Atheistic forms of morality

[Kuciwalker]

Have a cookie, molly; he acknowledged that people used religion to justify slavery, then noted that religion was also used to oppose slavery, and thus came to the conclusion you quoted.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Have a cookie, molly; he acknowledged that people used religion to justify slavery, then noted that religion was also used to oppose slavery, and thus came to the conclusion you quoted.

You can keep your biscuits to yourself.

I was correcting the erroneous view that the Bible and Christianity has little to say about slavery, with specific quotes.

Islam of course views freeing slaves as a meritorious and charitable deed.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
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.

If you do it for the sake of immediate reciprocity, it's not what I would call a moral thesis, but mere prudence. Yes, I know, fear of divine punishment. I don't want to get into the more esoteric levels of Orthodox theology (which rely on more than that crude concept of punishment), but for argument's sake look at Hinduism as an example of religious morality. Hindu faith (extremely simplified) posits that we are all facets of a single cosmic essence, and as such all "altruism" is really self-service. Continuous good action leads to an improvement of one's own nature, which in turn leads to a better incarnation in one's next life. At least, that's how I recall it from my eastern religions class; it's been a while. And of course Hinduism in practice has led to less pretty things, the caste system, et cetera. Anyway, the system is convoluted and counterintuitive, but it has internal integrity. It makes sense as a reason for moral behavior, assuming you accept the truth of its precepts. Granted, that's a big if.

Now, look at your examples, "in context." If it is bad for society to be immoral, that only means I need to limit my immorality enough that my own benefits outweigh the inconvenience caused to me by the damage I do to society. I think that's quite possible. If it's fear of retaliation, you pick on the helpless or do it when nobody's looking. Like I said, crime pays sometimes. The clear lesson is not "be moral" so much as "be immoral carefully."

I guess what I'm saying is, even if there's a one-in-a-billion chance that God exists, that's still a one-in-a-billion chance that my creed makes sense. If you have no reason to be moral regardless of circumstances, even the most improbable religion is one up on you. So it seems to me.

And, as always, here's a shout out to my homey Molly for reminding me why he's the sole occupant of my ignore list. Citing common herd behaviors as examples of "altruism," misreading my analogy about lions as an actual moral admonition towards the lion community (or something like that), AND citing the figurative expressions in two parables as literal advice. I salute you, sir!

[Elok]

Originally posted by 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.

Yeah, I get that, but the same could be said if your behavior were of any other type, right? If your moral inclination was only to do the macarena all day, that wouldn't explain why; all it would show would be that, for some reason, it is in Kuci's nature to do a tired dance fad constantly. If we had that one behavior in common (as was the case, a few years back, sadly), that just raises the even more puzzling question of why the deuce we're all doing a lame, repetitive motion just because we feel the itch to. We're not animals, we can choose to act on our impulses or not. Do you follow me?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok


AND citing the figurative expressions in two parables as literal advice. I salute you, sir!

Slaves and servants weren't figures of speech, but real people, owned by other people in the world of the New Testament- as in the case of Paul, Philemon and the slave Onesimus.

How very like you to see the parables, and ignore the historical reality.

Citing common herd behaviors as examples of "altruism,"

I did nothing of the sort- I mentioned them as instances of cooperation and mutual assistance.

If I'd wanted to include 'altruism', I'd have mentioned the adoption of a baby monkey by a troop of baboons, for instance.

...the sole occupant of my ignore list.

Splendid isolation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Yeah, I get that, but the same could be said if your behavior were of any other type, right?

Yes. But they aren't

If your moral inclination was only to do the macarena all day, that wouldn't explain why; all it would show would be that, for some reason, it is in Kuci's nature to do a tired dance fad constantly.

Yup.

There isn't a justification for the moral axioms themselves - they are assumptions.

We're not animals, we can choose to act on our impulses or not. Do you follow me?

And the mechanism by which I choose is described by my morality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, look at your examples, "in context." If it is bad for society to be immoral, that only means I need to limit my immorality enough that my own benefits outweigh the inconvenience caused to me by the damage I do to society. I think that's quite possible. If it's fear of retaliation, you pick on the helpless or do it when nobody's looking. Like I said, crime pays sometimes. The clear lesson is not "be moral" so much as "be immoral carefully."

I'm reminded of the Italian mafia, who are not immoral carefully, but just murder like crazy. However are HUGE Catholics. How do they live with themselves? Well Catholicism has penance. If you confess and do your penance (which isn't all that onerous), you are free. It seems that religions have not be able to prevent immoral behavior and some times justify them because they can't dispel that behavior.

To claim (as it seems) that religion natural makes people act moral because of its interal logic while secular humanism doesn't is strange considering history.

[Elok]

No, I'm saying that, while the Mafia don't behave "morally" as I think of it, without a context I have no way of declaring anything moral at all. The term apparently has no meaning without religious aspects to it. I think the Mafia's particular brand of Christianity is shoddy and fails to fit the source, but if it were somehow true, revolting as it sounds, their actions would make sense, assuming they didn't get caught. It's a crap system, but it is a system.

On that note, I seriously doubt the Catholicism actually MADE them kill; in all likelihood they kill for profit or pleasure and use their perversion of the faith to smother doubt. Had they not chosen religion as a hidey-hole, they would undoubtedly have said they were being opressed by anti-Sicilian elements of society and needed to fight to survive, or something like that. I suspect that, if human civilization ever becomes entirely atheist, people will switch to justifying or excusing their misbehavior in terms of some sort of secular ideology with the same fervor. I don't buy the "evil religion causes misery" boogeyman, for many reasons. But that's another story.

I don't deny that such a thing is repugnant. There are very few systems that cannot be abused, if there are any at all. I'm not trying to convince anyone to be religious, you have to make that decision yourself. I guess I might be fighting for a blank slate. Never thought I'd be a nihilist, though....

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
If you do it for the sake of immediate reciprocity, it's not what I would call a moral thesis, but mere prudence.

Are you searching for an answer that proves that my (atheist) moral code is in itself and purely "good"? I cannot give that (and you can't for religious beliefs), but I also think it is not neccessary, because the practical consequences of certain implementations of moral ideas speak their own language. If the consequences are ok, it is IMO secondary if the justification for the moral code which is implemented there is religious or non-religious. "Murder is wrong" does not become meaningless because I don't relate it to religious moral (because it would be a sin), but argue from another perspective (stability for example, others possible). OTOH I could interpret the religious "murder is wrong, because it is a sin" as not more than the result of the realization that there is a practical need for certain moral standards within a society to make it work somehow. I agree with Gepap's point here that (a somewhat stable) society isn't possible without a certain moral consensus at least about such basic things.

Now, look at your examples, "in context." If it is bad for society to be immoral, that only means I need to limit my immorality enough that my own benefits outweigh the inconvenience caused to me by the damage I do to society. I think that's quite possible. If it's fear of retaliation, you pick on the helpless or do it when nobody's looking. Like I said, crime pays sometimes. The clear lesson is not "be moral" so much as "be immoral carefully."

Seems shortsighted to me. Because, yes, it may be possible that you get away with it, but the pure fact that you take the chance to go after "the helpless" or that you "do it when nobody's looking" introduces the risk that others go after you in the same way. Why should anybody stronger than you act otherwise towards yourself?

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
Seems shortsighted to me. Because, yes, it may be possible that you get away with it, but the pure fact that you take the chance to go after "the helpless" or that you "do it when nobody's looking" introduces the risk that others go after you in the same way. Why should anybody stronger than you act otherwise towards yourself?

No reason, but as we've seen here, people don't like the idea that there's no true decency to be attained. The consequences are too unsettling. And if others will do it to you, that's all the more reason to take care never to be helpless, isn't it? They won't be nice just because you are, and if you hit them hard enough they'll never have a chance to learn to copy you. The key appears to be moderation, not virtue.

[MORON]

"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.

Consciences may come from upbring and environment, however it does not a conscience choice. I can not do "I dont want to have a moral code and I'll do A and B to negate it."

Just because I can imagine an alternative value system does not mean I hold such values. Value systems are largely self-sustaining.

Its like the Asimov's three law of robotics. A Robot is programmed to protect and futher the human cause, and while it can imagine a sistuation where it no longer hold this value, the robot can not reprogram itself. The current laws in its brain prevents it.

It is possible that my morals can change, but it must be done unconsciencely.

I had not heard any good reason to listen to those impulses when there is profit in ignoring them. 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.

It gets you everything.

The only thing human beings really value is their feelings. If listen to one of those impulses and doing the actions proscribed by them gives them happiness or higher self-valuation, it is worth everything.

What is the point of money, power or anything else if you feel like crap unworthy of existence? All the achievement and wealth in the world amounts to a small bribe of self esteem after all, which can be obtained in other ways.

For the vast majority of people, the tiny emotional gains from extra wealth from breaking morals is trivial from the loss in self esteem from such action.

People also do not get the choice of changing such impulses in most cases, so their own option is to follow it.


-----
People don't wear banana on their heads that often becaue they rarely get the impulse to do so, they hardly gain any self-esteem from doing that and they get aliened socially if they do that.

None the less, people dress up for hallowin and cosplay....

that just raises the even more puzzling question of why the deuce we're all doing a lame, repetitive motion just because we feel the itch to. We're not animals, we can choose to act on our impulses or not. Do you follow me?

Just because you get to remember your decision making process does not mean you get to choose.

What is this choice? This choice is just "higher instinct" that you memorize. There is no 'meta-choice' that chooses the choice out of a box, and inductively it would run into infinity anyways.

The final action must be finalized somewhere, and given that our consciousness do not superceed itself, the consciousness is a instinct (it is certainly shared by everyone)....just one whose workings is more accessible.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok

Again, I'm not trying to attack people here, I just honestly don't get it. Is there a secular morality that doesn't run in circles?

Yes , there is - karma .

This is one concept which does not strictly require a god to make it work . It works even if you consider pure and unadulterated self-interest . Even though you may get away with some things in this life , you will pay for them in another , and this reincarnation does not require the existence of God , only the existence of a soul .

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok


No reason, but as we've seen here, people don't like the idea that there's no true decency to be attained. The consequences are too unsettling. And if others will do it to you, that's all the more reason to take care never to be helpless, isn't it? They won't be nice just because you are, and if you hit them hard enough they'll never have a chance to learn to copy you. The key appears to be moderation, not virtue.

Well, but the fun is that many societies do a lot of efforts to move away from the simple "the strongest survives" principle. I mean why did ancient societies outlaw things like a vendetta which was common praxis earlier? Obviously at some point they realized that the use of such principles carries a lot of risks, so they abandoned it (and not neccessarily by using religious arguments).

[Odin]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Yes , there is - karma .

This is one concept which does not strictly require a god to make it work . It works even if you consider pure and unadulterated self-interest . Even though you may get away with some things in this life , you will pay for them in another , and this reincarnation does not require the existence of God , only the existence of a soul .

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a soul.

[Drogue]

Re: Atheistic forms of morality

Originally posted by Elok
That's the big problem I have with nontheistic morality. Moral behavior is indeed best for humanity as a whole, but I can see no reason for individuals to act in the interest of their whole species rather than themselves.

I think this is the point. Non-theistic morality is centred around a code of action that places humanity (or some Earthly thing) at the forefront. Instead of God enforcing a moral code, laws do. Law is there to curb individuals acting in their best interests when it harms others.

The only core difference between a theistic moral code and a non-theistic one is where the code comes from - in the former it places God as the reason both for it's existence and to follow it, whereas the latter uses society instead. In the former, God decides what is moral and what is not, in the latter, society does, whether through government or peer pressure.

As Thomas Paine said, "My country is the world and my religion is to do good." Humanism (or at least some forms of it) holds doing good as the central pillar of a moral code, as opposed to any God. Non-theistic morality is about doing good to other people, not to a God.