dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/01/83)
Larry Bickford asks Pamela Troy et al By what immutable standards do you define "better" or "uglier"? Somewhere at the bottom of your logic/beliefs/values system, there are some immutable standards. Even "what I think at the time" is going to be measured by or against something. This also affects the issue of "rights." As I noted in the other article, even Jefferson based the concept of "rights" on a Creator - a fixed standard. Without the fixed standard, you have no basis for any measurement of anything. And you have no grounds for complaint if I should choose to end world starvation (Tim's favorite) by nuking the starving ones out of existence. The familiar old argument that never works. What does "immutable" mean? It could mean infallible, or it could mean simply adhered to dogmatically, or it could mean merely the most basic criteria. Someone who judges things better or worse must have criteria, some of which are the most basic, but she need not hold these criteria dogmatically or believe that her judgements are infallible. Criteria of value can be justified by experience; they can not be justified by simply saying "God says so". Nothing is valuable *because* God said so; instead, God says so because it *is* valuable. If God had said that torture was good, would that *make* it good? If not, then God's saying so does not make things good: there is some independent ground for their value. But if there is some independent ground, it is possible to refer to this ground directly. I conclude that atheists are not excluded from ethical knowledge, or from believing in rights. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park Subject: logic and ethics and standards without God Newsgroups: net.religion Larry Bickford asks Pamela Troy et al By what immutable standards do you define "better" or "uglier"? Somewhere at the bottom of your logic/beliefs/values system, there are some immutable standards. Even "what I think at the time" is going to be measured by or against something. This also affects the issue of "rights." As I noted in the other article, even Jefferson based the concept of "rights" on a Creator - a fixed standard. Without the fixed standard, you have no basis for any measurement of anything. And you have no grounds for complaint if I should choose to end world starvation (Tim's favorite) by nuking the starving ones out of existence. The familiar old argument that never works. What does "immutable" mean? It could mean infallible, or it could mean simply adhered to dogmatically, or it could mean merely the most basic criteria. Someone who judges things better or worse must have criteria, some of which are the most basic, but she need not hold these criteria dogmatically or believe that her judgements are infallible. Criteria of value can be justified by experience; they can not be justified by simply saying "God says so". Nothing is valuable *because* God said so; instead, God says so because it *is* valuable. If God had said that torture was good, would that *make* it good? If not, then God's saying so does not make things good: there is some independent ground for their value. But if there is some independent ground, it is possible to refer to this ground directly. I conclude that atheists are not excluded from ethical knowledge, or from believing in rights. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park