Jason Lisle #fundie

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Taka No Mi:To whom are we morally responsible? In moral systems that lack a divine component, we are accountable to those around us

Dr. Lisle: Why? There is no rational basis for such an assumption, and it leads to absurd results. If one man were to kill all other humans, then by your definition he is not morally responsible to anyone. Thus, the action cannot be rationally condemned

Tony:No it doesn’t it just seems like you don’t understand the argument if he kills everyone else he himself cannot survive, and again i believe that you wont understand the full crux of the argument

Dr.Lisle:Dr. Lisle: Certainly he can survive. Since he has killed everyone else, he helps himself to their possessions and resources. He has enough food, shelter, clothing, and other resources to last the rest of his life with plenty more. So, why in your worldview would his actions be morally wrong? Or would they?]

67 comments

old comment by DavidS

Our moral basis is self-preservation followed by group preservation, wholly instinctual.

Human beings are genetically engineered to be social animals and seek the company of other human beings. We require the company of other humans, so we have learned to get on with others and have built a moral guide which is basically, treat others nicely and they will let you hang around.

If we look at the Christian moral provided by Yahweh Thou shall not kill’, even Christians will justify killing in self defense, the instinctive preservation of the group is sometimes overwritten by the instinct to preserve the self. If the group is threatened by another group even if the threat is not direct but a perceived threat, such as the dissemination of an ideology from a group who are thousands of miles away we justify marching across those miles and killing the group. Christians are one of the first groups to justify this type of action. “Thou shall not kill’ is quickly forgotten.

old comment by Really?

Lets look at some philsophy:

Nietzche says your entire argument is bunk, that morality based on fear of hell is not morality at all be merely fear of punishment. We do have a moral obligation to those around us because seek the same final fulfillment of existence and becominng.

The man who murders opens himself to be murdered in kind, he that tramples on the rights of others will find that others respond in kind. Further, ever aspect of himself will be juged by history as a negative.

Morality, therefore, derives from our obligations to ourself and our connections to others. Just as Taka says.

Basically Dr. Lisle offers the stick as the reaon for moraity, while Taka is offering the carrot.

old comment by the_ignored

Why is it, that whenever these pea-brain fundies say shit like this, it never sinks in that what they are doing is revealing that without their god belief, that they have no reason to be "moral".

Atheists have plenty of reasons...the law, caring about our friends and family, caring about keeping society going, etc.

Whenever one of those people says something like this, all they're doing is admitting that they don't give a damn about any of the reasons I listed above...they act "moral" just because they figure their sky-daddy is watching them.

Dan Barker showed this in a debate once: He asked: Which is more moral? A guy who stays with his wife because he loves her and cares about her, or a guy who does so just because divorce is "forbidden" in his religion?

Who is really the more moral here?

old comment by John_in_Oz

There is nothing wrong with Dr. Lisle using reduction ad absurdum to try and disprove an argument.
He won the argument, although not the issue, when Taka bit on the question-begging "To whom are we morally responsible." He conflates "Whom do we have moral obligations towards, who is the source of our morality, who must we answer to for our moral actions."
In fact the question is the same type of category error as "If there is no God then who makes the next Kleenex pop up?"
When we choose to behave morally, we do so because it is moral, not because God or anyone else says we have to.
If we are merely abiding by the law or under fear of compulsion, then we are merely behaving pragmatically, even if we are doing the same things that someone behaving morally would do. The distinction is that our behaviour would change if the compulsion were removed if we were only being pragmatic.
True morality recognises that we have moral obligations to other people, but it doesn't think other people create morality.
The comments about how 'you can't drive a 30 year old car' etc. are off the point. That doesn't affect the moral dimension at all. Yes, Dr. Lisle is saying a darnedest thing- but he's doing so to show that Tony's argument leads to absurd results. For that reason this quote doesn't belong here.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

I wouldn't like to be killed/harmed/raped, nor would I want my property stolen/damaged, so why should I do the same to others?

See? Simple Humanistic logic that completely annihilates any & all arguments by fundies, re. 'Morality'.

Hell, the Wiccans, via their Rede:

'An it harm none, do what thou wilt'

Simplifies it even further. You haven't got two argumental subatomic particles to rub together, Jason Lisle & all your ilk.

@Pink Jackboots

"Dr LisLie. "If not for the fear of God, I would murder everybody."

Paraphrased."

Timothy McVeigh. Eric Robert Rudolph. Scott Roeder. They 'feared' God did they not, o fundies...? But then...:

image

God: 2,038,344. Timothy McVeigh: 168 people, including 19 children. Satan : 10 (and only on God's authorisation).

Anon-e-moose: 0.

So, as an Atheist who doesn't 'fear God', I must be fucking up somewhere, re. my 'Morals' eh, right-wing Fundamentalist Christians?! [/hyper-sarcasm]

As proven by the likes of McVeigh, Rudolph & Roeder; also the above pic, psychos of a feather murder together.

Moral: We Atheists has them (as metaphorical/psychological 'compasses'). Do you?

old comment by Noneofyourbusiness

@KittyKaboom

I hate to nitpick, but those societies all had religion or spirituality too. The person being quoted only said "divine component", not the Christian god specifically. At least, in this quote.

Anyway, the "doctor"'s argument fails for starters because the man in question couldn't kill all those people to begin with under the moral system being proposed, because of the pre-existing state in which they're alive and he's accountable to them.

@John_in_Oz

In keeping with what I just said in the paragraph above, the logic doesn't actually lead to the reducto ad absurdum that Dr. Lisle says it does, though Tony (not Taka No Mi) makes a bad defense by invoking pragmatism.

old comment by Adrian

Are you seriously taking Lobo as a model? And then, while the Main Man exterminated his own species (for a school project), he had enough sense not to go on an omnicidal crusade against the rest of the universe: after all, who would brew his beer, fix his space-bike and tend to his "needs" if he killed all sentient beings?

From an ethical point of view, your character would be wrong, even if there was nobody left to condemn him (save his conscience, if a sociopath of that magnitude had one).

And from a pragmatic point of view, you really didn't think things through, Jason. You seem to assume that his act of genocide would make the Earth a giant playground/all-you-can-eat free buffet for your lone survivor. You forget that it would be a playground littered with seven billions rotting corpses (and that is assuming that whatever method you used killed only humans): disgusting and really unsanitary. And without humans to produce/maintain them, every one of the things that make life easier will gradually disappear: no new/fresh food in stores, power plants will end up breaking down, and so will water treatment plants or the roads (that will often be blocked by cars anyway), no new entertainment, nobody for company, help or sex, and so on. At best you'd have to work your ass off as a farmer/hunter while praying that you don't get sick until the day that you find yourself too old/sick/wounded to take care of yourself and you slowly die of thirst and starvation lying in your filth... Does that really sound like a life you'd enjoy?

old comment by Mix Master Mikaeus

@Anon-e-moose:

"I wouldn't like to be killed/harmed/raped, nor would I want my property stolen/damaged, so why should I do the same to others?"

If you were strong enough to do so, no one can stop you from doing what you want-- and thus, morality becomes a moot point.

When you boil it down, morality is merely a shield for the weak multitude to protect themselves from the depredations of the strong few. The proscription on murder is there because the weak do not want to be killed by the strong, so they make it law. Same deal with the laws against theft. They are many and we are few, so the force of their collective wills dictate what is "right" and "wrong".

All morality, then, is a creation of a contest of power. Whosoever wins this contest becomes justice.

The only good argument I know for not killing others is that it would bring down the wrath of the law on me, and that it would not benefit me one bit. But if both were missing, then why not kill?

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

67 comments

Confused?