|
|
Post by abc123xyz on Mar 29, 2012 3:14:30 GMT
I was discussing ethics with an atheist friend, and he approaches morals from the point of view of what brings the most pleasure, so he is basically a hedonist. I argued that hedonism is selfish (even if as a moral system advocates pleasure for all or most of us) because it can only look at things from the perspective of how it benefits US, and there is no moral law outside of ourselves. He then replied that even if we follow some abstract moral law that exists outside of ourselves, such as from a God, we are still selfish, because the reasons we chose to follow those rules are what makes us happy. He claims that even if we gain nothing physically from a good deed, and even if we don't do good deeds with the intention to make ourselves feel better, we still derive happiness from the fact that we follow this so-called "objective moral truth" that exists outside of ourselves, because we know that it is objectively provable that it is "moral". He is basically saying that, even if objective morality exists, our motivation to follow such abstract laws ultimately are selfish because we are happy knowing we are doing the right thing.
What reply can I give?
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 29, 2012 3:33:30 GMT
I was discussing ethics with an atheist friend, and he approaches morals from the point of view of what brings the most pleasure, so he is basically a hedonist. I argued that hedonism is selfish (even if as a moral system advocates pleasure for all or most of us) because it can only look at things from the perspective of how it benefits US, and there is no moral law outside of ourselves. He then replied that even if we follow some abstract moral law that exists outside of ourselves, such as from a God, we are still selfish, because the reasons we chose to follow those rules are what makes us happy. He claims that even if we gain nothing physically from a good deed, and even if we don't do good deeds with the intention to make ourselves feel better, we still derive happiness from the fact that we follow this so-called "objective moral truth" that exists outside of ourselves, because we know that it is objectively provable that it is "moral". He is basically saying that, even if objective morality exists, our motivation to follow such abstract laws ultimately are selfish because we are happy knowing we are doing the right thing. What reply can I give? I think christians try to obey God's because we love him and want to please him. It's not selfish at all, because he has already given me everything. Your friend (I suggest) doesn't understand christianity is all about grace and our free response. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 29, 2012 6:15:56 GMT
Ask for objective proof of this claim. |
|
syzygy
Master of the Arts
Posts: 103
|
Post by syzygy on Apr 3, 2012 14:32:03 GMT
On the other hand, what if the atheist friend is right and we do follow objective moral law for hedonist reasons? That hardly proves atheism. There are a couple possible answers, and I'm not sure which I would wholly endorse:
1. That (hedonism) is the human condition but not the graced human condition.
2. Grace can even work through the human condition, however selfish it is.
3. Virtue is precisely the ability to find joy in obeying the objective moral law as opposed to doing whatever I feel like doing. Of course, even virtue has to start somewhere. Perhaps it starts with knowledge, or grace, or both.
|
|
