Atheistic forms of morality

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by 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."

Considering all those battles I've had with Ned, that claim of yours really tells that you are far out.



I am not talking about what was the common practice in the mid 19 century - I was talking about the time before.

Please tell me what influence martin Luther King had on the viewpoints on slavery in 1770 - please stop mixing things up.

Oh, just as a notice, your Bushie parallel doesn't increase your credibility.

[Elok]

Geez. I am arguing that, as theological justifications of actions in 1492 and 2005 and all points between are and were based on the exact same source text, there is no apparent reason to value one interpretation more than another except that interpretation's fidelity to said source text. If their justification was shoddy and half-baked, it says little about the beliefs of those who read it differently.

I'm not familiar with religious justifications of slavery from before the 1800s. It was my impression that, prior to that time, the issue was not prominent enough to warrant discussion on any considerable level. From my perspective it doesn't especially matter. This whole slavery argument has been one long threadjack. Supposing they were all 100% in favor of slavery, I say they were 100% wrong. And you're not arguing with them, you're arguing with me. I raised slavery as an example of a profitable but immoral activity, not as a discussion point in the history of Christian discourse.

[Elok]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

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.

I don't exactly keep Darwin on my bookshelf. If, by "neuter and sterile insects," he 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.

[Ramo]

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,

Morality has an irrational basis. I construct my morality through trying to create a logical system as elegant as possible, while maintaining consistency with my emotions.

Do you really not kill random people because some omnipotent entity told you not kill random people in a book.

and as such [instincts are] measurable only in terms of their usefulness for survival.

No. That there is a bald assertion. Instincts are measurable by a number of metrics. Survivability is just as arbitrary as any other (including consistency with some book a deity wrote).

The most meaningful measurment for instincts for me would be the intensity of feeling. Some emotions (say, it's wrong to take something I don't absolutely need from another person without their consent) are stronger than others (say, I'd really like a new computer). From these emotions, I figure out a logically consistent basis of morality (in particular, I believe coercion in social actions should be minimized).

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok
Geez. I am arguing that, as theological justifications of actions in 1492 and 2005 and all points between are and were based on the exact same source text, there is no apparent reason to value one interpretation more than another except that interpretation's fidelity to said source text. If their justification was shoddy and half-baked, it says little about the beliefs of those who read it differently.

I'm not familiar with religious justifications of slavery from before the 1800s. It was my impression that, prior to that time, the issue was not prominent enough to warrant discussion on any considerable level. From my perspective it doesn't especially matter. This whole slavery argument has been one long threadjack. Supposing they were all 100% in favor of slavery, I say they were 100% wrong. And you're not arguing with them, you're arguing with me. I raised slavery as an example of a profitable but immoral activity, not as a discussion point in the history of Christian discourse.

Well, since your OP asked about atheistic moral contrary to religious ditto, it is quite resonable to discuss the morality of one of the current religions such as the christian. We could of course also include other religions since they also claim that they are superiour when it comes to morality and ethics - do you have a suggestion on witch ?

About slavery and threadjacking, well, it was you that introduced it, so I can't see any threadjacking.

It's acutally quite funny to see you evade arguments that athetistic people actually have morality and ethics and start sidekicks about what oldtime christians did.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ramo
Morality has an irrational basis. I construct my morality through trying to create a logical system as elegant as possible, while maintaining consistency with my emotions.
Do you really not kill random people because some omnipotent entity told you not kill random people in a book.

No. That there is a bald assertion. Instincts are measurable by a number of metrics. Survivability is just as arbitrary as any other (including consistency with some book a deity wrote).
The most meaningful measurment for instincts for me would be the intensity of feeling. Some emotions (say, it's wrong to take something I don't absolutely need from another person without their consent) are stronger than others (say, I'd really like a new computer). From these emotions, I figure out a logically consistent basis of morality (in particular, I believe coercion in social actions should be minimized).

If morality has an irrational basis, then there's no point in even arguing about it, is there? It's just my irrationality against yours. The only objective value of an instinct, if it has no measurable meaning, is how well it performs the only apparent function of all instincts from a coldly scientific perspective, ie ensuring one's own survival. If you feel one thing more strongly than another, I see no reason why you should obey one more than another unless you've determined, by some other means, that there is some good reason to act on that feeling. You can do X instead of Y, but what reason is there to do either that makes it more "right" than any old neurotic compulsion? Ted Bundy's strong urge to rip teenage girls apart with his teeth can claim the same legitimacy; he really, really wanted to. His was a less common inclination than yours, but I don't think you mean to suggest morality is a function of the mob mentality, do you? If the point of it all is to satisfy certain yearnings, all you need to make an action moral is to want it badly enough.

[Kuciwalker]

f morality has an irrational basis, then there's no point in even arguing about it, is there?

No, because most of us share the same basic axioms. The argument is about the conclusions we draw from those axioms.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Well, since your OP asked about atheistic moral contrary to religious ditto, it is quite resonable to discuss the morality of one of the current religions such as the christian. We could of course also include other religions since they also claim that they are superiour when it comes to morality and ethics - do you have a suggestion on witch ?

About slavery and threadjacking, well, it was you that introduced it, so I can't see any threadjacking.

It's acutally quite funny to see you evade arguments that athetistic people actually have morality and ethics and start sidekicks about what oldtime christians did.

I didn't start this thread to perpetuate the same lame "God sucks!""Atheists suck!" spamfest that's been inflicted on the OT since time immemorial. I started with a specific inquiry, about the nature of moral arguments in the absence of theological justification.

In the course of that discussion, an argument was made that moral actions are ultimately the best for all concerned. I offered slavery as a counterexample to that point, insofar as it is agreed by most of us to be immoral but was profitable for the most recent society to practice it on a large scale, namely the U.S. If I had used a completely different context of slavery as an example, such as the debt-enslavement of illegal immigrants in various countries around the world, my basic point would be the same. Your "point" about religious justifications of slavery was irrelevant to the argument at hand, but I was foolish enough to respond to it anyway. You have given me ample cause to regret that.

So far as I can tell, you have not said anything about atheist examples of virtue. From the beginning, your arguments have been restricted to talking about the past or present misdeeds of Christian regimes. It would not matter at all either way, of course, because we are talking about ideology here, not history. I do not deny that some agnostics/atheists do or did act virtuously, I am asking about their reasons for doing so (and the philosophical consistency of those reasons). If you want to trash-talk about the track records of our respective belief systems, make your own thread. I probably won't post in it, because I consider that whole argument asinine and pointless, but at least you won't be polluting this one.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

f morality has an irrational basis, then there's no point in even arguing about it, is there?

No, because most of us share the same basic axioms. The argument is about the conclusions we draw from those axioms.

When those "axioms" are based on gut feelings and nothing more? Gut feelings come in a lot of different varieties, and speaking for myself I'd find it thoroughly pointless to bicker over obedience to an urge I saw no point to. If you look at it that way, morality's just a different kind of sexual orientation, and sociopaths are merely "gay."

[Ramo]

The only objective value of an instinct, if it has no measurable meaning, is how well it performs the only apparent function of all instincts from a coldly scientific perspective, ie ensuring one's own survival.

There is no objective value of an instinct (I prefer to use "emotion" since that's really what we're getting at). The value of an emotion, like any other value, is whatever you happen to attribute it.

And no, "science" doesn't attribute a value to emotions, no more than it attributes a value to money.

If morality has an irrational basis, then there's no point in even arguing about it, is there? It's just my irrationality against yours.

Because people generally share some aspects of morality. Some peoples' moral systems are not logically consistent. Arguing can help to hammer out these inconsistencies. But there is no real point in having such a conversation with someone who is truly totally sociopathic.

If you feel one thing more strongly than another, I see no reason why you should obey one more than another unless you've determined, by some other means, that there is some good reason to act on that feeling.

Because that is how I define good. Basically, if I feel like it should happen, it's good.

Again, do you truly not kill random people because God said that doing that's bad or because doing so doesn't jive with your emotions? If for some reason God said otherwise, would you start killing random people?

His was a less common inclination than yours, but I don't think you mean to suggest morality is a function of the mob mentality, do you?

No, it's a function of an individual's mentality. I think what Ted Bundy did was immoral. Further, I think that the moral step society should take in situations like this would be to detain this person so he would be incapable of committing such acts again.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
When those "axioms" are based on gut feelings and nothing more?

Yes.

[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?

[Zevico]

When those "axioms" are based on gut feelings and nothing more?

Religion can itself be viewed as just another of these axioms--a "subset" of morality which contains various moral codes such as those in the Bible, the Koran, and etc. Many people attain "emotional stability" from religion. Likewise, people attain "emotional stability"-or try to- from their ethics and values. Circular arguments are always going to exist in such a situation, Elok. You have accepted the axioms of a religion, and because of that you see the contradictions of other, axioms which do not rely on it--the same way those who accept atheist or agnostic "axioms" see religious axioms as lacking proof (or being utterly false).
Although in my opinion axioms might have more 'strength' behind them if one relies on evidence--such as the wellbeing and prosperity of a given society--and try to find the ethics or values that caused them. For example, a society where people in believe in following the law will likely more stable than one in which corruption is rampant. But even this is really 'baseless' too, as a religious person may argue that full implementation of religious values will bring about the Messiah, thus negating all debate independent of religion.

[Berzerker]

Your inability to come to grips with the fact that reason will not solve the issue for you will only end you up in utter despair. Reason has its uses, especially those that pertain to our immediate survival. However, God and ultimate truth are not known by these methods.

Can we not observe human nature and use reason to draw general conclusions about ultimate truth? "God" is just a word to identify this ultimate truth... So, what can we see about our existence? Well, alot of variability encompassing all of human behavior. So how do we define morality? Since morality is largely subjective, we need to find common denominators - "universal" morals - to build upon. Thomas Jefferson referred to these as "self-evident truths"...

[Kuciwalker]

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?

Most of us have in common. And there's plenty of consistency in the axioms themselves.

Do you criticize people for having the wrong irrationality, or implementing it imperfectly?

No, I punish them for violating mine and my interpretation of it (e.g. thieves go to prison).

And why are we listening to that irrationality?

Because you probably agree with it.

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.

So? What's this have to do with anything?

More correctly, they manage to rationalize their behavior within the axioms they believe they follow, while they actually follow slightly different axioms than most people.

You can argue that they're "miserable on the inside,"

But I don't.

but aside from that being an obvious conjecture based on your own feelings, moral behavior brings its own share of grief sometimes.

Yes, so?

The reason most people share a particular morality is because on average it is the most successful at propogating itself.