Atheistic forms of morality

[MORON]

How can there be "logical consistency" in a system based on a fundamental irrationality which you assume we all have in common? Do you criticize people for having the wrong irrationality, or implementing it imperfectly?

Logic is an inductive tool, not a complete fundamental basis in itself. (you can not deduce morality and purpose, for example) Logic is a tool to guide our 'not rationally based' motivations.

We criticize people for failure in rational cognition and behaviour, however we can not really criticize people for irrational motivation. (we can none the less restrain them if they crosses us or the rest of society)

And why are we listening to that irrationality? There are plenty of people who can get it to shut up even though they have it, and they may be more materially successful for shutting it up. You can argue that they're "miserable on the inside," but aside from that being an obvious conjecture based on your own feelings, moral behavior brings its own share of grief sometimes. What's wrong with a little existential Bad Faith?

Because we are idiots that can't.

If given a choice, wouldn't it be better to be happy doing anything and everything reguardless of the external environment. But just because that would be nice does not mean we can reprogram out own minds just like that.

-----------------------------------
There is a good chance of concluding that life is pointless (and thus everything is pointless) if given logic alone anyways......as logic certainly can not deduce or induce a purpose.....

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
How can there be "logical consistency" in a system based on a fundamental irrationality which you assume we all have in common? Do you criticize people for having the wrong irrationality, or implementing it imperfectly? And why are we listening to that irrationality? There are plenty of people who can get it to shut up even though they have it, and they may be more materially successful for shutting it up. You can argue that they're "miserable on the inside," but aside from that being an obvious conjecture based on your own feelings, moral behavior brings its own share of grief sometimes. What's wrong with a little existential Bad Faith? Just hum, hum, hum, and shut your eyes one way or another, and all the problems go away...of course it disgusts us, but Orwellian doublethink can take care of that even if you have to enforce it yourself. As long as you're happy with yourself, good and evil don't mean squat, do they? I'm not talking about grand supervillainy that you announce to the UN while twirling a Whiplash 'stache. Evil comes in all shapes and sizes. If nobody sees you pinching $200 from a Hurricane Katrina relief fund, and it helps you to buy a new stereo, and any misgivings you might have are quashed by excuses that society has been keeping you down for years....

As to your question about killing, I'm not sure. I ought to, but it would be difficult. Kierkegaard had a ball with that scenario, as I recall. "How do I know it's God?" Et cetera. Supposing I did, what would distinguish listening to God, who could presumptively announce Himself as a voice in my head, from the conscience? Are you just prejudiced against unexplained directives from nowhere that happen to be self-aware?

Given that religion is an irrational human creation (which I would argue is shown by the immense multiplicity of "truths" different religions claim to exist), I failt o see any real difference between theistic moral systems and atheistic ones.

As for a basis for morality: humans beings do not come out of thin air- humans are social apes, and as such, a certain number of basic rules are needed to prevent chaos within the social structure. The most common moral pronouncements, those that are essentailly universal (bans on murder [defined as killing a full member of your own group], theft, adultery [depending on the form of marriage allowed]) are obviously necessarty for keeping order. Moral pronouncements beyond this are based on the opinions of those in power, who invariably shape the lives of those beneath them.

[Flip McWho]

Personally, a non religious morality is far better because it removes the reliance on God. Mainly, there is no reason to follow whatever code is within the book, unless you believe that there is a God and that whatever form his rules take are accurate. That of course assumes you're following the rules outta fear of Gods all mighty retribution.

Basically, we need to have a non religious moral system to cater for the folk who think the religious ones are boogus (mainly because of not believing in God).

Hopefully that makes some sense.

[Immortal Wombat]

What GePap said. Morality is our hindsight rationalisation of behavioural habits which have been part of humanity since forever. Religious morality was based on justifying the rules to a set of apes whose behaviours had become more complex than instinct. Kant and Mill were seeking logical frameworks to hang "act such that society continues to function" on.

The central question of morality is not why we want to do what is 'right', but why we don't do what is 'wrong'. And that does have an evolutionary explanation. Being altruistic may be tricky to make selectively advantageous, but punishing individuals who are excessively selfish is very advantageous. Immoral actions are, broadly, those which cause the immoral individual to gain at the expense of the group, or members thereof. Things like theft, rape, owning a corporation. The Origin of Virtue is a good book on the evolutionary heritage of morality, if you are interested.

[LDiCesare]

If, by "neuter and sterile insects," (Darwin) meant worker bees and the like, that's not what I mean by altruism. In a colony like those of social insects, the group acts in unison so thoroughly that the actions of the group are like those of one single entity. Given that the whole hive/colony shares only a few different parents at most, they're all acting to preserve the same genetic material, whether in their own bodies or others'. Human altruism can sometimes lead us to stick our necks out for complete strangers. If, say, hiding Jews from the Nazis were an evolutionary trait, it would not be especially successful. At least, I don't imagine it would.

Darwin talks about ants but also termites. Termites are very interesting since the individuals decide to become neuter and keep a single queen anyhow.
Humans do not stick out their necks for complete strangers. They do it for humans, not bears, wolves or scorpios.
Altruism works because it is expected that the other will act in an altruistic way too, and thus give it back to you, or to someone else who will help you.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok


Well, I've run into problems being "concise" about it before, and "precise" is a tough task. I'd hoped my following arguments would answer your question as well. Here goes nothing...

What I'm asking is, how do you determine "right" or "wrong" independent of a religious belief? We all have inclinations towards acting a certain way (don't steal, lie, or kill, and so on), but without a logical reason for them these are just instincts like any other, and as such measurable only in terms of their usefulness for survival. And sometimes morality can be a bother, not "useful" at all.

Various religious systems explain morality in different terms. Some of them don't explain it terribly well, but given the truth of the assumptions they are based on, however wacky those assumptions may seem, they present a cohesive system of behavior that is (more or less) internally consistent. Biblical literalists I don't know about, I've never been one. I grant you that they can be bonkers, but not all religious people are nutty like that.

Without a religion, why not kill? Why not steal? Why not lie? Assuming it were possible to get away with it, of course.

I'll give you the same answer that I gave in another thread on this.

1) No, you can't get somewhere from nowhere. I hold certain moral axioms to be true. These axioms are "unprovable", but from them you can derive the correct behaviour in any situation (at least theoretically). When actions conform to my moral axioms they are "right". When they don't they are "wrong".

2) The way I arrive at these axioms is by gauging the "desirability" (an undefined concept) of the actions suggested by them in multiple situations.

3) Axioms are also judged on their universality and their simplicity (their "elegance", as it were). A well-built moral code is simple, universal, comprehensive and leads to no repugnant conclusions.

4) Others may end up with a completely different moral code from my own. These may be as far-removed as one of my friends', who takes the Ayn Rand view of things (selfishness is all). That doesn't really matter to me. I will stop others from violating my moral code when it becomes imperative, no matter their justification in their own minds.

Ultimately, I live by my own moral code (one which places equal value on all people's well-being) because I choose to. No more or less. Does it matter whether I choose to because human beings innately love their fellow man or because it's driven into them by their parents et al? Not really.

[KrazyHorse]

Elok, your question is easily extensible to any action. Why do anything? You're assuming that the only thing anybody should place any value on is their own comfort. Why? I find myself placing value on the quest for knowledge, the satisfaction in a job well-done, the well-being of my fellow human beings etc. I don't know why I do, but I do. "Because it was evolved" is just a cop-out when it comes to explaining why human beings avoid discomfort. Human beings are sources of all kinds of behaviour that don't make any sense from a purely evolutionary standpoint.

[Sandman]

To add to what others have said: seeking a purely logical basis for morality is pointless, with or without God.

[Elok]

Okay, let's tackle the overnight backlog, starting with Zevico:

I don't know what you mean by "applying my own axioms." I understand that I have my system and various atheists/agnostics have various systems of their own. I just still don't see how the others make any sense at all. The situation within Christianity is a bit complex, but for the sake of argument let's reduce it to "don't sin or you'll go to hell." Within that context, it makes sense not to sin. There are weaknesses, such as the reliance on faith (some, obviously, consider that to be a huge weakness), but if there is a God the system of morality itself has an incentive to be followed which makes clear sense.

What I have heard here thus far is mostly descriptions of how moral impulses work to affect people, and how they act on them. I had not heard any good reason to listen to those impulses when there is profit in ignoring them [I am responding only to Z's post, I'll get to later objections later]. There is nothing to distinguish "do not kill" from obedience to a hypothetical urge to wear banana peels on one's head. It's just an inane compulsion that gets you nothing. And I submit that the compulsion can, with effort, be stifled or ignored. Not spectacularly; gross violations will earn retribution from others. But abusing the helpless occasionally when nobody's looking costs nothing, and neglecting to stand up for justice is easily justified by fear for one's own well-being. Within limits, crime does pay, and handsomely.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, let's tackle the overnight backlog, starting with Zevico:

I don't know what you mean by "applying my own axioms." I understand that I have my system and various atheists/agnostics have various systems of their own. I just still don't see how the others make any sense at all. The situation within Christianity is a bit complex, but for the sake of argument let's reduce it to "don't sin or you'll go to hell." Within that context, it makes sense not to sin. There are weaknesses, such as the reliance on faith (some, obviously, consider that to be a huge weakness), but if there is a God the system of morality itself has an incentive to be followed which makes clear sense.

What I have heard here thus far is mostly descriptions of how moral impulses work to affect people, and how they act on them. I had not heard any good reason to listen to those impulses when there is profit in ignoring them [I am responding only to Z's post, I'll get to later objections later]. There is nothing to distinguish "do not kill" from obedience to a hypothetical urge to wear banana peels on one's head. It's just an inane compulsion that gets you nothing. And I submit that the compulsion can, with effort, be stifled or ignored. Not spectacularly; gross violations will earn retribution from others. But abusing the helpless occasionally when nobody's looking costs nothing, and neglecting to stand up for justice is easily justified by fear for one's own well-being. Within limits, crime does pay, and handsomely.

If you relate Christian moral to its context, then you can (and should) do the same for any other form, and justify it within its own context. In that sense the reason "do not kill because it is bad for stability of a society" (or because it endangers your own life - reciprocity, or because of other things) is much more concrete than "because God said it is a sin" when God is unprovable itself.

[Elok]

Okay, moving along. With Kuci I seem to be arguing in circles; I still don't see what the reason is to listen to this crazy urge, regardless of our system for listening.

"MORON": You can't defuse your conscience entirely, but you can drug it into complacency by all sorts of means. That's why the conscience is such an unreliable guide. I suspect the conscience is also largely formed by our upbringing, given the diversity of opinions held by different cultures on different things.

GePap (and others, for now; breakfast waits for no man): I'm not just talking about grand villainy here. There are plenty of minor evils: blackmail, forgery, spreading false rumors about one's competitors, promise-breaking, identity theft, bandwidth-looting, manipulating emotionally vulnerable women for sex, you name it. Some of them aren't even illegal.

[Kuciwalker]

Okay, moving along. With Kuci I seem to be arguing in circles; I still don't see what the reason is to listen to this crazy urge, regardless of our system for listening.

It's not just crazy urges: it's my brain. I don't have a reason for listening to it because what my morality describes is my behavior itself.

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Atheistic forms of morality

Originally posted by Elok


Or, look at lions. It's not very nice to wait for a hyena to hunt down an animal and kill it, then drive said hyena away from the kill with your superior size and eat it all. But lions have probably been getting away with that little trick since before the existence of human beings. It works. Is there a reason they shouldn't do it?

'Nice' is a pointless term to use with animals with no terms of reference for 'niceness'.

Lions of course (if they had more sense) would turn from hunting/scavenging to slash and burn agriculture or farming to guarantee a steady all year round supply of food. Of course they'd have to work harder, and wouldn't be able to sleep in the sun so much, but that's the price to pay moving from one successful survival mode to another.

Being carnivores, they'd find this difficult, I suspect.

You are of course missing out on the aspect that allows lions to perpetuate themselves- cooperation, mutual assistance.

Even insects not in the ant or bee families cooperate to preserve themselves- the larvae of some species feed and travel together- if any lag behind, the ones in front tap on the tree bark to enable the stragglers to catch up. If predators appear, the larvae huddle together, in a hairy mass and exude a foul smelling vomit.

[Agathon]

Kant seems to think that the categorial imperative is a rule of reason, much like the other rules of reason he describes.

If you want an answer to the question: "why not be an evil selfish bastard?", you already have it.

Do you want to be that sort of person? Most people don't. The people who do seem to have a very limited understanding of morality in any case. Nobody expects dogs to be moral reasoners. I've often wondered why people expect all other people to be moral reasoners when some patently aren't.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok


Christianity is ambiguous towards slavery at worst. The justifications for slavery to be found in the Bible are pretty slim. The rest of the "evidence" involves selectively reading parts of the Old Testament while ignoring the New.

Christianity would appear to be based on the Old and the New Testament.

Many of the people who justified slavery used 'reasons' and logic embedded in the Old Testament- that is to say, what the 'founder' of Christianity believed in, Jesus being a Jew.

Slavery was seen as a necessary consequence of the Fall of Man; circular logic led to the reasoning that Africans were enslaved because they were inferior, and inferior because they were slaves.

They were deemed to have benefited from the slave trade, being taken out of heathen bondage and into the light of the Christian world.

The 'blackness' of Africans was linked with the curse of Ham and with night, sin and ignorance, thus it was right for them to be enslaved as a punishment from god.

The Old Testament view on slavery:

Deuteronomy 20:14

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

and

Exodus 22:3:

...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

There are other passages too.

The New Testament:

Matthew 18:25:

But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

and again:

Luke 12:45-48:

The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

amongst other passages condoning the ownership of other humans and how they should be treated.