understand where you're coming from, but I suppose we may have to amiably disagree on this point.
I am unaware of the Bible prohibiting artifical cloth? Are you referring to the ban on mixed cloths, so no cotton/wool blends?
The basic moral principles we use to decide that homosexual marriage is a legitimate social institution (which may be different) are not better developed, more philosophical, more logical, or less arbitrary than the position based on natural law that many religous people use to say such marriages should not be legalized. Sure, not every Christian can actually quote and defend their positon in natural law, just as not every atheist can reach back to the basic principles of libertarianism, social justice, or whatever else they may be using. However, the intellectual leaders of these movements most certainly can do so.
Yeah, I was more referring to just the mixed cloths, with is pretty much everything these days.
And I'm really not talking about gay marriage
per se. As I've argued, I really don't think marriage is what this whole thing is about, it's basic acceptance of homosexual relationships. And my position is that homosexual relationships - forgetting for the moment all the political minutiae of "marriage," which really just confuse the issue - are not harmful to anyone, and are quite clearly beneficial to many... most notably the couple, but also those around them. I suppose you can continue to say that I'm "reach(ing) back to the basic principles of libertarianism [and] social justice," but I again take it as an incontrovertible fact that a relationship which produces no harm, but only good, can never be an immoral one, and can thus on no reasonable basis be disallowed. Once again, if someone can provide me some reason that homosexuals being together is harmful to anyone, I'm all ears. I've never heard one that makes the least bit of sense.
Not at all. Anyone who spends time discussing atheism online has to face, at one time or another, people asking what stops atheists frombehaving anti-socially. We are constantly expected to show we have a solid moral foundation in these discussion, and there is little incentive to point out that the foundation is really built on the accumlation of individual preferences within a society. But, that is how I see it.
I should perhaps note that I'm not actually an atheist. I was about 8 years ago, but no longer. Admittedly, I often find more common ground with atheists than I do with theists - and, not incidentally, there is probably no other poster that I respect on this board more than you, One Brow, and I think we agree on more than this discussion might suggest. Your arguments are always very rational and carefully considered, and I tend to agree with about 95% of what you say, and 100% of where you're coming from, so to speak.
The fact is that agnosticism is still the most rational position, since believing in the nonexistence of God has as little rational and empirical basis as the belief that there is a God (the trouble, of course, is what you actually mean by "God"). But I believe that morality and meaning must ultimately be based in God... after all the study and thought I've put into it, it makes more sense to me. I retain an undeniable rationalistic emphasis, which is why I've found myself so drawn to the writings of Charles Hartshorne. The God painted by most Christians always seemed unbelievable to me, but Hartshorne, incredibly, was able to paint a picture of God that made sense. Read
The Divine Relativity (
link) and you'll see what I mean... it's pretty much the most classic statement of Process theism.
Anyway, that was pretty much one gigantic tangent, but I think we're both interested in precision in our positions. I always enjoy discussions of this kind.
