Atheistic forms of morality

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Elok


Strangelove: Do you think that's why the rich give to charity? To prevent commoner rebellions, or to stabilize the economy? If that's their motive of self-interest, they take an unusually long-term view of things in that one area when they usually gladly drive the competition out of business. Given the complexity of society, they'd have to give a lot to be sure of having an effect. Ultimately, I don't think you can argue that it's self-interest.

Maybe I'm not understanding what your question was. I thought you were asking about the rationale behind secular ethical systems. The three I know of are the (18th century Euro-American) Enlightenment, Humanism and Socialism. Are you instead asking if there is a biological reason for altruistic behavior? I think that altruistic behavior has several roots: the parent-child bond, the family-kin goup bond, the evolution of social/political groups, and even sexual competition.

[Berzerker]

All that being said- To assume that Christ was a fraud, or that His apostles were all liars, and Christianity's success is total chance- and to risk your eternal damnation- is most unreasonable indeed.

Every major religion has had success. So I'm supposed to base my morality etc on which religion is the most popular instead of my own ability to reason? Jesus told his followers to be wise like the serpent, sounds like an endorsement of reason to me.

Now, I'm a fan of symbolism, metaphor, etc., the language of mythology, and there's quite alot of it in the Bible. This colors my interpretation of the Bible, but it also clues me in on context. I can't find Jesus claiming to be God anywhere, yet this is apparently what Christians believe. But I can find many examples of Jesus referring to God as his Father, as our Father. I see little in common between Jesus' teachings and organised "Christianity"...

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok


Perhaps English isn't your first language? "Act of God" is the name given to natural disasters by insurance salesmen and Pat Robertson (provided at least one person killed by said disaster is/was gay or wiccan). If some people choose to see every unusually strong natural occurence as directly guided by the almighty, that's their business, but I claim no such thing. Frankly, at this point I can't even tell how many layers of sarcasm you're using here, or if you actually think my mind works that simply, or what.

I am not quite sure what planet you are living on - "Act of God" or "guds vilje" do you think that only english speaking people has that conception ?

Just a quetstion - where do you think that "act of god" stems from ? do you really think that it is invented by insurance salesmens ? Isn't it more sane to think that it was first spoken by a cleric ? Actually, isn't it that what every cleric will say when something tragic happens - "don't worry, it gods will" ?

About the question wether I'm sarcastic - well, I do my best not to be it - I prefer to use arguments such as I have done in this thread, but my answers may be sarcastic due to the topic - they might even be considered sarcastic by their content.

Just a last advice : NEVER USE THE ARGUMENT OF PRIMARY LANGUAGE. That just displays your utter stupidity and it is difficult to take anything else you say seriously.

Í consider that as an oups from your side, so I will still listen to you.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Maybe I'm not understanding what your question was. I thought you were asking about the rationale behind secular ethical systems. The three I know of are the (18th century Euro-American) Enlightenment, Humanism and Socialism. Are you instead asking if there is a biological reason for altruistic behavior? I think that altruistic behavior has several roots: the parent-child bond, the family-kin goup bond, the evolution of social/political groups, and even sexual competition.

No, I was asking for the rationale, but I don't think you can have a system of ethics without some component of altruism-I consider altruism the epitome of goodness. And, since it can't be explained by "self-interest" very easily, I consider self-interest inadequate.

[Elok]

BC: I wasn't using it as an argument so much as grabbing at straws. You were making no bloody sense, it almost sounded like your arguments were babelfished. You're still not, if it comes to that. The semantic origins of the phrase "act of god" have no apparent bearing on this. I personally do not think disasters are miraculous divine intervention. If medieval priests did, well, they believed in purgatory too. I don't believe in that either. I am not an ecclesiastical history of the Western world. Just because somebody in a collar believed X at some point in time, that does not mean X can be used as an argument against me.

[Berzerker]

Actually, isn't it that what every cleric will say when something tragic happens - "don't worry, it gods will" ?

Of course, good evidence of a bogus religion.

I don't think you can have a system of ethics without some component of altruism-I consider altruism the epitome of goodness. And, since it can't be explained by "self-interest" very easily, I consider self-interest inadequate.

People feel good when they help others, I'd call that self-interest.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


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?"

MOrality is not based on "self-interest." Morality is based on group interests, and individuals follow it because their own interests are served by group interests. This is because humans are social beings, not atoms. This by the way is also why any ideology or theory that views humans as purely rational atoms mving independently is likely to be false in significant ways.

I would think about it this way- our rationality can best be shown not by the fact people are moral, but the opposite, that they can imagine immorality, criminality, and selfishness.

[Elok]

Ah, sudden idea. Philosophiser, just to get an idea of the difficulty of "refuting" your statements from our perspective, why don't you try to refute the ideas presented at www.timecube.com ? Go ahead, show us how to refute a self-sustaining worldview with no logical restraints.

GePap: ??? Plenty of social animals behave in a manner I would call immoral, even to group members. Gulls are social, but they'll cheerfully swipe food from each other without a second thought.

[Berzerker]

MOrality is not based on "self-interest." Morality is based on group interests, and individuals follow it because their own interests are served by group interests.

There would be no groups without individuals first. If your group is violating the hell out of your personal morality, like practicing slavery or worse, would you leave the group or speak out against the group and its morality? You have the cart before the horse...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok

GePap: ??? Plenty of social animals behave in a manner I would call immoral, even to group members. Gulls are social, but they'll cheerfully swipe food from each other without a second thought.

Does that behavior in any way hurt their group? Gulls don;t hold grudges. Gulls have a minimal at best notion of property. Gulls will happily steal each others food, and FORGET. Therefore, there is no harm whatsoever to the social fabric.

Same could be said of male lions killing male cubs that might be competition- that sort of behavior in the end does not threaten to tear apart any lion pride. In social beings, selfishness is allowed up to the point behavior becomes dangerous to the group. Humans have the "advantage" of being able to rationalize behaviors in ways animals can't, and therefore define both their own self interests and what is best for the group in new, radical ways.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


There would be no groups without individuals first. If your group is violating the hell out of your personal morality, like practicing slavery or worse, would you leave the group or speak out against the group and its morality? You have the cart before the horse...

Not for social beings. And humans are social beings. We decend from social apes. The groups predates self-concious individuality.

As for slavery, it was a widely practice human acitvity for 90% of humanities history, seen in almost all groups. So, for the vast majority of human beings who lived, holding someone else slave was fine and moral.

[Drogue]

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.

Why? Surely that's the point, to an atheist, ethics that are independent of reason are just enforced rules. For a rule to become ethical, it would have to do some good, to be shown to be ethical. To me, ethics have to be dependent on reason, otherwise they're meaningless. If there's no purpose to a moral code, if prohibiting someone from doing something does not do some good, then it's not a moral code I'd agree with.

There's nothing about morality that says it shouldn't be based on reason. Indeed, I'd have argued for it to be good for humanity/society, it has to be based on reason. If it's not, then it could be a very harmful ethical code.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


Pat Roberston if I remember correctly- is a Yale grad and quite intelligent. I'm sure he could hold his own in a debate with any silly Apolytoner .

Robertson is a bigoted piece of sh*t who uses fundimentalism to get people's money. I know many devout christians (including many relatives) that consider you fundies crazy and not true Christians.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
I have no idea what you are talking about- BUT if you think you can refute my claims and prove my system false you are more than free to give it a shot. I posit you can't, your silly immature ad hominems notwithstanding.

Lol! So you post up some system and ask us to prove it's false? What joy! You could post almost anything and it would be unable to be proven false, but that's no reason for believing it. If I believe the world was created by a giant spaghetti monster who rules over us all, how could you prove me wrong? It doesn't make the 'theory' at all plausible, however.

[GePap]

Please people, don't feed the troll!