A few months ago buses began rolling ads through the streets of London arguing that people should be good for goodness sake, forget about that God guy. Now the ads are coming to New York City with the slogan, "A million New Yorkers are good without God -- Are you?"
Am I? Nope.
Suppose I just got off the subway and I saw someone's grandmother attempting to cross the street after buying groceries. Should I help her across the street or roundhouse kick her to the face and steal her groceries? Which would be the correct moral option here?
Now think about this for a second. We have two actions to choose from. We shall call roundhouse kicking her to the face A for Awesome, and helping her across the street B for Boring. It's completely possible for me to choose either one. Which is morally right though? A or B?
What's the standard that I'm going to appeal to figure out which one is good? Where's the moral measuring device?
Is it the actions themselves? Morality refers to what ought to be. The actions are merely what could take place. You cannot infer whether something is good or bad by merely observing what took place. Nature is what takes place and nature has no moral properties. We need something beyond what is or might be.
Suppose I refer to myself. Morality is how I personally feel about A and B. Suppose I saw grandma buy a Klondike Bar, and, you know, what would I do for a Klondike Bar? Well, I'd friggin' roundhouse kick grandma to the face, that's what. It's morally good for me to choose A because that's how I feel about it.
I guess, then, Hitler was just as morally good as Mother Teresa. The same goes with Martin Luther King and the KKK. They merely had different personal feelings on humanity and civil rights. Erm.. but that can't be right. We need something beyond nature and personal opinion.
Ah, the culture, it must be the culture. Whatever the culture at the time decides is morally right. Grandma seems like a nice lady, and I think there's some law somewhere saying we shouldn't roundhouse kick nice ladies in the face, so that must be the right option.
But what if there was some society somewhere that decided once you became a grandmother instead of birthday presents everyone would roundhouse kick you in the face? If we came across it how could we attempt to tell them that they should only do that if grandma was about to eat the last Klondike Bar? We couldn't do anything about it! The society currently held that A was morally right and thus any attempts to reform culture is arguing against the status quo and therefore morally wrong. So unless Martin Luther King and homosexual activists are necessarily morally wrong, then we also need something beyond society.
What could be beyond the natural world, myself, and society that sets the standard for what's right and wrong? I guess for the atheists it would be nothing. And therefore, for them, there is no grounding for what's right and what's wrong.
My suggestion, then, is to remove the moral category from their ads until they find some basis for morality without God. The new ad sans the ethical dimension reads, "A million New Yorkers are without God--Are you?"
Am I? Nope.
How good of them to advertise for God like that. The ACLU better crack down before they go about offending someone.
Am I? Nope.
Suppose I just got off the subway and I saw someone's grandmother attempting to cross the street after buying groceries. Should I help her across the street or roundhouse kick her to the face and steal her groceries? Which would be the correct moral option here?
Now think about this for a second. We have two actions to choose from. We shall call roundhouse kicking her to the face A for Awesome, and helping her across the street B for Boring. It's completely possible for me to choose either one. Which is morally right though? A or B?
What's the standard that I'm going to appeal to figure out which one is good? Where's the moral measuring device?
Is it the actions themselves? Morality refers to what ought to be. The actions are merely what could take place. You cannot infer whether something is good or bad by merely observing what took place. Nature is what takes place and nature has no moral properties. We need something beyond what is or might be.
Suppose I refer to myself. Morality is how I personally feel about A and B. Suppose I saw grandma buy a Klondike Bar, and, you know, what would I do for a Klondike Bar? Well, I'd friggin' roundhouse kick grandma to the face, that's what. It's morally good for me to choose A because that's how I feel about it.
I guess, then, Hitler was just as morally good as Mother Teresa. The same goes with Martin Luther King and the KKK. They merely had different personal feelings on humanity and civil rights. Erm.. but that can't be right. We need something beyond nature and personal opinion.
Ah, the culture, it must be the culture. Whatever the culture at the time decides is morally right. Grandma seems like a nice lady, and I think there's some law somewhere saying we shouldn't roundhouse kick nice ladies in the face, so that must be the right option.
But what if there was some society somewhere that decided once you became a grandmother instead of birthday presents everyone would roundhouse kick you in the face? If we came across it how could we attempt to tell them that they should only do that if grandma was about to eat the last Klondike Bar? We couldn't do anything about it! The society currently held that A was morally right and thus any attempts to reform culture is arguing against the status quo and therefore morally wrong. So unless Martin Luther King and homosexual activists are necessarily morally wrong, then we also need something beyond society.
What could be beyond the natural world, myself, and society that sets the standard for what's right and wrong? I guess for the atheists it would be nothing. And therefore, for them, there is no grounding for what's right and what's wrong.
My suggestion, then, is to remove the moral category from their ads until they find some basis for morality without God. The new ad sans the ethical dimension reads, "A million New Yorkers are without God--Are you?"
Am I? Nope.
How good of them to advertise for God like that. The ACLU better crack down before they go about offending someone.
No comments:
Post a Comment