Atheistic forms of morality

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Ehrm, slavery was mainly based (wrong word) on religion.

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 word you are looking for is "justified." "Justified" by religion. Much like ethnic cleansing was justified by evolution, and the Red Scare was justified by patriotism. It was a crappy understanding of evolution and a diseased form of patriotism, but then slavers used pretty bad theology by my reckoning.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok
BC: I made no such claim about religious societies being superior. I'm talking about individual moral decisions here. We can agree that some things are good and others are bad, and I want to know what's meant by "good" and "bad." I'm talking about our capacity to derive a system of ethics from a non-religious worldview. I think I shouldn't steal even if I could get away with it, because it is a sin against God and man (with theological implications, which I don't think I need to go into for the sake of this example). You (I assume) also think you shouldn't steal even if you could get away with it. Why?

Simple - it's not acceptable by the society you live in.

The fact that some people behave decently despite being non-religious, and that some religious folk are total weasels, is interesting but not strictly germane. People can, undeniably, come up with systems to explain their urge for common decency that don't rely on religious belief. I just don't think the systems I've heard explain them very well at all. When the chips are down, they all seem to appear (speaking quite frankly) to beg the question: "You should be moral because it is the right thing to do." Which actually seems WORSE to me than "you should be moral because God says so," because instead of relying on a supernatural belief, it's purely tautological.

The worst thing I ever can imagine is that people says that things has to be done in a peticular way because "god" has said so !!! That I consider a much worse atrocity than if some dictator has decided some atrocities in the area she controls.

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?

It's becuse you are trying to use religion you are having the feeling of running in circles. Religion has never delivered any answers - at it's best it has given stability - at it's worst it has done atrocities beyond belief.

[Kuciwalker]

To follow up on my other posts: the reason that I behave this way is because of evolution. Whether basic morality is genetic or memetic, it allows families and societies to function in ways that are generally beneficial to survival and procreation.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In my case, I would say that it's "You should be moral, because we all benefit in the long run, including yourself". I actually think many morals (regardless whether they have a supernatural legitimacy or not) have been developed from this principle.

But in the long run, that's often manifestly false. There's a great deal of profit to be made in being a bit of a monster here and there, like I've been saying. Not a total monster, but just selectively callous and manipulative. A la Machiavelli, or at least the common understanding of the word "Machiavellian." Done correctly, you can ensure that the crap doesn't hit the fan until long after you've died wealthy.

Kuci: But what's the point? Because you feel like it? It sounds like you're arguing for morality as conducive to emotional stability. From such a perspective, it would be hypocritical to condemn any moral outrage, provided people were accustomed to it in whatever part of the world it happened in. To put it another way, supposing I'm perfectly okay with abducting and murdering the homeless and then harvesting them for organs, what's wrong with that, objectively? So long as it's done discreetly, it might never be noticed, and provide plenty of much-needed tissue for transplants.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci: But what's the point? Because you feel like it? It sounds like you're arguing for morality as conducive to emotional stability.

No. I don't have to justify morality to myself because it is how I act. I just behave that way. Defining morality is just a fun mind game to try and explain how I behave, and for some people to try and justify their behavior because the feel the need to.

From such a perspective, it would be hypocritical to condemn any moral outrage, provided people were accustomed to it in whatever part of the world it happened in.

Nope, because I personally believe - in fact it's one of my axioms - that everyone ought to follow my morality or more precisely, that I ought to try and make other people follow it (or convince them to do so). Given that lots of other people around me share my axioms, when I say something derived from those axioms they can all nod their heads and say "yeah, I agree."

To put it another way, supposing I'm perfectly okay with abducting and murdering the homeless and then harvesting them for organs, what's wrong with that, objectively? So long as it's done discreetly, it might never be noticed, and provide plenty of much-needed tissue for transplants.

Nothing at all. However, the rest of us who subjectively take issue with it will arrest and imprison you.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Simple - it's not acceptable by the society you live in.

That's not an answer. Converting from Islam to Hinduism is not acceptable by the society of Saudi Arabia, but that means nothing to me.

The worst thing I ever can imagine is that people says that things has to be done in a peticular way because "god" has said so !!! That I consider a much worse atrocity than if some dictator has decided some atrocities in the area she controls.

That makes no sense in context. It sounds like you are suggesting "don't steal because god says so" is worse than "I think I'll kill all the black people in my country, just for kicks. I don't like the color black."

It's becuse you are trying to use religion you are having the feeling of running in circles. Religion has never delivered any answers - at it's best it has given stability - at it's worst it has done atrocities beyond belief.

"It's because you are not using religion that you are failing to argue in a convincing manner. Atheism is really a conspiracy to molest small animals sexually. You know it's the truth because I just said so." Now, did that persuade you or anybody else out there? Come on, now.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Elok

Kuci: But what's the point? Because you feel like it? It sounds like you're arguing for morality as conducive to emotional stability. From such a perspective, it would be hypocritical to condemn any moral outrage, provided people were accustomed to it in whatever part of the world it happened in. To put it another way, supposing I'm perfectly okay with abducting and murdering the homeless and then harvesting them for organs, what's wrong with that, objectively? So long as it's done discreetly, it might never be noticed, and provide plenty of much-needed tissue for transplants.

that's why relativism is stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

Relativism is as true as it is meaningless.

[BlackCat]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Elok


Leaving aside the irrelevance of such a claim to our argument if it were true...baloney.
[QUOTE]

Nope. Slavery was common, and was was not even accepted by religion, but even considered a good thing.

The word you are looking for is "justified." "Justified" by religion. Much like ethnic cleansing was justified by evolution, and the Red Scare was justified by patriotism. It was a crappy understanding of evolution and a diseased form of patriotism, but then slavers used pretty bad theology by my reckoning.

No, it wasn't "justified" I was looking for since that would be too obvious - I even know the word

The people that was involved in slavery didn't use bad theology - they used what was applicaple by the time - stop using todays morality on what happend centuries ago - it doesn't do you any good and it certainly doesn't change anything.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No. I don't have to justify morality to myself because it is how I act. I just behave that way. Defining morality is just a fun mind game to try and explain how I behave, and for some people to try and justify their behavior because the feel the need to.

Nope, because I personally believe - in fact it's one of my axioms - that everyone ought to follow my morality or more precisely, that I ought to try and make other people follow it (or convince them to do so). Given that lots of other people around me share my axioms, when I say something derived from those axioms they can all nod their heads and say "yeah, I agree."

If you ought to convince me, I'm afraid you're not being very convincing. The same statements you just made could be expressed by anyone who feels any way about anything at all. You're talking descriptively, not prescriptively. You're not presenting a moral argument.

[KrazyHorse]

You still haven't answered my question, Elok.

What is your problem? State it precisely and concisely.

[Kuciwalker]

If you ought to convince me, I'm afraid you're not being very convincing.

I'm not trying to convince you of mine now, and anyway I'm certain you pretty much share my axioms anyway, even if you don't think of them the way I do.

You're talking descriptively, not prescriptively. You're not presenting a moral argument.

Of course not. I thought this thread was about describing morality.

[Elok]

BlackCat, you seem to be hovering dangerously close to the edge of the Nediverse. Slavery was supported by many Southern preachers. It was also opposed by many other preachers, albeit not many in the South because it took a lot of guts to oppose slavery there. But it's pretty plain truth that the abolitionist movement was swarming with religious types. And one of the basic tenets of most theology is supposed to be that there is an absolute moral truth, based on an existing tradition. Martin Luther King used the same freaking bible they did, and so did I, and they stretched the material. Much like George W. Bush does all his crazy stuff in the name of "freedom" and "democracy." That has nothing to do with actual democracy, regardless of "historical context."

[Elok]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You still haven't answered my question, Elok.

What is your problem? State it precisely and concisely.

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.

[LDiCesare]

*Morality is a good survival strategy, in Darwinian terms. Except it isn't, most of the time. Morality as most of us think of it includes some component of altruism, which is by definition NOT evolutionary beneficial. Altruism sacrifices your own interests without hope of return. It's a powerful human instinct and I think it's admirable, but from a survival aspect it's not too useful.

May I suggest you read Darwin and reconsider your statements? In The Origin of Species (section VIII Instincts - Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection as Applied to Instincts: Neuter and Sterile Insects). Altruism, despite your claim, can be evolutionary beneficial.