Atheistic forms of morality

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
Please people, don't feed the troll!

Fundie bashing:

[Elok]

Originally posted by Drogue

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.

Uh, I think you misunderstand. I mean that there is no practical reason for moral behavior, like I've been saying. There's no apparent benefit in not stealing in situations when you could get away with stealing, and so on. A wrong thing is wrong independent of the consequences, in some situations at least. Don't kill because it's not nice, but who cares about nice? That sort of thing.

GePap: It sounds like you've totally crossed the line into description now, out of prescriptive territory. It's no doubt interesting to note how mores function, but it doesn't say much about the mores themselves.

Re: Philo, let him refute Time Cube. I think that's an elegant enough response. Now, good night.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok

GePap: It sounds like you've totally crossed the line into description now, out of prescriptive territory. It's no doubt interesting to note how mores function, but it doesn't say much about the mores themselves.

The "mores" themselves, at least, the ones you want to discuss, are utterly subjective, variable over time and distance, formed the the societal power structure of the time. To understand these lesser mores you should be talking about society itself and what are the forces at work- that will tell you what its minor mores are.

As for why people follow them, again, training, peer pressure, and fear of punishment.

And I have no intellectual problem with this at all, simply because I KNOW I act out of training, peer pressure, and fear of punishment. I am after all human. I need not demand some absolute version of the rules i decide to follow, nor do I have to fool myself into thinking I have complete rational control over the reasons why I act.

[Berzerker]

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

Not sure when self-conscious individuality enters the picture, but if the group predates morality it doesn't help much in this debate...Simply claiming we are social beings does not prove we get our morality from the group.

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.

I think you over-estimate how many people viewed it as moral, but since you say the vast majority say its moral, where did slavery's opponents get their morality? You didn't answer my question: if the group says slavery is moral, would you disagree? If so, clearly you did not get your morality from the group.

[Drake Tungsten]

I haven't read this thread. I just wanted to point out that this guy is incredibly bitter and this seemed like an appropriate place...

'Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion'

[Berzerker]

I KNOW I act out of training, peer pressure, and fear of punishment.

I act out of conscience first

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


He's CivNation.

What do I win?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok


Uh, I think you misunderstand. I mean that there is no practical reason for moral behavior, like I've been saying. There's no apparent benefit in not stealing in situations when you could get away with stealing, and so on. A wrong thing is wrong independent of the consequences, in some situations at least. Don't kill because it's not nice, but who cares about nice? That sort of thing.

Well, here I simply do not understand you. In praxis people obviously do not always steal or kill when they see a (short-term)-benefit. Are you arguing that most people behave constantly in a way that is bad for themselves (or at least not beneficial)? That's a far more complicated explanation than the idea that people may know that this (moral) behaviour is beneficial on a broader scale.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Philosophiser

Very simple- its called presupposition.

Translation: ignore any scientific data you don't like, and substitute faith in supernatural entities for the tricky bits when you get stuck for a pat answer.

That's like calling fairy stories quantum physics, or magic spells mechanical engineering.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


Indignation at evil is not a sin. And God's anger is not like ours, it is perfect and just. "Vengeance is Mine" Saith the LORD- "I will repay."

And he told you this where and when exactly ?


At deity anger management class ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


I'm an Ivy League grad and I know plenty of Ivy League and Oxford grad friends who agree with me on these issues.

Oh no- he has been to a university, therefore he KNOWS!!!

You don't also double for The Shadow in radio plays too do you ?

Gosh, I know Oxbridge graduates who are atheists, Hindus and Muslims- that's three categories of graduates who wouldn't agree with you in the god-v-god contest.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Elok
Uh, I think you misunderstand. I mean that there is no practical reason for moral behavior, like I've been saying. There's no apparent benefit in not stealing in situations when you could get away with stealing, and so on. A wrong thing is wrong independent of the consequences, in some situations at least. Don't kill because it's not nice, but who cares about nice? That sort of thing.

Why is it the wrong thing? Who says it's wrong? In atheistic morality, that comes from what society/humanity/government says is wrong. In theism that comes from what God says is wrong. Other than that, I don't see the difference. The practical reasons for moral behaviour are always the same two catagories - personal preference and fear of retribution. Some people don't kill because it feels wrong to them (upbringing), and some because God says it's wrong, so they don't want to do it. Some people are scared of the punishment from the law if they commit a crime, others punishment from God.

In all cases, society just takes the place of God. There's no need for absolutes, as society can change the rules as society deems them to be useful or not useful. I would argue a wrong thing is not wrong if it does not have undesirable consequences. I just don't see the need for deontological rules. Why does "real morality" have to be absolute? What's not real about a morality that revolves around doing good for other people?

[Elok]

If it revolves around doing good for other people, you're still stuck asking why you're doing good for other people. If good-to-others is just an end in itself, that's deontological. It has no purpose but itself. You just do it "because it's right." Why is it right? Because it just is.

If utility (good for society) is the end of morals, you run into problems. First, defining the relative value of things. My example of hobo-harvesting for organs; destroying one unhappy life, saving many others. Ultimately, it's more good than bad for society. Unless the hobo's consent is important...but why would it be if the good of society is what matters? If it's a matter of public sentiment, then you can harvest somebody that can be made unappealing, based on race, or a mental or physical handicap. That sort of advantage-taking is hardly without precedent in human history. Whip a Chinese guy, get a railroad. Whip a black guy, get some cotton. While some elements of society did object to slavery on moral grounds, the system was ultimately done in only when it became obsolete as an economic model. That is, it was "bad for society."

There's also the problem of universalizing this, as I've been saying. There are plenty of cases where people benefit more from unethical behavior, even if it does harm society. The top suits at Phillip Morris might be essentially mass-producing death, but they're insulated from all consequences by wealth and bad laws. Odds are that they'll die wealthy, and if their consciences bother them they're bearing it pretty well. Do I even need to mention the Bush dynasty?

You folks seem to have an awfully optimistic appraisal of the goodness of human nature, given that it's failed to prevent Tamerlaine, Vlad Drakul, Hitler, Stalin, Hitler's legions of apparently-perfectly-sane underlings, all the brutal Communist regimes in eastern Europe after WWII, Idi Amin (sp?), Pol Pot...and all those crooked clergymen in the middle ages, but that was all religion's fault, wasn't it? They were possessed by religion. If a humanist organization had been given absolute power over the region instead of the Roman Catholic church, none of that would have happened.

The difference, Drogue, is that most religions acknowledge there's a problem with the moral compass of average human beings. It's immensely difficult to become a better person, and plenty of people give up and turn crooked, just like they do with any ideology, but they're trying to address the problem at the source, not just suppressing it and playing damage control with physical laws. And it happens, ideally, on an individual level. At least, mine does. I have no affiliation with Falwell's nuts, or al-Qaeda, or any other group of lunatics you might think of using as a strawman.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
If it revolves around doing good for other people, you're still stuck asking why you're doing good for other people. If good-to-others is just an end in itself, that's deontological. It has no purpose but itself. You just do it "because it's right." Why is it right? Because it just is.

If utility (good for society) is the end of morals, you run into problems. First, defining the relative value of things. My example of hobo-harvesting for organs; destroying one unhappy life, saving many others. Ultimately, it's more good than bad for society. Unless the hobo's consent is important...but why would it be if the good of society is what matters? If it's a matter of public sentiment, then you can harvest somebody that can be made unappealing, based on race, or a mental or physical handicap. That sort of advantage-taking is hardly without precedent in human history. Whip a Chinese guy, get a railroad. Whip a black guy, get some cotton. While some elements of society did object to slavery on moral grounds, the system was ultimately done in only when it became obsolete as an economic model. That is, it was "bad for society."

Nothing against the description what happened, but IMO here "common good of the society" is just a label for "particular good of those who profit". Because that was certainly not good for the Chinese or the Black guy you mentioned. It comes down how you view society then - as a legally defined community only with membership and granted rights through full citizenship, or as sociological phenomenon, where also slaves would matter. For example you cannot understand ancient Spartan society without looking on the helots, and the good of the Spartiates was hardly good for those helots. In that sense slavery has nothing to do with common good just with particular interests. Wouldn't esp. Christians go beyond the purely legal view (no offense intendet, I really don't know)?

There's also the problem of universalizing this, as I've been saying. There are plenty of cases where people benefit more from unethical behavior, even if it does harm society. The top suits at Phillip Morris might be essentially mass-producing death, but they're insulated from all consequences by wealth and bad laws. Odds are that they'll die wealthy, and if their consciences bother them they're bearing it pretty well. Do I even need to mention the Bush dynasty?

Not sure if I understand your point right here, yes, the evil guys may profit from immorale action, but then we wouldn't say what they did is good for society (like I explained above).

You folks seem to have an awfully optimistic appraisal of the goodness of human nature, given that it's failed to prevent Tamerlaine, Vlad Drakul, Hitler, Stalin, Hitler's legions of apparently-perfectly-sane underlings, all the brutal Communist regimes in eastern Europe after WWII, Idi Amin (sp?), Pol Pot...and all those crooked clergymen in the middle ages, but that was all religion's fault, wasn't it? They were possessed by religion. If a humanist organization had been given absolute power over the region instead of the Roman Catholic church, none of that would have happened.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that way. Also from the rest of this thread I didn't have he impression that it becomes a pure "its all your fault (insert evil side of your choice)"-orgy (ok, with some exceptions).

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Berzerker


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"...

Berzerker, in the Gospel of John Jesus declares to the people that His name is "I AM"; and that "before Abraham was, I AM". I AM is the name of God, which was revealed to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus. Also, the entire crucifixion of Christ would be worthless if He were not God, since the value of his blood would be that of one man, whereas His redemption is only of infinite worth if He was also completely God. Finally, Christ forgave sins, healed, and read minds, and also described Himself coming back to judge the living and the dead- all attributes of God.

As far as the numerical success of a religion- no thats not the only thing you take into account. You take a look at all the other evidences. The only other credible large religion that threatens you with eternal damnation apart from Christianity is Islam, and it is clearly not the true religion. It has no fulfilled prophecies, no miracles, and does not match up with prior revelation. Also, its book is basically a list of commands and quite uninspiring. We can see the fruits of following Islam in the Middle East- poverty, illiteracy, and backwardness. This of course is similar to the fruit of Roman Catholicism (which I and many other Protestant Calvinists consider to be false Christianity) when it was historically left to reign supreme in the Dark Ages.

And there are many other reasons to accept Christ over Islam. The story of the crucifixion itself is a reconciliation of all universal opposites. Christianity also offers one of the few explanations for why there could be evil in this world if God exists. Its explanation is that God allows evil to temporarily exist in order to serve a greater good, and then calls us to participate in that great good through faith in Christ. The only other possibility for a theist would be positing an evil and unjust God who is serving an evil purpose.

In the end what other options do you have besides Christianity and its less credible rival Islam? Either believe in no God or believe in a disinterested God, or believe in some crazy hindu guru that 100 people follow- and risk your eternal damnation in the process.