morality for atheists?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Michael Redman Doing something because you are afraid God will punish you if you don't is not moral behavior.

For some people, it's a step on the way to a more mature moral behavior, and for other's it's a never-ending pitstop. In the end what matters to society at large is whether or not such people are like 9/11 terrorists or good people who mind their own business. It's a huge spectrum. The idea can result in countless varieties of behavior. They share the idea that there is a standard that must be followed, but they would disagree on that standard. I hope you're not trying to imply that all believers in God think as you say they do above. Some do, some don't. Immoral behavior is self-punishment.

Doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is.

Maybe. What if someone believes the right thing to do is to kill his/her handicapped child? Is that moral behavior?

I think it's more reasonable to question the morality of Christians who can't see why you would do good without the threat of God's punishment, than to question the morality of non-judeo-christian-muslim people who don't live under that threat, but nevertheless maintain stable, successful society on the basis of mutually understood moral and ethical norms.

Ummm...but those sorts of Christians don't frequent this forum. It is always good to have people question your beliefs I think. You may have a point in that your beliefs are more rational/mature than others, but it is still healthy to have your beliefs questioned.

-Elliot

 

[Bluefire]

What do you base your objectivly rational morality standards on? If you feel your will is more powerful than someone else's, you'd follow your own will I reckon. In the end we all capitulate to some form of power or another.
-Elliot

I base it on observations about human nature, and the basic nature of ethics.

Short story:

Ethics provide us by a code of values to guide our choices, why is that necessary? Because our surviving and living is not an automatic happening. As living beings we need to pursue values that are gainful for us to survive and live well. Man is a volitional being that must choose what to do. Some choices are gainful (good) and some are detrimental (bad).

Identifying virtues then consists of identifying what in principle furthers human existense and well being, and identifying vice is identifying what in principle is detrimental to human life.

This is an extremely short explanation, please consult the link for a slightly longer. I might be able to dig up a more complete one later

 

[baggie]

What are some examples of God's morality in the NT ?

you know, turn the other cheek, obey the ten commandments, let those without sin cast the first stone. I am sure some Christains could give us a better list

If God's ways are mysterious, how can we know what moral behavior is ? ( as defined by God .. )
[/QUOTE]

I think you have just have to follow Gods prescriptions (i.e ten commandments etc). The key is that the consequences of your actions are not your fault or problem, but Gods to worry about then.

Of course the OT is full of odd stuff that only ultraorthodox jews follow to the letter, so you can pick and choose a bit there

 

[elliotfc]

The morality I care about is the selfless dedication of people to others, the sacrifice of people such as the fireman in 9/11. One can argue the point from a evolutionary point of view (and I do) that these feelings are just biological adaptions, but the puzzle is then that one should then adopt a very Nietzchian approach and say that really topdog should rule as that is what happens in biology.

I don't know baggie, interesting idea, but the two ideas are separate. The Nietzschean approach would scoff at the idea of an ubermensch risking his life to save some weakling in a building.

And then there is the idea of *what happens in biology*. See, humans are a special biological case. It's to theorize what happens when it comes to human morality since we can see it all around us. The Nietzschean approach is frankly not very successful in the competition of ideas. People can have a dozen kids and not know who Nietzsche was.

-Elliot

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

excuse my ignorance - what is the Golden, Silver and Brass rule?

The social argument is interesting, but seems to offer no guidance on ethical behaviour. E.g. the "social" thing to do during Nazi Gemany would have been to oppress the Jews - I mean everyone else in society seemed to be doing it. If I had turned round then and loudly pronounced this to be wrong I would have been a s***y troublemaker (but an ethical one)

I'm sorry, I assume for those not familiar with the Silver and Brass would be able to extrapolate from the well known Golden.

Golden - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Silver - Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
Brass - Do unto others as they do unto you.

To pre-emt your possible "but what if the individual thinks pedophilia or murder is 'normal'" the problem with that is that we don't see any evidence for "non-normative" actions being considered normative within the context of the above rules. It's actually quite simple - I don't wish to be murdered, so I don't murder. I wish to be treated with respect by my fellow man, so I treat my fellow man with respect. My fellow man attacks me, I respond with an appropriate social sanction. It's that easy.

It is in this context that the Holocaust is rejected as a "socially ethical" act. RE: Silver Rule - I do not wish to be oppressed and sent to death camps, therefore I should not support or abide by such actions on the part of my society. If I sincerely wish to claim any logical ethicalism or - given my opinion on the issue - any claim to ethicalism - I should oppose such actions.

On the other hand, if the publically promoted "Final Solution" policy was actually to relocate the Jews to "the East" it would still be unethical (I don't want to be forcibly relocated, therefore I should not support such for others) it's less unethical than murdering them wholesale.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't know baggie, interesting idea, but the two ideas are separate. The Nietzschean approach would scoff at the idea of an ubermensch risking his life to save some weakling in a building.

An the ethical athiest approach would be to scoff at the idea of an Ubermensch in the first place.

We're all in this together. That's something atheists do understand.

 

[elliotfc]

The problem is that Hitler thought it "right" to get rid of the jews and the slavs. In terms of more achieving more room and recourses for the germanic people he was right. We still need a rational system to say to Hitler that you are ethically wrong.

But we HAVE such a system. It is in place. See, the German Nazis did their best to hide the fact that they were exterminating Jews, because they knew such a fact was not just unpalatable but morally offensive to practically the entire world.

The system is quite simply the idea that people are supposed to behave in certain ways. Schools of thought, be they evolutionary or religious, have nothing to really add or subtract from the obvious existence of such a system. The system exists despite our theories, and would exist if the theories didn't exist.

most christians I know are "moral" not because of fear of punishment, but because they want to follow (their view of) gods example because they love him.

Baggie you're new to this forum I take it? People here don't like to discuss the type of Christians you mention. You are adding needless complexity to this black box. They'd prefer to believe that most, if not all Christians, hold the Bible as their religious textbook that must be unquestionably true in every aspect of the word true. If you say you are not that kind of Christian, they will say they are not talking about you and that you make things up as you go along. Best to not get to bothered about people who build straw horses as they go along.

It is more how you would want your children to follow your example, through respect and love rather than fear.

Very well put.

Why are you moral? What is right and wrong? I suspect that there are no real answers

No, because this is not a question that can be put to the scientific method (assuming that is the test that makes something real or not real, you could have a different test and then there could be real answers). If we were only more understanding of each other and didn't demonize each other I think we could come up with some acceptable answers.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

Of course most theists do not take the Bible literally, as you apparently do.




-Elliot

Absurd...


I was addressing a position that said, Christians get their sense of morality from God. If you do not agree with that position then what is the point of your comment?

If you do agree with that position, I would be interested in how you believe that information is passed on to humans.


And I fully agree that most theists do not take the Bible literally. They have trouble with the silly stuff, like God behaving badly..

 

[jimlintott]

Many religous fundamentalists have broken logic. ie; If you can't prove god doesn't exist then he must exist. If we show evolution to be wrong then we will have proven that god created everything. I find all my morality from my religion therefore people without religion must be immoral.

Here is my question. Why doesn't the application of religion result in more consistent morality? The morality of the religious (like that of atheists) runs the entire spectrum of behaviour from saint like to evil. The simple answer is that religion is a human creation to help control a population. Morality and ethics (or lack of) are a human condition. Religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is not magic and people will behave however they want to regardless of what they say they believe.

 

[elliotfc]

I'ts kind of like pornography, we know it when we see it...

Very well put Diogenes!

I fail to understand how God or a belief in it, changes the mix in a beneficial way, when you can demonstrate that people behave pretty much the same way, with or without God.

Another good point. There are particular answers, such as the fact that religious-minded people were behind the abolitionist movement and behind the prohibition of child sacrifice. And then there are the particular individuals who's lives are unquestionably influenced by their religion and who live unquestionably meritorious lives.

I would say, definitely, that religion CAN make you behave in a terrific way if that's what you WANT out of religion. But as a Christian I know that my behavior is not what will get me good with God.

And even God himself demonstrates behaviour that any idiot would find immoral.. [/B]

Alright, let's clear this up.

When you say God, you are clearly or obviously referring to the God of the Bible. Now many theists are not Islamic or Jewish or Christian, and those theists believe morality has something to do with God, so clearly here you are only talking about certain theists.

OK, now that that's clear, you are talking about stories about God, and not God's behavior. You aren't talking about the behavior of God in the world that you see around you, but the behavior of God that you read about in a book. So you find the behavior of God in the Old Testament immoral? Great, so do I. And I am a Christian. So what's the problem?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The simple fact is that humans are social creatures, not solitary brutes living as they please. If you act s***y within your society, either society sanctions you, or you wind up with a s***y society and no sane person I know wants either. This is an unescapable fact that those who foolishly proffer the morality argument seem to ignore.

But that is morality. The ideals that constitute the world that people want to live in. You've just called certain solitary persons "brutes", which is certainly putting your moral idea on those people. Acting s***y is a moral judgment call. If I proffer a morality argument it is becaues we can't get away from judgmental words, can we? When you condemn the behavior of religious fanatics, you are speaking morally, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What is truly disturbing are theists who claim they'd run amok if they thought there was no deity. My only reaction to them is that if your belief in a god is the only thing controlling you... I'm suggesting you start medication now.

I don't think that they've really thought through that statement, if it has in fact been made. I'm sure it has been made, just never seen it made by a theist.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....you know, turn the other cheek, obey the ten commandments, let those without sin cast the first stone. I am sure some Christains could give us a better list

But those ideas are not unique to Christianity or theism for that matter.. It has been pointed out that it is logical to embrace the behaviour encouraged by the golden rule and the obvious parts of the ten commandments that encourage civil behaviour.

The question still remains; " Why do we need a God in order to establish the criteria for moral behaviour ? "
And if we do, how is that information communicated to us?

 

[elliotfc]

The social argument is interesting, but seems to offer no guidance on ethical behaviour. E.g. the "social" thing to do during Nazi Gemany would have been to oppress the Jews - I mean everyone else in society seemed to be doing it. If I had turned round then and loudly pronounced this to be wrong I would have been a s***y troublemaker (but an ethical one)

Good point, but consider that the Nazis were actually acting in a moral way, although a really f*cked up moral way.

They had the idea that Jews were sub-human. And if you believe that, you've solved the moral conundrum.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

OK, now that that's clear, you are talking about stories about God, and not God's behavior. You aren't talking about the behavior of God in the world that you see around you, but the behavior of God that you read about in a book. So you find the behavior of God in the Old Testament immoral? Great, so do I. And I am a Christian. So what's the problem?

-Elliot

It certainly doesn't seem I have an argument with you in this matter.

But surely you do not pretend that there are not millions, if not billions of people past and present, who do not hold that the Old Testament is a factual chronicle of the adventures of God and his chosen beople, acting under the direction of same God?

And the question here is ; ' How do those people justify the questioning of how people who do not believe in that God, or any God, get their sense of morality?'

 

[Bullwinkle]

Speaking as an (unapologetically) liberal Christian...

...where did anybody ever get the idea that "belief in God" equals "moral person"?

We need only look at fundamentally immoral people such as Dubya, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell to know that one profess to believe in God and be corrupt to the core of their being. Dubya is a pathological liar; Cheney and Rumsfeld are consummate opportunists; Fred Phelps is a pathological narcissist and a bully; Robertson and Falwell are on power trips trying to expand their own personal fiefdoms.

Likewise, I'm proud to count among my closest friends atheists who are deeply moral people -- and not afraid to put their lives on the line to protect someone else who may be in imminent danger. Shortly after 9/11, a Muslim was being threatened by some vigilante, fundamentalist Christian in my city; and an atheist friend of mine came between the two and stopped the attack.

A person's religion (or lack thereof) does not make one a "moral person". One's fundamental beliefs -- and how one acts upon those beliefs -- makes one a moral person.

 

[elliotfc]

"And I've never met an atheist or agnostic who didn't care about other person's feelings"
that is true, but if we can explain these feelings by recourse to sociobiology, why not be sociopaths if nobody catches us?

But that's just it! *if nobody catches us*

If we had no fear or reason to worry about the *if nobody catches us*, you'd have a hell of alot more sociopaths. We can only speculate at percentages.

Fact is humans like order and security. Order and security are necessary to raise children.

Possible answers
1. We would not be really happy
we may be, but then your ethical system is "whatever makes you truely happy"

I think our notions of true happiness, on Earth, are tempered by what we know the situation on Earth to be.

In other words, we know for a fact that nobody can achieve true happiness in our individual lives. So we have to settle for something less. We also need some sort of belief system to make sense of that. The closest we can get to true happiness is not orgiastic hedonism, but contentment with the undeniable fact of limitations in the realization of our desires.

It would be interesting to hear people's opinions on what *true happiness* is. I see true happiness in a two-fold way. The first is the total understanding of the big picture. The second is to be able to love and create where there is no ugliness and corruption.

2. It is not good for society
Trouble is that what is good for society may not be good for the individual. Hitler was "good" for german society in some ways (he stopped the endless left-right battles plaguing their society(not in a nice way mind you) and got people working)

You are right. There is a danger in establishing a purely "what is good for society" morality. I don't think anybody in this forum is a utilitarian however, so you may be preaching to the choir.

I sure there are other reasons why I should not be a sociopath?

Because you know better.

-Elliot

 

[Nyarlathotep]

You are right. There is a danger in establishing a purely "what is good for society" morality. I don't think anybody in this forum is a utilitarian however, so you may be preaching to the choir.

-Elliot

There is at least one utilitarian on this forum, me. I find that utilitarianism is the best basis for morality in the absence of a belief in a god and thus some sort of divine punishment for breaking the rules. My position is simply that we enjoy many benifits from living is social groups (tribes, clans, nations etc) but in order for those to function they have to have certain rules (such as don't kill each other, don't steal from each other, etc.) if these rules are followed society can flourish. If we didn't have these rules, or were to ignore them on a large scale, society would soon break down which would not be a desirable result. Thus we have morality precisely because it brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people, which is basicly a utilitarian position.

I find the common arguments against utilitarianism a bit short sighted. They often look only at the effects on the people directly involved and not on the effects of society as a whole. It is those effects that would prevent me from, for example, killing one healthy person to provide translplant material to 10 sick people (a very common argument I have heard against utilitarianism).

 

[elliotfc]

Ethics provide us by a code of values to guide our choices, why is that necessary? Because our surviving and living is not an automatic happening. As living beings we need to pursue values that are gainful for us to survive and live well. Man is a volitional being that must choose what to do. Some choices are gainful (good) and some are detrimental (bad).

Identifying virtues then consists of identifying what in principle furthers human existense and well being, and identifying vice is identifying what in principle is detrimental to human life.

This is an extremely short explanation, please consult the link for a slightly longer. I might be able to dig up a more complete one later

It's an excellent explanation.

I do not think it is complete. You've provided a rationalistic way of arriving at morality, but people could think of none of the above and still conform to a highly moral life.

There's the old conundrum of a man observing another man drowning in a lake, it's just the two of them and no other person is watching. The man wants to save the man, but the man also doesn't want to risk personal endangerment. How does he reach a decision? Does the strongest emotion/impulse/instinct win? Or does he make a choice? And what does he base the choice on? And after the choice, will he feel guilt about the choice he made? If ethics is purely gainful in nature and people are most concerned with well being and existence, there really is no decision to make. Accept that part of you knows that the thing to do is to help the guy, even if you might die in the act. I think that is what the thread starter meant by self-sacrifice. It doesn't make any sense unless there is an ideal that exceeds personal self existence or existence of the species. If the drowning man was an 85 year old woman (ha ha ha) she really means nothing to the species, and you might be a virile man who could reproduce.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

An the ethical athiest approach would be to scoff at the idea of an Ubermensch in the first place.

We're all in this together. That's something atheists do understand.

Ubermensch would and must scoff at people who succumb to believing the slavish morality, which would include religion.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

I was addressing a position that said, Christians get their sense of morality from God. If you do not agree with that position then what is the point of your comment?

I do agree with that position though. We all get our sense of morality from God. We could all be atheists and we would still get our sense of morality from God.

You equate God with the Bible. I think God is much bigger than the Bible. When I say that you believe in God, I mean it in that you have a very real notion of a God that you continually use to make your points.

If you do agree with that position, I would be interested in how you believe that information is passed on to humans.

If you're looking for a mechanistic explanation I can't give you one. All I know is that just about every human has a notion of morality and that the notion is not radically different from culture to culture. You might have a mechanistic explanation for that fact but you cannot prove it any more or less than I can prove mine. The default answer is the evolved, or that it was necessary for survival. That answer can be used to explain everything, and so can God.

Out of curiosity, if there were no *God behaving badly* moments in the Bible, would you have a different opinion of a religion in particular or a religion in general?

-Elliot