morality for atheists?

[Nyarlathotep]

So in this case you would oppose the killing of one healthy person because that would fundamentally destabilize, or cause problems, in an ordered world?

I oppose utilitarianism because I don't think people can agree on what is good for people. Some utilitarians would ban certain books while others would not. Some utilitarians would give their internal organs away while others would not. Which utilitarians are right and which are wrong? Depends on your morality I guess...

-Elliot

Yes, that is exactly why i would oppose it. Perhaps not a single incident (any more than a single murder or theft noticably destbilizes socirty) but if enough people choose to do it it will. So like many other things the only way to ensure that is to forbid anyone to do it. That's all morality is, an greeement that certain things are not to be done.

I willa gree that the problkem of exactly who decides what is best is the biggest problem inherent to utilitarianism. I think that that is a matter for each culture to decide for itself. The ones that choose wisely will generally prosper, the ones that choose poorly won't. That's just life.

 

[scribble]

I was once a completely ignorant Christian. I don't say that to suggest that all Christians are necessarily ignorant, but rather that there is a particular breed of Christian that is one of the most unthinking, unintelligent drones conceivable.

The idea that God is necessary for people to be moral is one of theirs. I don't consider it worth the time to even respond to - and if you'd ever been an ignorant Christian like I was, you'd probably realize that in the vast majority of these cases, the debate is pointless.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

First, allow me to state what I have stated in another thread: Yesterday I was suffering from exhaustion and a fever, so my wording was not necessarily as well chosen as it should have been.

I forget who said it, but they are right, what I talked about was dealing with empathy, ot personal protection.

In dealing with the selfless acts, like those performed by people on Sept. 11, there was a psychologist named Maslow.

Maslow developed something called the heirarchy of needs. (I am trying to remember high-school psychology, so someone will probably need to fill in some blanks, and quite possibly correct me completely on some, if not all of my points.) At the top of the heirarchym there was something called self actualization, which was, in essence, the ability to put something other than one's own needs as a priority.

Breaking from what I remember Maslow to have taught, my belief is that everyone is at least somewhat self-actualized. Perhaps you have at somepoint loaned someone a quarter. OR maybe you gave someone your last cigarette (if you smoke).

There are those who are fully self actualized. They will put themselves easily in harm's way in order to save another human being.

Now you have a basis for selfless morality without any reference to any kind of supernatural force. I may have completely misattributed where it came from, and for that I apologize, however, I do stand by it as a theory.

 

[Hazelip]

I am pretty agnostic but I was reading "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard. Pretty awful book, but there were a few bits in there that made me wonder. One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings). Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system? Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome

If someone needs religion to keep him or herself from gassing millions, then chew the wafer and drink the wine! Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Oh, that would make those people absolute sociopathic monsters too, by the way...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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

It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with religion? Like it or not?

I'm a bit of a Pollyanna, but I cannot deny that many people in this world need both societal and institutional controls and sanctions on their behaviors, otherwise they'd run amok or spend time making life s***y for the rest of us. We have laws to prevent crime (societal sanctions) and institutional sanctions like religion, civic and fraternal organizations, the Boy Scouts, etc. add another layer on keeping people from being s***y to each other. Because of this, I don't think religion is inherently detrimental and is, in fact, think it's a good think for many people.

 

[Yahzi]

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

It may be true that racism is unnecessary, but then again, it might not. Considering how fact oriented we skeptics are supposed to be, I'm constantly amazed by the amount of opinion thrown around here about the evils of racism. No need to remind me about the Nazis and the KKK. I'm perfectly aware of the horrible things that racist fervor can cause. I'm also perfectly aware of the horrible things done in the absence of racism. Who the heck knows which is worse? Alternatively, there are beautiful things done every day in the absence of racism. There are also beautiful things done every day *because* of racism. Who the heck knows which is better?

It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with racism? Like it or not?

"All you have to do to refute a theist is to parrot his arguments back at him, but replacing the word God with any other word"
- Yahzi Coyote

 

[Yahzi]

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

I'm a bit of a Pollyanna, but I cannot deny that many people in this world need both societal and institutional controls and sanctions on their behaviors...

Because of this, I don't think fascismis inherently detrimental and is, in fact, think it's a good think for many other people.

See above.

Unless US is suggesting that he should be ruled by fascists...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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

See above.

Unless US is suggesting that he should be ruled by fascists...

Well, fascism is a totalitarian political system with a single ruler (preferrably one who likes hats) controling the state with everyone subordinate to him and the state. Religion, as I suggested above is comprised of wildly divergent denominations, sects and heretical groups that offer moral and ethical guidelines to the individual and either enforce them through the religious body (excommunication, shunning, chastisement, public penetance) or try and get their tenets enacted as law.

If you want to try and equate fascism with religion and point to 1999 Afghanistan, I'll agree. If you want to equate fascism with religion and point to 1999 United States, I must disagree.

However, since my whole point was about how some individuals need something more than logic or legal statutes to keep them from being s***y to their fellow man, I think the whole issue of fascism is a non sequitor.

 

[baggie]

Re: Re: morality for atheists?

I hate hate hate the people who say "all Atheists are immmoral".


Atheists are moral just like everyone else.

Morality developes through society, not through religion.

..............................
Morals dont exist concretely, they are abstract ideas but nonetheless very important.

I agree, but I suppose I was looking for a level 2 answer. It is clear that atheists are in practice just as moral as Theists. But why should we be? E.g if I was to sit down tomorrow and write the "Complete Book of ethics and Morals for Atheists", what would I include and why?

Any moral or ethic included will always have some view point e.g. utilitarianism, hedonism. It is clear to me that my ethical feelings (I view myself as very ethical) come from evolution and are advantageous for the propagation of my genes. Why should I then bother listening to them? My sexual urges for instance tell me to have immediate sex with every attractive lady I meet, luckily (for the ladies) I manage to suppress those most of the time.

The problem is that without an "outside golden ethic" then the ethics of a sociopath are just as good in a evolutionary sense as mine. Ok sociopaths are parasites in a social sense, but parasites are just as viable evolutionary as non-parasites, e.g a tape-worm is one of natures success story.

Or put another way, we are all disgusted when we hear that a child has been murdered. I therefore have a moral sense. It is clear to me that child murder is very bad in the most fundamental way possible. But I forget that these are just feelings inserted by my brain. Should I then trust them and why?

I agree that the golden rule (together with the bronze and silver runner ups) are excellent guides. I deeply admire people who give up all to help other people. But again this admiration is just a feeling inserted by my brain to help my genes propagate. aahh

I guess too much self analysis leads to madness.

My hunch is that ethics for an atheist must then boil down to gene propagation? Of course gene progation can lead to wonderful things like the Sistine Chapel and the International Red Cross. It can equally lead to Hitler.

To summarise a rambling thread
God = clear moral guidelines
atheist me: just a gene carrier?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Baggie, I haven't propigated my genes, and don't think I ever will. Care to hazzard a guess as to why I haven't run amok yet?

 

[baggie]

Baggie, I haven't propigated my genes, and don't think I ever will. Care to hazzard a guess as to why I haven't run amok yet?

Ok several reasons
1. you would be shot. the survival instinct is strong
2. Whether you plan to propagate your genes or not, the programming is still in your brain that suggests it is good to be moral. It is very difficult to rewire your subconcious (I am still a lazy selfish slob, but have been trying hard for years to change, honest)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ok several reasons
1. you would be shot. the survival instinct is strong
2. Whether you plan to propagate your genes or not, the programming is still in your brain that suggests it is good to be moral. It is very difficult to rewire your subconcious (I am still a lazy selfish slob, but have been trying hard for years to change, honest)

Ah, but your citations of what is considered abnormal behavior must be wired in as well, otherwise they are clearly abberations to "nomal" behavior and then not relevent to consideration of what is moral and how we derive moral and ethical conduct for ourselves - except to determine what is non-normal behavior.

Your first comment is mostly correct, but to that I'd add there's a healthy dose of Silver rule in there. Even if I don't have children to stay alive and unincarcerated, I do continue to live and wish to do so in the most non-s***y world possible. To that end, by not being s***y to others, they tend to not be s***y to me.

 

[baggie]

Ah, but your citations of what is considered abnormal behavior must be wired in as well, otherwise they are clearly abberations to "nomal" behavior and then not relevent to consideration of what is moral and how we derive moral and ethical conduct for ourselves - except to determine what is non-normal behavior.
.

not sure I completely follow (my problem not yours)
My guess is that the "programming" contains instances of positive behaviour (be nice) and bad behaviour to avoid (incest, violence). Of course all programming can be overridden (by another program) when needed, for instance for survival, or by conditioning (Hitler Youth). There are almost certainly people born or made with different or lacking programming (e.g sociopaths).

What we call ethical is just what our programming tells us is. there is no god or platonic morals out there to guide us.

 

[jimlintott]

I just wanted to respond to a few of elliots points. My comments in bold.

quote:Originally posted by jimlintott
Here is my question. Why doesn't the application of religion result in more consistent morality?



Because there are thousands of different religions.

None of which can claim that their 'flock' has a consistent moral behaviour. Why?

quote: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.



Sure it's a human creation. What ideas DON'T help to control a population?

So you agree with me then.

quote:Morality and ethics (or lack of) are a human condition. Religion has nothing to do with it.



If religion has nothing to do with morality why do religions discuss and explain morality?

See population control.

Why do most people associate religion and morality?

Indoctrination.

All religions provide moral codes so you're completely wrong.

No, humans provided a moral code. Wrapped it up with ceremony and a magic show and called it religion.

 

[Michael Redman]

The rules are not just programming planted in your head by evolution, they also work! Following the rules is both instinctual and rational. If we didn't have them implanted (and to some extent we don't) we would (and do) teach them, and reinforce them, or we wouldn't succeed. The sociopathic course is not as successful, or we would be as likely to be sociopaths.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The rules are not just programming planted in your head by evolution, they also work! Following the rules is both instinctual and rational. If we didn't have them implanted (and to some extent we don't) we would (and do) teach them, and reinforce them, or we wouldn't succeed. The sociopathic course is not as successful, or we would be as likely to be sociopaths.

But when you think about it, there is nothing ' instinctual ' about respecting the property or comfort of others.. In fact, exactly the opposite would appear to be true.. ( i.e. it needs to be learned (programmed).. )

Just consider the behaviour of any toddler.. They pick up anything and everything, without concern for who it belongs to or to what extent taking something, might bring discomfort, pain or even death to the rightful owner.

If they do not learn empathy, they become sociopathic, which would seem to be the default rather than the exeption, in the absence of propper guidance..


Proper ( moral ) behaviour only becomes ' rational ', when it is learned that this is the path of least resistance ( in a social sense )...

 

[baggie]

The rules are not just programming planted in your head by evolution, they also work! Following the rules is both instinctual and rational. If we didn't have them implanted (and to some extent we don't) we would (and do) teach them, and reinforce them, or we wouldn't succeed. The sociopathic course is not as successful, or we would be as likely to be sociopaths.

I agree, but they have worked well in the past when we were basically apemen. There is no guarantee they will work as well in the future, or that there are not even better alternatives. Thus we may have to reexamine our morals, which was one aim of the thread.

 

[Michael Redman]

But when you think about it, there is nothing ' instinctual ' about respecting the property or comfort of others.. In fact, exactly the opposite would appear to be true.. ( i.e. it needs to be learned (programmed).. )

Maybe not directly, but there certainly is a need to garner social acceptance, and stealing from and harming others does not accomplish this.

 

[Michael Redman]

I agree, but they have worked well in the past when we were basically apemen. There is no guarantee they will work as well in the future, or that there are not even better alternatives. Thus we may have to reexamine our morals, which was one aim of the thread.

I always say better education is the solution to alll social problems. With a little proper education, every child can be made to realize how they maximize their own utility by cooperating within society. I don't see any need to look for a new morality, as the old one works perfectly well.

 

[baggie]

I always say better education is the solution to alll social problems. With a little proper education, every child can be made to realize how they maximize their own utility by cooperating within society. I don't see any need to look for a new morality, as the old one works perfectly well.

I agree that the old one works well (most of the time). I am just not quite sure what the old one is, or on what it is based on, or why we have it, or how one would justify it to a martian (all from an atheist point of view). As a scientist/poor philospher I want to peek behind the facade. Your moral stance is perhaps "maximize your own utility by cooperating within society". Mine might be different. Is one better? How does one decide?