Good Without God: Ethics for Freethinkers

[zeistermeist]

Ethics hasn't really been seen in the America for numerous reasons, the total implementation of artificial mass media that centered on the sole purpose of commercialization. There is no moral code of ethics taught from the elementary school and up, the system is built to support this dog-eat-dog artificial jungle mentality. No wonder one feels no need to respect, to build meaningful relationship with other human beings on the most fundamental level, but on the total superficial masking level...

[ialvarez357]

They are far too unappealing. Can anyone tell me if they deal w any real issues in contemporary philosophy like Hume's is ought problem and the lack of foundation in secular ethics?

Thanks

[OrderoftheWhiteHand]

@ialvarez357 dude, Hume is from the 18th century. How is that contemporary? ROFL

[ialvarez357]

@OrderoftheWhiteHand

I wrote 'contemporary problem'; It may have been pointed out in the 11th century and if there's no adequate solution or if there's still debate about such problem, that makes it a 'contemporary problem.'

Moreover your comment was on something of little moment (the use of the word contemporary), not particularly germane to my initial question.

[OrderoftheWhiteHand]

@ialvarez357 have you ever read any contemporary meta-ethics? There are tons of proposed answers. Not only that, but the "is-ought" gap is not a problem. It is merely pointing out that you need a meta-ethical and normative theory to reach what you ought to do. In addition, there are virtually no agreed solutions to anything in philosophy (including philosophy of religion). So do not take this as a weakness of secularism, but as an indicator of philosophy's impotency to solve problems.

[ialvarez357]

@OrderoftheWhiteHand

I'm aware of what the is/ought dilemma is, being that I'm the one who mentioned it.

My question was "Can anyone tell me if they (the video) deal w any real issues in contemporary philosophy like Hume's is ought problem and the lack of foundation in secular ethics?"

I thought it was a simple question.

Moreover, can you name some contemporary philosophers whose ethical theories solve the dilemma in your mind?

[sambricky]

I loved Anne the whole time until the end. The religious right give in to nothing. We have not gotten along and the religious right do not put their differences aside. The religious right are predominantly religious and these are the people who are causing the disparity between the rich and the poor and middle class.

[AlainG80]

Anne Klaeysen is both factually wrong and uses anecdotal evidence, how awful!

13:02 "Ethical culture was started in 1876" She clearly doesn't understand the evolutionary process of humanism, there is no single date you can point to.

14:45 "You know right away what's right and wrong"? Clearly she is not a pedagogue/psychologist, even as an adult, we bump our heads. And as far as I know nobody answered the G.E. Moore's open question argument.

[kurtilein3]

about having a political agenda:

in the USA its totally pointless, because your election system DOES NOT PERMIT anything other than republican or democrat. And Obama continued almost all of the human rights violations and destructive policies of the 2nd Bush administration, and in many cases (drone warfare, number of troops at war) Obama escalated it. So due to an effective lack of democracy, the USA is just fucked, the election system sucks and is incompatible with real democracy.

[kurtilein3]

i think the liberalisation of sex seriously screwed two demographical groups: young males, and old/unattractive females. These two groups are just screwed and many individuals in these groups are even driven into suicide.

[jeebersjumpincryst]

@kurtilein3 why do u say this? i dont understand why they come off bad

[kurtilein3]

I strongly disagree with the women when she says humanism is a religion.

she compares it to buddhism and taoism, and here i have to say: some branches of buddhism are NOT religious in much the same way that humanism is NOT religious. i think her definitions are a bit fucked up, for me religion means that there are certain things you just have to believe in, without evidence, in order to be part of the group. that is not true for zen buddhism or humanism, these are philosophies / worldviews.

[kurtilein3]

instantly subscribed to "MassimoPigliucci" channel on Youtube.

[Nostrabar]

Intros are done at 04:55 and discussion starts 06:10 or so.

[kurtilein3]

the first moment, i thought something impossible happened, i looked at the 4 people and recognized none. an english-language panel about that topic and i recognize noone? impossible. But then i could see the names, and of course i know Massimo Pigliucci. Still, 3 new people :) Which is great, of course, its just that..... 4 out of 4 new faces would have been awkward.

[lyelibi]

come on guys

[brandonwainscoat]

fourth ?

[deconverts]

Third! Free thought and the centerforinquiry rocks!

[nontheistdavid]

Second! Atheism rocks!

[MrPhilosopher1950]

FIRST, PHILOSOPHY ROCKS!!!