Atheistic forms of morality

[Agathon]

Firstly, why do deontologicals have anything to do with religion?

Because deontological ethics is really religious ethics in disguise. I wrote a long post explaining this ages ago. I think Theben made a copy of it, so you could ask him if you can't be arsed wading through a million old threads.

In the end I think that deontological ethics doesn't make much sense outside of a religious perspective.

[Elok]

Agathon pretty much nailed it there. I don't know if it's possible to have ethics without some deontological component though, no matter how miniscule and hidden. Commands which are absolute and independent of reason.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


Intelligent Design and Creation Science are as much science as evolution is science. If the evolutionists want to assume into their analysis that God does not exist that will taint every hypothesis and explanation of the empirical data that they come up with. Everything in our life is informed by our presuppositions.

As a biology major, I find this just plain insulting (especially "evolutionists" as if it were a religion ). Darwinian evolution is one of the best supported concepts is all of science. The creationists twist data, make up BS, or create strawmen in order to trick uneducated laymen who don't understand biology. And, if you think all evolutionary biologists are athiests you are seriously mistaken.

[BlackCat]

Odin, don't waste too much time on this - either he should have called himself "Big fat Troll" or "The Dogmatic" instead of Philosophiser .

[Elok]

Yes, BC, because all of your posts have been perfectly conducive to enlightened, reasonable discussion, haven't they?

Well, no, that's not fair, you're still one-up on this guy. Anyway, to be quite honest Odin's right. Evolution is secular, but it has to be to remain scientific. God can't be reduced to a controlled variable for the sake of experimentation. Intelligent design, no matter how vaguely it's phrased, attempts to describe the supernatural to some extent, and that's about as scientific as scientology.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Agathon pretty much nailed it there. I don't know if it's possible to have ethics without some deontological component though, no matter how miniscule and hidden. Commands which are absolute and independent of reason.

That sort of covers the "commands" embedded in language -- we don't have much choice in the matter of deciding whether or not theft/murder/charity/etc. are wicked or righteous without severe abuse of language. Hell, 90% of the "debate" on abortion is really just a debate on terminology ("abortion is murder!" or "pro-life == anti-woman!") because that's the most direct (i.e. facile) way to claim the moral high ground.

[Elok]

Well, I mean that, for an objective, "real" morality to exist, as opposed to a convenient societal code agreed upon and enforced by fear of reprisal or loss of benefits, you need morality to be an end in itself for all intents and purposes.

The conscience itself is a deontological ethic; for the most part we just follow it, with no clear idea of why we do. Something like that is what I was trying to say, but I get carried away when I start arguing (obviously).

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, BC, because all of your posts have been perfectly conducive to enlightened, reasonable discussion, haven't they?

For sure they have. They might not have been in the form or language that you might have preferred, but that is the risk you take when you start a discussion in an open international forum. I might even have had the indecency to show your faults for wich I'm not sorry.

Well, no, that's not fair, you're still one-up on this guy. Anyway, to be quite honest Odin's right. Evolution is secular, but it has to be to remain scientific. God can't be reduced to a controlled variable for the sake of experimentation. Intelligent design, no matter how vaguely it's phrased, attempts to describe the supernatural to some extent, and that's about as scientific as scientology.

First off, I quite agree with Odin - creationism and ID is pure fantasy without any kind of scientific acknowledge.

Secondly, I think that Odin agrees with me that people has their right to believe in any religion they want as long as they dont try to use that as a scientfic argument.

Last, you are not right about that god can't be reduced to a controlled variable - that is no problem - the problem is that this variable is omnipotent in it's definition and thereby actually can make any theory true. Since real life denies this, then it's reasonable to claim that god doesn't exist.

[Dr Strangelove]

Wouldn't the ethics of "enlightened self-interest" be considered an essentially atheist system of morality? The self-appointed apostles of enlightenment believed that ethical behavior was natural, stemming from the fact that humans were social beings and that ethical behavior was necessary beneficial to the individual. If I don't attack you without just cause you won't attack me. If I respect your property rights you'll respect mine and etc., etc. The humanist and the socialist movements also expound their own systems of ethics.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Last, you are not right about that god can't be reduced to a controlled variable - that is no problem - the problem is that this variable is omnipotent in it's definition and thereby actually can make any theory true. Since real life denies this, then it's reasonable to claim that god doesn't exist.

Uh...run that by me again? How do you make God a controlled variable? Ask Him nicely not to intervene in your experiment and assume the answer is "yes?" Any supernatural being is inherently alien to the "natural philosophy," as it was once called, of science.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok


Uh...run that by me again? How do you make God a controlled variable? Ask Him nicely not to intervene in your experiment and assume the answer is "yes?" Any supernatural being is inherently alien to the "natural philosophy," as it was once called, of science.

Just read what I wrote - I know it's difficult but try it anyway.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Wouldn't the ethics of "enlightened self-interest" be considered an essentially atheist system of morality? The self-appointed apostles of enlightenment believed that ethical behavior was natural, stemming from the fact that humans were social beings and that ethical behavior was necessary beneficial to the individual. If I don't attack you without just cause you won't attack me. If I respect your property rights you'll respect mine and etc., etc. The humanist and the socialist movements also expound their own systems of ethics.

I've heard the phrase "enlightened self-interest" used so many ways that it's lost all meaning to me. It's been used by Randian objectivists, LaVeyan satanists...

But I don't think of ethics as merely not causing trouble. Altruism is the essence of moral behavior, and the opposite of self-interest. Note that I'm not talking about monkeys watching each others' young or some such. If it's a reciprocated convention, it's hardly altruism, just an exchange of favors.

If a rich guy gives to charity for the poor anonymously, it ain't self-interest in any way, shape or form. The odds of the rich guy ever needing somebody else's charity are negligible. It might make him feel good, I guess...do you stretch that to "self-interest?"

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Just read what I wrote - I know it's difficult but try it anyway.

Your explanation was pretty much nonsensical, O condescending one. God is omnipotent....something about God being able to do anything....there's no evidence that everything is possible, therefore God doesn't exist. Something like that. But that defends on the assumption that God is actively intervening and trying to accomplish everything at once. Snuh?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok


Your explanation was pretty much nonsensical, O condescending one. God is omnipotent....something about God being able to do anything....there's no evidence that everything is possible, therefore God doesn't exist. Something like that. But that defends on the assumption that God is actively intervening and trying to accomplish everything at once. Snuh?

No, it was actually quite sencical. Especially since it is common knowledge that god is interfering in what happens on this planet - if not activated by prayers, then by demonstrating gods wrath though different kinds of actions wether it's just a simple storm killing some few people, a hurricane killig more, a tsunmai just more efficient or the best weapon in gods arsenal, an earthquake. Though, I guess that we still have to experience the more deadly meteor or for that matter when the sun decides to change state.

All of those things are considered acts of god and that was just the big ones - several smaller incidents are also his work, so how can you say that god isn't actively intervening ?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, I mean that, for an objective, "real" morality to exist, as opposed to a convenient societal code agreed upon and enforced by fear of reprisal or loss of benefits, you need morality to be an end in itself for all intents and purposes.

The conscience itself is a deontological ethic; for the most part we just follow it, with no clear idea of why we do. Something like that is what I was trying to say, but I get carried away when I start arguing (obviously).

Society enforces laws, not morals. I'm saying society ingrains morals into us through our common language, thus creating or guiding our conscience -- by signing up to play the language game we agree that stealing, rape, and murder are wicked and that charity and mercy are righteous, and we are never given the opportunity to opt out of this game.