Yabby...you are begging the question. You essentially have to assume all actions are selfish then because people choose to do them (including the man who lays down his life to save others). The problem with this is that is makes the concept of 'selfish' meaningless.

Bugsy. I think you are completely miss the point. Abstractions do not really have an ontological (objective) existence. You can define something, but there is no way to actually investigate or compare two different abstractions. Money is a good example of this. Everybody values money differently (just as they value the goods money can buy differently). Money is really only worth what each individual person thinks it is worth. But there is no point in me saying that another person is wrong when they value money differently (perhaps spending $1000 on a pair of shoes). There is no ontological (objective) standard of value, only a subjective one.

(As an interesting aside, this is why Da Vinci was unable to paint a 'universal'.)

So saying morality doesn't exist in nature, is making a clear concise statement. Blackburn confirms his view on this by admitting that he can find no basis for morality (what he calls a big R reason), and that all anyone can do is try and force their morality on others.

In essence, this is what Graham argues. That without a supernatural God, there is no real reason to obey any particular moral system (as only subjective possibilities of morality exist), so why wouldn't someone try to get whatever they can..

GP can you please explain how the choice of which god (if any) is any more absolute than the choice of values when you don't believe in such a god.

From my perspective the choice of a god to treat as an absolute source is at least as arbitrary as my choices about ethics, morals values etc. Assuming that you are able to do that you might then explain how you decide which of your gods commands are instructions and which are not meant to be taken literally. All of this without finding yourself in the same boat as us non-thiests.

R0bert

>>From where do we derive our notions of right and wrong and how do/should we decide who is correct?<<

First question: who is the "we" envisaged in this question?

The good citizens of Camden?

People who live in Sydney?

Australians in general?

The whole world?

It is clearly not possible to envisage a set of rules that is by definition "right" for all these constituencies.

Inevitably, this becomes one of those "if you don't believe in God, then your only option is to make it up as you go" discussions.

>>If God is absent the only viable source for such a code is humanity itself. But since we make the moral rules up ourselves they lack any ultimate authority.<<

How about being your own "ultimate authority"?

Everyone has within themselves the wherewithal do determine their own understanding of the line, and the point at which it is crossed. A kiddy-fiddling priest and a kiddy-fiddling atheist are both profoundly aware that what they are doing is wrong.

A cardinal who covers up for a sex offender and an atheist who does the same are equally conscious of the implications of their actions.

Somehow, the god squad has the idea that people who think it's neat to download pornographic pictures of eight year-olds from the internet, have consciously made a decision that it's "ok" to do it.

They know it isn't.

And it makes not a jot of difference if they are religious or atheist.

When they are caught, atheists don't say "but kiddyporn is not a crime, because I'm an atheist and my moral compass says it's ok"?

No, they are fully aware of their wrongdoing. Some are so unable to live with the shame, they top themselves.

Meanwhile, it's apparently ok in the church to cover up a fellow-priest's peccadillos. One can only assume that in their hearts they think they are "pure", and what they have done isn't wrong, really.

On balance, I'd say the atheists have more chance of developing a sense of right and wrong, simply because they have to think about it as individuals.

GP, what makes me so cross is

a) your relentless pushing of god as an objective source of morality. please give me ONE moral truth which you get from your god, and please tell me why it is objective. if you cannot, what the hell is the point of your sermon? what in the end, are you expecting people to do in order to discover this objective morality?

b) your offensiveness and your dishonesty. you claim that you have never denied my moral sense. so what does the title "if you can get away with it, just do it" actually mean? it is one thing to be insulting. to do so whilst pretending not to is slimy.

there is nothing difficult about the questions you posed me. but they are all secondary. none suggest to me any problems with my previous post.

I agree with the preamble, Grey, but not with the conclusion.

>>You essentially have to assume all actions are selfish then because people choose to do them (including the man who lays down his life to save others). The problem with this is that is makes the concept of 'selfish' meaningless.<<

I would come to entirely the opposite view.

The fact that all actions are motivated by a form of self-interest, whether that involves survival - "I think I will run away now" - or self-gratification - "I think I'll save the drowning child because I'll be a hero" - does not invalidate the concept of self-interest.

In fact, they are both examples of how self-interest, self-preservation or simply selfishness itself, are clearly driving the choices we make. At the point where my fear of being branded a coward (because there are people around watching) outweighs my fear of drowning myself, is the point at which I dive in.

Of course, some people would simply dive in regardless. They are described as "brave", and bravery is entirely independent of religious or atheistic leanings.

(As an interesting aside, what exactly is a "universal", and why could Da Vinci not paint one?)

>>...without a supernatural God, there is no real reason to obey any particular moral system (as only subjective possibilities of morality exist)<<

As I pointed out earlier, this is very much beside the point. There is exactly the same reason to obey your own "particular moral system" as there is to obey any other, regardless of the existence or otherwise of a supernatural God

Grey,

I very much I think that your failure to reproduce the quote from Blackburn in context does you no favours. He is not saying what you are arguing he is saying.

The full(er) quote:

‘No god wrote the laws of good and bad behaviour into the cosmos.
Nature has no concern for good or bad, right or wrong’.

The conclusion: "So without something outside of nature, he is saying those concepts don't exist" is a bit wacky mate. It's pretty obvious he is not saying this at all. He is saying that there are no moral absolutes written into nature (nor by extension humans), which is the conclusion reached when a supernatural God is posited as writing them.

In fact, when taken as a full quote, he is not "making a clear concise statement" about anything you seem to be arguing about at all. He actually makes the case AGAINST you.