It’s not about the argument. It’s about portraying atheists as people who fuck dead animals. As with every religious argument it’s completely founded in bad faith whataboutism because the religious know they don’t have any actual arguments to make. The goal is noise so that you can’t hear about the absolutely moronic basis of their beliefs.
This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That’s the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
Edit: To sum up, my counter argument is that yes, all morality is relative. I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Humans have the ability to reason and reject moral viewpoints which they collectively find repulsive. They do not have to accept it just because someone else thinks that way.
I think there are (at least) two things wrong with the argument:
it assumes that there can be no source of absolute morality aside from religion, ignoring centuries if not millennia of moral philosophy/ethics (which at least tries to answer the question seriously).
even if nonreligious sources of morality don’t exist, the argument assumes that religion is a source of absolute morality. since conflicting religions exist, the religionness-property alone is not enough to validate religion as a source of absolute morality.
It doesn’t assume that there is no source of absolute morality. It says that religious people are incorrect to derive their absolute source of mortality from a deity, whether it exists or not
I prefer to frame the argument like this:
“If you found out your God didn’t exist, would you go around killing people? Why not?”
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
It sounds an awful lot to me like Christians want to fuck horses. Or at the VERY least, they spend a concerning amount of time thinking about fucking horses.
More succinctly, the argument is: without religion, there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others. Acts that have no chance of being discovered would therefore not be subject to any moral judgment and must be permissible, even if clearly wrong.
This is a contradiction with those acts being clearly wrong.
There are multiple ways of attacking this naive argument.
I would argue that the assertion “there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others” is absolutely 100% correct. People’s moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there’s nothing wrong with that.
I’m almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer “yes” to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be “no”.
Society will never find out, so they will have no opportunity to answer the question. Are you saying that what matters is not actual disapproval, but hypothetical disapproval?
Anyway, like I said, there are multiple ways of attacking the argument. Accepting the unpalatable logical conclusion of total relativism is one of them.
Uh, yeah, that’s how rules work. If you do something that’s against the rules, you’ve broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn’t a concrete thing that exists. It’s an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
I think fornicating with an animal is no worse than voring it, and I know dozens of people who vore animals. Personally, I’m vegan, except for kangaroos and bees.
Kangaroos will overpopulate and destroy habitats of other animals through overgrazing if they aren’t hunted. The government sets a hunting quota, and if it isn’t reached, they organise cullings. Culled kangaroos are dumped in ditches or mass graves to rot. It’s better for them to be hunted so someone benefits from all that death.
Bees can fly and make intelligent decisions about where to put their hive, so beekeeping is kinda consensual. As much as a bee can consent, anyway. If a nest location is unsuitable, bees will swarm and find a new nest. They’re used to planning ahead by months and judging local resource conditions. However, some beekeepers clip the queen’s wings to prevent swarming, and I think this is completely unethical and inexcusable. But outside of that, the way beekeepers prevent swarming is by helping their bees and giving them a good life. In fact, taking honey can even be good for the bees! Sometimes bees will fill all of their comb with honey and won’t have enough space to raise eggs. It’s called being honeylogged. Honeylogged hives will swarm to go find a new nest, just cause they had too much honey!
What does this have to do with atheists?
It’s not about the argument. It’s about portraying atheists as people who fuck dead animals. As with every religious argument it’s completely founded in bad faith whataboutism because the religious know they don’t have any actual arguments to make. The goal is noise so that you can’t hear about the absolutely moronic basis of their beliefs.
This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That’s the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
Edit: To sum up, my counter argument is that yes, all morality is relative. I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Humans have the ability to reason and reject moral viewpoints which they collectively find repulsive. They do not have to accept it just because someone else thinks that way.
I think there are (at least) two things wrong with the argument:
It doesn’t assume that there is no source of absolute morality. It says that religious people are incorrect to derive their absolute source of mortality from a deity, whether it exists or not
I prefer to frame the argument like this:
“If you found out your God didn’t exist, would you go around killing people? Why not?”
Many would.
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
It sounds an awful lot to me like Christians want to fuck horses. Or at the VERY least, they spend a concerning amount of time thinking about fucking horses.
Well obviously they don’t think about fucking horses, that would just be weird. Children, on the other hand…
Tons of other violent crimes, too. Asking someone why they don’t commit mass rape if they don’t think they’re being watched is wild.
More succinctly, the argument is: without religion, there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others. Acts that have no chance of being discovered would therefore not be subject to any moral judgment and must be permissible, even if clearly wrong.
This is a contradiction with those acts being clearly wrong.
There are multiple ways of attacking this naive argument.
I would argue that the assertion “there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others” is absolutely 100% correct. People’s moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there’s nothing wrong with that.
Is it wrong to murder a loner with no family if you don’t make them suffer?
Most people don’t actually believe the boo-hurrah theory of ethics (as it’s called by its detractors).
I’m almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer “yes” to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be “no”.
It’s a great example of how morality is relative.
Society will never find out, so they will have no opportunity to answer the question. Are you saying that what matters is not actual disapproval, but hypothetical disapproval?
Anyway, like I said, there are multiple ways of attacking the argument. Accepting the unpalatable logical conclusion of total relativism is one of them.
Uh, yeah, that’s how rules work. If you do something that’s against the rules, you’ve broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn’t a concrete thing that exists. It’s an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
I think fornicating with an animal is no worse than voring it, and I know dozens of people who vore animals. Personally, I’m vegan, except for kangaroos and bees.
I’m afraid to ask. Why are kangaroos and bees an exception?
Kangaroos will overpopulate and destroy habitats of other animals through overgrazing if they aren’t hunted. The government sets a hunting quota, and if it isn’t reached, they organise cullings. Culled kangaroos are dumped in ditches or mass graves to rot. It’s better for them to be hunted so someone benefits from all that death.
Bees can fly and make intelligent decisions about where to put their hive, so beekeeping is kinda consensual. As much as a bee can consent, anyway. If a nest location is unsuitable, bees will swarm and find a new nest. They’re used to planning ahead by months and judging local resource conditions. However, some beekeepers clip the queen’s wings to prevent swarming, and I think this is completely unethical and inexcusable. But outside of that, the way beekeepers prevent swarming is by helping their bees and giving them a good life. In fact, taking honey can even be good for the bees! Sometimes bees will fill all of their comb with honey and won’t have enough space to raise eggs. It’s called being honeylogged. Honeylogged hives will swarm to go find a new nest, just cause they had too much honey!
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_meat#Kangatarianism
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/108w7tt/the_great_honey_debate_is_honey_vegan/