Atheistic forms of morality

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok

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.

1. How do you reconcile religiously based ethical systems with any of these actions? No deity has specifically stated that any of those are immoral..I don;t see "thou shall not steal bandwith" in deutoronomy. What tells you then any of those are morally incorrect? Maybe God believes in free bandwith....you never know, now do you?

2. All those acts undermine social cohesion, by, as Immortal Wombat said, creating unbalance as an individual gains at the direct expense of others. That is what makes them "immoral," because they undermine the social bonds that individual humans create as social apes.

Personally, a humanist moral system makes FAR more sense to me than one predicated on absolutes that can't be empirically investigated. Human beings can be investigated, examined, documented, and so forth.

[Elok]

Hmm, thought this topic had died. Guess not.

GePap: I meant that the avoidance of evil is not necessarily linkable to "maintaining the integrity of society" as a motive. Open theft, murder, rape, those obviously cause chaos. The things that I mentioned are eventual causes of disruption, but given the insignificance of single humans within society and the duration of an individual human life, they can be hidden relatively easily and very frequently go unpunished. "Don't shoplift, it leads to the disintegration of society." Ultimately true, but not very impressive. Not everyone can act that way, of course, but practically speaking the result is "cutting corners." In fact, forget crime entirely. Look at legal immorality. Could you convince George Costanza from Seinfeld that it was in his best interests to be honest and decent?

By "looting bandwidth," which is probably not the correct term, I meant the technically-legal act of accessing resources from a site over and over until it exceeds its bandwidth allocation and shuts down automatically. It can be put to good uses, such as shutting down internet scammers, but it is in essence erasing somebody else's presence from the internet. That's just an edifying sidenote to my main point though, which is not to be disingenuous. We aren't all scriptural literalists and I think you know it. In fact, being Orthodox, I'm not even limited to the Bible.

Drogue: First, note what I said about Costanza. I know somewhat similar people IRL. You can stay within the boundary of the law and be utterly depraved. Law and morality are not even close to synonymous. Second, if morality is measured in terms of overall good to society, there's probably nothing "wrong" with my earlier example of harvesting the homeless for organs. They weren't doing anything for society, their lives sucked anyway, we'd reduce welfare costs and save countless lives. Unless you're going to try and play Utilitarian and talk about "greatest happiness," which is impossible to measure and only tautologizes the problem away, morals are more complicated than that. There's a plain deontological (absolute duty-based) component to any functioning system of morality, one which can't be wished away. And deontologicals smack of religion.

Aneeshm: Karma is non-theistic. But it's still totally unscientific and religious in nature. Little difference, like Odin said.

MORON: I hate feeling like a troll every time I reply to you by name...anyway, the border between "conscious" and "unconscious" is mutable and uncertain at best. Defense mechanisms can do wonderful things, as can culture. Killing and eating people is repugnant to you, but then you're not a certain tribe from New Guinea.

BeBro: There needn't be a formal system of indecency. Ideally, you'd want to convince others to be pious or kind so that you could take advantage of them. Maybe GePap can help me out here, but Nietzsche seems to have advocated something similar. You know, the stuff about life-affirming value being present in deception and cruelty, about a select few who are ready to rise above the "herd" morality which represses us...in other words, egotism for a few, while the rest stay complacent. But then, I can't say for certain what on earth ol' nutty was babbling about, so who knows. If he meant what I think he meant, his conclusions were pretty similar to what I've been describing here: look out for number one. I never put much store by him, but maybe he makes more sense to you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Hmm, thought this topic had died. Guess not.

GePap: I meant that the avoidance of evil is not necessarily linkable to "maintaining the integrity of society" as a motive. Open theft, murder, rape, those obviously cause chaos. The things that I mentioned are eventual causes of disruption, but given the insignificance of single humans within society and the duration of an individual human life, they can be hidden relatively easily and very frequently go unpunished. "Don't shoplift, it leads to the disintegration of society." Ultimately true, but not very impressive. Not everyone can act that way, of course, but practically speaking the result is "cutting corners." In fact, forget crime entirely. Look at legal immorality. Could you convince George Costanza from Seinfeld that it was in his best interests to be honest and decent?

1. There is no such thing as "absolute evil". Therefore it is of no interest to me, of no concern whatsoever, to worry about it at all.

2. I really don't get your point. People observe most moral norm because of training (being taugh something is wrong), peer pressure, and finally fear of punishment. The first two are the most powerful one, and the final tool is used for those for whom peer pressure and training failed to instill with the morality society expects.

3. What Constanza does is generally boorish and obnoxious, asocial behavior. BUt most of the time it causes no significant damage to anyone but himself, and therefore, Costanza is a toralable outlier in the standard deviation. My moral system does not shake for the existence of a George Costanza

It seems to me you are in a very futile search for some perfection ion the moral realm. To me, the simplest evidence of my view of morality is the fact that it changes fundamentally over time. I doubt you view a woman with a beautiful hairstyle as some grave attempt against morality- yet 1000 years ago most people, from peasant upward, would have earnestly told you that such an act was clearly, undeniably, immoral. IF morality has any absolute basis, care to explain the inconsistency?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


BeBro: There needn't be a formal system of indecency. Ideally, you'd want to convince others to be pious or kind so that you could take advantage of them. Maybe GePap can help me out here, but Nietzsche seems to have advocated something similar. You know, the stuff about life-affirming value being present in deception and cruelty, about a select few who are ready to rise above the "herd" morality which represses us...in other words, egotism for a few, while the rest stay complacent. But then, I can't say for certain what on earth ol' nutty was babbling about, so who knows. If he meant what I think he meant, his conclusions were pretty similar to what I've been describing here: look out for number one. I never put much store by him, but maybe he makes more sense to you.

That cruelty is life-affirming is correct. The problem is that you give a moral significance to the word "life-affirming", as if that meant giving life Value. That is not what he means. He means it makes you feel alive, vital, much like running for your life from a lion will make you FAR MORE aware of your life than almost any other experience. So yes, cruelty, inflicting pain, severe and dangerous actions do affirm the fact you are alive. That does not mean such action have any moral meaning though. That comes into being if you then have a moral system based on life affirmation.

What you seem to want to describe, or put on Nietzche's shoulders, is the mentality of the blond beast- think of Greek Heroes, like Achilles. Those guys killed, took women, did "great" things, which in general today would make them seem like great bastards and killers. Nietzsche admires them because of their vitality, but they are not an end for him, because they are shallow, because to a certain extent they fail to internalize things- they lack the conscience that is built from moving to overpower onself like the slaves do, given their inability of overpower others.

Certainly Nietzsche does not care for social stability, and would not advocate a moral system based on that- looking out for number one is a prescription for every slob to try to act on thier venal desires. What Nietzsche seeks are individuals willing to overturn social stability by creating new norms, new values, simply creating. Thinks of one such individual, Jesus.

[BlackCat]

What puzzels me is that Elok claims that a nonreligoius morality only is valid if it's pure and obeyed by all people. If this isn't fullfilled, then it's of lower quality than a religious.

How come that that level isn't nesseacary for a religious based morality ?

[Berzerker]

2. I really don't get your point. People observe most moral norm because of training (being taugh something is wrong), peer pressure, and finally fear of punishment. The first two are the most powerful one, and the final tool is used for those for whom peer pressure and training failed to instill with the morality society expects.

Conscience?

[monolith94]

Re: Re: Atheistic forms of morality

Originally posted by Drogue

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.

Yes, but by theological definition God IS good. That which is good is the work of god, and vice-versa. So from a theists perspective, it could be said that mr. Paine is doing god's work, if in ignorance. The question is WHAT is good. What if what mr. Paine meany by "doing good" was slaughtering Nepalese villages? Now, obviously not, but I think that's the crux of the question, not whether good itself is different for theists and atheists, but rather how we categorize certain actions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Conscience?

Perhaps, but I would guess not.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Atheistic forms of morality

Originally posted by monolith94


Yes, but by theological definition God IS good. That which is good is the work of god, and vice-versa. So from a theists perspective, it could be said that mr. Paine is doing god's work, if in ignorance. The question is WHAT is good. What if what mr. Paine meany by "doing good" was slaughtering Nepalese villages? Now, obviously not, but I think that's the crux of the question, not whether good itself is different for theists and atheists, but rather how we categorize certain actions.

Well, this is only correct for Monotheistic models. What about Polytheistic moral codes?

I wonder if Elok considers polytheistic codes the same as atheistic ones.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Elok
Drogue: First, note what I said about Costanza. I know somewhat similar people IRL. You can stay within the boundary of the law and be utterly depraved. Law and morality are not even close to synonymous. Second, if morality is measured in terms of overall good to society, there's probably nothing "wrong" with my earlier example of harvesting the homeless for organs. They weren't doing anything for society, their lives sucked anyway, we'd reduce welfare costs and save countless lives. Unless you're going to try and play Utilitarian and talk about "greatest happiness," which is impossible to measure and only tautologizes the problem away, morals are more complicated than that. There's a plain deontological (absolute duty-based) component to any functioning system of morality, one which can't be wished away. And deontologicals smack of religion.

Firstly, why do deontologicals have anything to do with religion? This wasn't about religion, this was about theism, and a duty to the state is nothing to do with God. All you do to get from a theistic moral code to a non-theistic one is replace God with society. You have a new reason for the moral code, but can have the same code.

Secondly, If there's nothing wrong with harvesting organs, then there's nothing wrong with it, and vice versa. That says nothing of the reason for it being right or wrong. In theism, the reason is God's teachings, and in non-theism, that reason is something Earthly, such as the good of society.

Lastly, law is a form of morality. Who is to say that someone can commit legal actions and be depraved? What is depraved? It's only depraved if your moral code says it is, and if it's legal, I'd argue that societies collective moral code doesn't agree. If society believes something is wrong, they can pass a law against it. If it's legal, then society has allowed it. If it doesn't affect other people, then that removes your central premise for morality, that "Moral behavior is indeed best for humanity as a whole". In a non-theist moral code, if it's not goodbad for society, it's not immoral. If it is bad for society, then society can decide to make it illegal, if it wishes.

Where does God come into morality? God is a reason for a moral code, and the provider of that code, but that position can equally be taken up by society/humanity/government. Instead of the reason for actions being God's teachings, it's what's best for society. Whether that's through laws, societal pressure or teaching in schools, instead of God deciding what is right and wrong, society does, or rather the individual does for themselves within boundaries set by society. God is not needed to tell humanity what is and isn't moral, nor is God the only reason for acting morally, as you said in your OP. There is no part of a moral code that God fulfils that cannot also be fulfilled by society or the individual.

[Drogue]

Re: Re: Re: Atheistic forms of morality

Originally posted by monolith94
Yes, but by theological definition God IS good. That which is good is the work of god, and vice-versa. So from a theists perspective, it could be said that mr. Paine is doing god's work, if in ignorance. The question is WHAT is good. What if what mr. Paine meany by "doing good" was slaughtering Nepalese villages? Now, obviously not, but I think that's the crux of the question, not whether good itself is different for theists and atheists, but rather how we categorize certain actions.

Well, theists catagorise it by God's teachings, and atheists by some societal measure. What "doing good" is is for society and individuals to decide, in an atheistic morality situation. There isn't a difference between theistic and atheistic morality except where it comes from - God or humans. For the latter we have politics, law and societal pressure to decide.

[Jon Miller]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheistic forms of morality

Originally posted by GePap


Well, this is only correct for Monotheistic models. What about Polytheistic moral codes?

I wonder if Elok considers polytheistic codes the same as atheistic ones.

we know he doesn't, he included hindu ones..

don't be an ass to him just because you disagree

JM

[Philosophiser]

YOU WROTE: Philosophizer: with no offense meant, I've already asked not to be "helped." I want to hear nontheistic moral systems; I can concoct diatribes myself.

MY RESPONSE: My question to you is why are you wasting your time with nontheistic moral systems? Who cares? Reason is not going to solve this issue for you. Since you appear to already be a Christian of some kind you already know that.

The morality for a nontheist is ultimately what feels good to him and is aimless, changing with the circumstances. If he feels emotionally good cooperating he will cooperate, if he feels emotionally good being selfish, he'll be selfish.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

This point has been circled around, but seems worth circling back to:

Isn't all "morality" rooted in self-preservation? Why not steal? Because someone might come and kick your ass. Why not kill? Ditto. I'm not saying that's all there is to it; but I am saying that's the basis.

Upon that foundation one can erect a variety of superstructures -- philosphy, religion -- but its always there, at bottom. "I mustn't do this because reason tells me its wrong" and "I mustn't do this because it will make the Sky-God angry" are just two sides of the same coin -- except that Reason will eventually reveal the material basis of morality, while Faith will always obscure it.

It's notable, in fact, that when a religious moral code actually goes beyond self-preservation, it's largely ignored. Exhibit A is Christ's exhortation to voluntary poverty.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok


Leaving aside the irrelevance of such a claim to our argument if it were true...baloney. Slavery was based on the need for cheap labor. Some preachers stood up for it, some preachers, including Harriet Beecher Stowe's husband, were fiercely opposed to it. Given the line "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and the whole bit with Delivering My People out of Bondage, etc., Christianity is ambiguous towards slavery at worst. The justifications for slavery to be found in the Bible are pretty slim. St. Paul tells slaves to be "submissive" in one epistle, but that's an advocacy of stoicism, not an endorsement of the system itself (the contemporary system of slavery was also radically different from the raw exploitation of the South, but that's another story). The rest of the "evidence" involves selectively reading parts of the Old Testament while ignoring the New.

The New actively discourages Christians enslaving other Christians, but is totally neutral with regard to unbelievers. Slavery or not, God inevitably places His covenanted and elect people above the heathen, which end up under their submission. We need only look at most of Protestant history to see that.

Enslaving the negros after their conversion to Christianity eventually ended up in God punishing America through the Civil War. But in general, unbelievers have been subject to Christians- through colonization, or economic/quasi imperial domination. Most of the traditional banking and economic powerhouses have been owned by one of God's two convenant peoples- Jews or Devout Protestant families. And of course, since Protestantism exploded Protestant nations have historically always been the leaders on the world stage in terms of prosperity and influence.