morality for atheists?

[scribble]

Yes there is a way to test and that is game theory. For instance, in simple evolutionary simulations the bronze rule "do unto others as they did unto you" beats even the golden rule and any others.

I'm not aware of any simulations that are capable of grasping the full depth of human ethics. This is amazing; care to cite an example?

-Chris

 

[baggie]

I'm not aware of any simulations that are capable of grasping the full depth of human ethics. This is amazing; care to cite an example?

-Chris

of course we are modelling simple examples at the moment. As the models get better no doubt we could approach something "human like". However, the modelling has concentrated on simple animal like interactions for obvious reasons. See http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/ESS/ESS_index_frmset.html for lots of background.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

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

Well first off, that would be a fallacy of composition.

One that leading scientists in evolution and neuroscience have looked into and affirmed that evolution can produce morals, scientists like Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley and philosopher/scientist Daniel C. Dennett.



Basically I personally adhere to a moral foundationalism.


This basically takes similiar form to the foundationalism most are aware of, epistemic foundationalism which involves truths or reasoning beggining with certain self-evident axioms- like sight sensation, sound sensation, the law of noncontradiction, and objectivism.


Only that instead of sensation of sight it proposes a sensation of good/bad and right/wrong.

Many moral systems are moral foundationalist in this sense.

Consider utilitarianism, it proposes that pleasure=right. But how do they argue for this? How do they know an organisms goal is to promote pain, and avoid pleasure?

The answer would be something like "it's obvious". But why is it obvious? I would say because the sensation itself along with its evaluation is self-evident.



Hence right or wrong in the general and moral sense become what I consider ethical data. This data takes the form of emotions, and other pleasure/pain sensations.


Hence liking or disliking something is simply a certain type or quality of pain and pleasure. Though I hesitate to call it pain or pleasure because of the hedonistic assumptions underlying such words.



Thus I believe moral norms are justifed at a self-evident level. Not a cognitive level, but an emotive level.


This means there can be variation of course. What is self-evident to one person may not be to another when it comes to the emotive. But what can be objectively said is that what is self-evident to me, is self-evident to me, even if not to you.


Now what established these moral axioms? I believe evolutionary mechanisms, that are of course expressed through environment. In this sense I am of course making a distinction between proximate causes for adhering to morals (emotions from the brain's point of view) as opposed to ultimate causes (why it evolved, from the genes point of view.)
I distinguishing between ethical explanations and justifications.

To quote Dawkins on a similiar issue:

DR. DAWKINS: Some people are puzzled by the sense in which it's possible to take a deliberate decision to emancipate ourselves from the Darwinian world. Well, we know we do it, because every time we look unreceptive we are doing something anti-Darwinian. What happens is that Darwinian natural selection has built into us sexual desire for obvious good Darwinian reasons. In nature, where there are no contraceptives, sexual desire leads you to copulate. Copulation leads to children. That's all the genes need. In the modern world contraceptives have been invented, so it's possible to enjoy copulation without the follow-up, without having children. And we do. And many of us do it all the time. And it is something which is manifestly and factually counter-Darwinian -- anti-Darwinian, anti the dictates of the selfish genes. We have been given brains which were shaped to enjoy sex. We have also been given brains that have been shaped to enjoy various other kinds of hedonistic pleasures. We have noticed consciously that hedonistic pleasure or other more worthwhile pastimes are sometimes incompatible with having lots of children all the time that you have to look after. And so we get the best of both worlds by consciously deciding to enjoy both the sex and the other things that would have been competed with -- by the need to look after children. We have achieved the best of both worlds from our own brain point of view, but not of course from the gene point of view.

http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/dawk-body.html


I think morals evolved as a consequence of living in a group, and how group members tend to establish certain norms.

Now I am not saying it is genetically determined. I am saying there is a genetic predisposition.

I am also not saying that we merely practice morality because it benefits our Darwinian fitness. I am saying we practice morality because we want to and we want to practice morality because Darwinian mechanisms in the past have wired us that way. Just like sex, genetic mechanisms of the past are what make us like sex today, but that doesn't mean we just have sex to aid our genes.


It is like growth. We are all genetically predisposed to grow. But does that mean without food and water we will still reach our full height? Does that mean that nutrition does not effect growth?

Of course not. Genetic predispositions are of course nurtured through and expressed through the environment.




Again to quote Dawkins:

The phrase "the selfish gene" only means that genes are selfish. It doesn't mean that individual organisms are. On the contrary, one of the main messages of the selfish gene is that selfish genes can program altruistic behavior in organisms. Organisms can behave altruistically towards other organisms -- the better to forward the propagation of their own selfish genes. What you cannot have is a gene that sacrifices itself for the benefit of other genes. What you can have is a gene that makes organisms sacrifice themselves for other organisms under the influence of selfish genes.

I think we certainly benefit from social institutions which encourage us towards moral behavior. It's very important to have law. It's very important to have a moral education. It's very important to try to inculcate into children moral rules, such as "do as you would be done by." It's very important to do moral philosophy, to try work out the principles we want to live. But when you say religious principles, there I think I would part company. I see no reason why they should be religious. But I certainly think that they should be developed by society and not necessarily following biological dictates.

And Matt Ridley:

The conventional wisdom in the social sciences is that human nature is simply the imprint of an individual's background and experience. But our cultures are not random collections of arbitrary habits. They are canalized expressions of our instincts. That is why the same themes crop up in all cultures - themes such as family, ritual, bargain, love, hierarchy, friendships, jealousy, group loaylty, and superstition. That is why, for all their superficial differences of language and custom, foreign cultures are still immediately comprehensible at the deeper level of motives, emotions and social habits. Instincts, in a species like the human one, are not immutable genetic programs; they are pre-dispositions to learn. And to believe that human beings have instincts is no more determinist than to believe they are the products of their upbringing.

Matt Ridley, again:

For St Augustine the source of social order lay in the teachings of Christ. For Hobbes it lay in the sovereign. For Rousseau it lay in solitude. For Lenin it lay in the party. They were all wrong. The roots of social order are in our heads, where we possess the instinctive capacities for creating not a perfectly harmonious and virtuous society, but a better one than we have at present.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Matt_Ridley.html



Steven Pinker:

Sometimes the most selfish thing a gene can do is to wire unselfish motives into a human brain - heartfelt, unstinting unselfishness. The love of children (who carry one's genes into posterity), a faithful spouse (who genetic fate is identical to one's own), and friends and allies (who trust you if you're trustworthy) can be bottomless and unimpeachable as far as we humans are concerned (proximate level), even if is self-serving as far as genes are concerned (ultimate level).

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Matt_Ridley.html


Steven again:

Many of our mental faculties evolved to mesh with real things in the world. Our perception of
depth is the product of complicated circuitry in the brain, circuitry that appears to be absent in other species and even in certain impaired people. But that does not mean that there aren?t real trees and cliffs out there or that the world is as flat as a cartoon.
And this argument can be carried over to more abstract properties of the world. Humans (and many other animals) appear to have an innate sense of number, which can be explained by the utility of reasoning about numerosity in our evolutionary history. That is perfectly compatible with the Platonist theory of number believed by many mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics, according to which abstract mathematical entities such as numbers have an existence independent of minds.
According to this view, the number sense evolved to mesh with real truths in the
world that in some sense exist independent of human knowers. A similar argument can be made for morality. According to the theory of moral realism, right and wrong have an existence and an inherent logic that licenses some chains of argument and not others. If so, our moral sense evolved to mesh with the logic of morality. The crucial point is that something can be both a product of the mind and a genuinely existing entity.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Blank_Slate.html#Determinism

Steven Pinker explaining why determisn does not imply amoralism:

The third fear is a fear of determinism: that we will no longer be able to hold people responsible for their behavior because they can they can always blame it on their brain or their genes or their evolutionary history?the evolutionary-urge or killer-gene defense. The fear is misplaced for two reasons. One is that the silliest excuses for bad behavior have in fact invoked the environment, rather than biology, anyway?such as the abuse excuse that got the Menendez brothers off the hook in their first trial, the "black rage" defense that was used to try to exonerate the Long Island Railroad gunman, the "pornography made me to it" defense that some rapists have tried. If there's a threat to responsibility it doesn't come from biological determinism but from any determinism, including childhood upbringing, mass media, social conditioning, and so on.

But none of these should be taken seriously in the first place. Even if there are parts of the brain that compel people to do things for various reasons, there are other parts of the brain that respond to the legal and social contingencies that we call "holding someone responsible for their behavior." For example, if I rob a liquor store, I'll get thrown in jail, or if I cheat on my spouse my friends and relatives and neighbors will think that I'm a boorish cad and will refuse to have anything to do with me. By holding people responsible for their actions we are implementing contingencies that can affect parts of the brain and can lead people to inhibit what they would otherwise do. There's no reason that we should give up that lever on people's behavior?namely, the inhibition systems of the brain?just because we're coming to understand more about the temptation systems.

Pinker again, explaining why it does not lead to the view of morality as a consruct or fiction:

The final fear is the fear of nihilism. If it can be shown that all of our motives and values are products of the physiology of the brain, which in turn was shaped by the forces of evolution, then they would in some sense be shams, without objective reality. I wouldn't really be loving my child; all I would be doing is selfishly propagating my genes. Flowers and butterflies and works of art are not truly beautiful; my brain just evolved to give me a pleasant sensation when a certain pattern of light hits my retina. The fear is that biology will debunk all that we hold sacred.

This fear is based on a confusion between two very different ways to explain behavior. What biologists call a "proximate" explanation refers to what is meaningful to me given the brain that I have. An "ultimate" explanation refers to the evolutionary processes that gave me a brain with the ability to have those thoughts and feelings. Yes, evolution (the ultimate explanation for our minds) is a short-sighted selfish process in which genes are selected for their ability to maximize the number of copies of themselves. But that doesn't mean that we are selfish and short sighted, at least not all the time. There's nothing that prevents the selfish, amoral process of natural selection evolution from evolving a big-brained social organism with a complex moral sense. There's an old saying that people who appreciate legislation and sausages should not see them being made. That's a bit like human values?knowing how they were made can be misleading if you don't think carefully about the process. Selfish genes don't necessarily build a selfish organization.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_p3.html

 

[Yahzi]

For instance, in simple evolutionary simulations the bronze rule "do unto others as they did unto you" beats even the golden rule and any others.

Emphasis on "simple."

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist [/B]

Awesome quotes! I wish I could whip those out every time I have to explain (yet again) why morality is objective.

 

[Rayn]

DialecticMaterialist:

I enjoyed the quotes, interesting stuff. However, I do have some questions, if you don't mind answering.

Thus I believe moral norms are justifed at a self-evident level. Not a cognitive level, but an emotive level.


This means there can be variation of course. What is self-evident to one person may not be to another when it comes to the emotive. But what can be objectively said is that what is self-evident to me, is self-evident to me, even if not to you.

How can justification for objective actions be based upon an emotive self-evidence? Moreover, how does one reconcile this outlook in the face of extreme emotional states/mental instability? Basically, I am wondering when such self-evidence is invalidated through the self being an unstable, dynamic entity.

Now what established these moral axioms? I believe evolutionary mechanisms, that are of course expressed through environment. In this sense I am of course making a distinction between proximate causes for adhering to morals (emotions from the brain's point of view) as opposed to ultimate causes (why it evolved, from the genes point of view.)
I distinguishing between ethical explanations and justifications.

You go on to state that you believe we have a genetic predisposition towards ethics-governed behavior, which becomes shaped by the environment. Hence, ethics would be essentially subjective, whereas the need for ethics is objective? So, are you arguing against there being any objective ethical code, so to speak, insofar as you seem to be advocating a cultural relativistic view towards the development of ethics?

Just wondering, any reply would be great. Thanks.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

How can justification for objective actions be based upon an emotive self-evidence? Moreover, how does one reconcile this outlook in the face of extreme emotional states/mental instability? Basically, I am wondering when such self-evidence is invalidated through the self being an unstable, dynamic entity.

Well it's like if I touch a fire, I feel pain. That's pretty self-evident, and I doubt anyone would question my testimony or their experience. At least not if they were being reasonable.

I don't see why we make a radical distinction between emotions, and sight or sound. All three are just different kinds of sensations, different kinds of data, when it comes down to it.

You go on to state that you believe we have a genetic predisposition towards ethics-governed behavior, which becomes shaped by the environment. Hence, ethics would be essentially subjective, whereas the need for ethics is objective? So, are you arguing against there being any objective ethical code, so to speak, insofar as you seem to be advocating a cultural relativistic view towards the development of ethics?

Well I think the view of ethics being either absolute or relative is a false dillemma.

I think ethical norms reflect our intrinsic traits. And our intrinsic traits can vary a lot without becoming relative.

Like Pinker points out with regards to depth perception. Some people lack the ability to percieve depth, some people lack the ability to see at all. Environment can also effect your ability to percieve depth or see. I can for example keep a person in a dark room his or her entire life. Or I can scoop out his or her eye balls.

But that doesn't mean we now just discard sight or depth perception as subjective.


Likewise our moral sensibilties can be effect by environment and culture, but ultimately I think there are certain general norms the vast majority of us share which is more suuported/imprinted by cultures then dettered by them.

It's like height. We all grow to different heights, and certain cultures, depending on their diet, have their average members grow to a different height. They also have individuals who vary in height inside their own societies due to genes and personal environmental interactions. Height is still considered objective however, despite all this variation, and certain general rules still apply (like between 1-21, you will get taller and taller). And even the variation can be explained in a causal manner (we can attribute short height in person X, with malnurishment for example).

That is to say it is an objective trait, but the trait can vary from person to person due to environmental contingencies in a myriad of ways.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

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?

As I said earlier, morals develope through society. For instance, what if a country finds it morally acceptable to eat pets. Myself, I dont believe you should eat your pets. Conflict would arise if you tried to write a pamphlet where eating pets was treated as moral or immoral. Its one of those "Regional Ethics" things.

As far as book is concerned, I think Locke's 3 Natural rights are a pretty good summation of Atheistic morality: All people have their right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesnt come at the expense of anothers rights to life, liberty, or happiness).

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.

Dont think like that. Atheist morality has absolutely nothing to do with gene propagation.

To say its all about "the gene pool" is a gross and irresponsible oversimplification.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

As both Dawkins and Pinker have pointed out, that kind of reasoning i.e. morals just helped genes so why adhere to them? Represents a failure to distinguish between proximate explanations coming from the brains point of view, and ultimate explanation, coming from the gene's point of view.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Morals should be a necessary agreement between all parties to everyone is kept equally safe, and everyone benefits.

 

[Rayn]

DialecticMaterialist said: Well it's like if I touch a fire, I feel pain. That's pretty self-evident, and I doubt anyone would question my testimony or their experience. At least not if they were being reasonable.

I don't see why we make a radical distinction between emotions, and sight or sound. All three are just different kinds of sensations, different kinds of data, when it comes down to it.

If morals are founded upon our personal ability to feel emotion, then why are they not purely subjective?

Well I think the view of ethics being either absolute or relative is a false dillemma.

Why?

I think ethical norms reflect our intrinsic traits. And our intrinsic traits can vary a lot without becoming relative.

Like Pinker points out with regards to depth perception. Some people lack the ability to percieve depth, some people lack the ability to see at all. Environment can also effect your ability to percieve depth or see. I can for example keep a person in a dark room his or her entire life. Or I can scoop out his or her eye balls.

But that doesn't mean we now just discard sight or depth perception as subjective.

I understand that we don't discard sight/depth perception as purely subjective because one subject is unable to experience them, however, I really cannot see how this relates to emotive learning, which seems to be your basis for the development of an ethical code. That is to say, we develop an ethical code, we do not develop our ability see in a gradual manner, at least after the first few months of birth (that is, as far as I know). Although sight can deteriorate as we age, or we can improve our ability to see through various tricks (as some baseball players do), it is mainly something that is physically determined.

However, our emotive development is almost purely based upon learning from our experience, from observing others react to various situations. Consequently, it is through subjective experience that we develop an ethical code, and despite a "predisposition towards morals" it seems to make the objective aspect of morals rather vacuous, especially if the subjective experience can shape a person such that they abandon moral codes completely.

Likewise our moral sensibilties can be effect by environment and culture, but ultimately I think there are certain general norms the vast majority of us share which is more suuported/imprinted by cultures then dettered by them.

It's like height. We all grow to different heights, and certain cultures, depending on their diet, have their average members grow to a different height. They also have individuals who vary in height inside their own societies due to genes and personal environmental interactions. Height is still considered objective however, despite all this variation, and certain general rules still apply (like between 1-21, you will get taller and taller). And even the variation can be explained in a causal manner (we can attribute short height in person X, with malnurishment for example).

That is to say it is an objective trait, but the trait can vary from person to person due to environmental contingencies in a myriad of ways.

I like your argument, that essentially ethics is a genetic seed, which develops in one form or another in all of us. However, I don't see why such a seed has to exist at all. Couldn't one argue that the seed is found completely subjectively, that our environments inculcate the idea of an ethical code into us, as opposed to it being a piece of the genetic code?

Thanks for any reply.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

If morals are founded upon our personal ability to feel emotion, then why are they not purely subjective?

The term subjective has multiple meanings. Yes, as part of the mind they are subjective, but in that sense literally all knowledge is subjective.

But as part of some inner being that is closed off from the rest of reality or as a fiction it is not subjective.

From dictionary.com:

sub·jec·tive [Audio pronunciation of subjective] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective


Morality is subjective in the first sense, (yet again only to an extent as the mind is part of an external world). But not in the second and forth sense, which is usually what a subjectivist is claiming when they say morality is subjective.

Why?

Why is it a false dillemma? Simply because there are more options, like:utiltarianism, ethical foundationalism, situational objectivism.

I understand that we don't discard sight/depth perception as purely subjective because one subject is unable to experience them, however, I really cannot see how this relates to emotive learning, which seems to be your basis for the development of an ethical code. That is to say, we develop an ethical code, we do not develop our ability see in a gradual manner, at least after the first few months of birth (that is, as far as I know). Although sight can deteriorate as we age, or we can improve our ability to see through various tricks (as some baseball players do), it is mainly something that is physically determined.

So basically because we may develope our sense of sight more quickly, it is less subjective? How does that work?

However, our emotive development is almost purely based upon learning from our experience, from observing others react to various situations. Consequently, it is through subjective experience that we develop an ethical code, and despite a "predisposition towards morals" it seems to make the objective aspect of morals rather vacuous, especially if the subjective experience can shape a person such that they abandon moral codes completely.

That is pure conjecture that is at odds with all research.

If you have any evidence to refute what I quoted from the above neorscientists, cognitive scientists, geneticists and biochemists I'd love to see it. Until then it is merely your speculation vs. their research.

I like your argument, that essentially ethics is a genetic seed, which develops in one form or another in all of us. However, I don't see why such a seed has to exist at all. Couldn't one argue that the seed is found completely subjectively, that our environments inculcate the idea of an ethical code into us, as opposed to it being a piece of the genetic code?

One could argue that, but then one has to explain why all cultures by chance developed moral norms, why morality has held in our society so consistently through the ages, why morals have animal precursors, as well as all the evidence from evolutionary pscyhology, behavioral genetics and cognitive science which seem to imply that at least half our behavior is rooted in genes, with morality being among this.

Again your statements are plausible. Lots of things are possible. It's possible morals just come from the environment....it's possible they come from little angels in our heads...it's possible that they just spontanious pop into our psyche from another dimension...


But the evidence does not indicate that such is probable. And as a man of reason, I prefer to go along with the evidence.

 

[baggie]

Dilaetcic materialist,

thanks for the postings. the cites have been great. However, it seems on a quick read that some of them are srguing for a moral realism point of view (esp. Pinker in the par that follows "But that does not mean that there aren?t real trees and cliffs out there or that the world is as flat as a cartoon" - e.g. the is an absolute morality.

Now I can tell the difference between "proximate" and ultimate explanations. However, knowing how or why ethics developed and why my brain feel that ethics is important doesn't help one in deciding whether to listen to the voices. In all the quotes you gave people sprinkle words like moral, good etc without really in my mind thinking it on the next level. They assume that 1) certain things are bad (murder, societal disquiet) and then use that to justify the particular moral view or theory they have.

e.g. Dawkins "I think we certainly benefit from social institutions which encourage us towards moral behavior. It's very important to have law. It's very important to have a moral education. It's very important to try to inculcate into children moral rules, such as "do as you would be done by." It's very important to do moral philosophy, to try work out the principles we want to live."

He seems to be arguing from a "what is good for society is good for me" point of view - fine - but I could insert "not" in all his sentences and argue from a libertarian or anarchist point of view.

The points that I hope we can agree on:
1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thought
2. Human beings have adopted various behaviours which help them survive or feel better. These can be codified into rules called ethics. These are manifest in various ways - pain, pleasure, "a bad concious" etc
3. What is good for an individuals comfort or survival may conflict with what is good for the group. Short term benefit may not be the same as long term benefit. Comparing benefits is difficult (a delicious donut or a slim tummy?) Hence the proliferation of various moral theories.

Therefore, I restate my original nihilistic thought - there can be no absolute morality for atheists. I can set up a moral universal where only I matter. Of course my morality will impact on my behaviour and how people treat me, but as long as I am prepared to accept this no one can call me "wrong" or "immoral". They can call me selfish and unlikeable etc and refuse to have anything to with me.

 

[baggie]

p.s I am not arguing that you should be selfish, only that it there is no real moral argument against it

 

[hammegk]

p.s I am not arguing that you should be selfish, only that it there is no real moral argument against it

The basic point imo. Morals in the final analysis are "might makes right".

Historically, religions and their attendent moral systems were easier to enforce by citing sky-daddy - not man - as the source. You don't need sky-daddy; you'll just need more people with truncheons & guns to enforce things to the liking of those currently wielding power.

 

[Fun2BFree]

Dilaetcic materialist,

....The points that I hope we can agree on:
1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thought
2. Human beings have adopted various behaviours which help them survive or feel better. These can be codified into rules called ethics. These are manifest in various ways - pain, pleasure, "a bad concious" etc
3. What is good for an individuals comfort or survival may conflict with what is good for the group. Short term benefit may not be the same as long term benefit. Comparing benefits is difficult (a delicious donut or a slim tummy?) Hence the proliferation of various moral theories.

Therefore, I restate my original nihilistic thought - there can be no absolute morality for atheists. ...

The absolute for RATIONAL atheists is that evidence is the ultimate authority to settle all questions including moral ones. The words good, bad, moral etc have no meaning unless the terms are defined. It is neither absolutely good nor bad if humans continue to exist--there is no evidence to support that there is a nonhuman external observer looking for any particular endpoint--thus all such endpoints require a human observer--and thus the survival of human observers...evidence argues that what people would call amoral, or anarchic behaviour would indeed lead to the end of the humans needed to make the outcome have any meaning as moral or good. It is very much like sex--we like sex because it eventually guarantees we will be around. We like morality because it too guarantees that we will be around. Humanoids and their societies of the past that lacked
this moral sense would have killed each other off long ago--and likely did. Sociopaths are aberrations--like asexual people and congenitally infertile people--mistakes happen in nature which can be self destructive---but they can't multiply and dominate.

 

[baggie]

The absolute for RATIONAL atheists is that evidence is the ultimate authority to settle all questions including moral ones. The words good, bad, moral etc have no meaning unless the terms are defined. It is neither absolutely good nor bad if humans continue to exist--there is no evidence to support that there is a nonhuman external observer looking for any particular endpoint--thus all such endpoints require a human observer--and thus the survival of human observers...evidence argues that what people would call amoral, or anarchic behaviour would indeed lead to the end of the humans needed to make the outcome have any meaning as moral or good. It is very much like sex--we like sex because it eventually guarantees we will be around. We like morality because it too guarantees that we will be around. Humanoids and their societies of the past that lacked
this moral sense would have killed each other off long ago--and likely did. Sociopaths are aberrations--like asexual people and congenitally infertile people--mistakes happen in nature which can be self destructive---but they can't multiply and dominate.

I am not sure if you agree with my last post or not.

I do not think sociopaths are abberations. They are parasitic, but parasites are in darwinian terms just as good as us. Another way of putting it, sometimes being sociopathic would be the best survival choice. It is true that society can only tolerate a certain level of sociopaths for group survival, but the earth can only support a certain level of humans - it does not mean that humans are "abberant". I see sociopaths as being part of the darwinian personality mix that society needs or produces. E.g aggressive people are a pain, until you get invaded by another country when they become very useful.

I agree with the rest of your post though!

 

[Fun2BFree]

I guess we basically agree--sociopaths are no more an "aberration" than are moral people---but there is natural selection that allows moral folks to dominate...as for aggressive people being useful---that is not the same thing...one can be aggressive and not sociopathic---and those that fail to see this often pay the price when they embrace a sociopath as useful because they can provide some near term aggressive dominance-eg Hitler--it ultimately brought ruin to the Germans to have such an out of control nutcase running things...though early on he helped build them up...but anything built on such an amoral structure is doomed..the "bad" guys can't hold together for the long haul the way a more moral based group can because those that live by the sword do indeed perish by it--the great progress and successes of the last centuries have been the triumph of those that live by law using might as a tool to support law not as the determinant of what is right.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

However, knowing how or why ethics developed and why my brain feel that ethics is important doesn't help one in deciding whether to listen to the voices. In all the quotes you gave people sprinkle words like moral, good etc without really in my mind thinking it on the next level. They assume that 1) certain things are bad (murder, societal disquiet) and then use that to justify the particular moral view or theory they have.

I don't know what you mean by the "next level" exactly. I think the difference is that they start looking at the question as one of concrete examples, i.e. experiences. Not as a quest for ultimate principles.

I think what you are asking is "why should I follow my brain's impulses" and the question is largely meaningless.

Since "should" in that sense implies a compelling or motivating force, and the only source we know of for that is brain impulses. The question is thus akin to asking "why should I follow through with something, once we remove all prescription?" or "why should I do something, once we remove all shoulds?"

He seems to be arguing from a "what is good for society is good for me" point of view - fine - but I could insert "not" in all his sentences and argue from a libertarian or anarchist point of view.

I'm not quite clear what your point is. First off I never got that from what he is saying. Secondly, just because you can change Dawkin's sentences means nothing.

Lastly, your entire approach to the manner seems anti-foundationalist, in which case literally nothing they said would convince you, as you have rejected their case a priori.

That's like if I define life as something possessing a "vital essence", no new data concerning biochemistry could convince me, because by definition, we would have to show what makes complex biochemical processes alive.

The points that I hope we can agree on:
1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thought
2. Human beings have adopted various behaviours which help them survive or feel better. These can be codified into rules called ethics. These are manifest in various ways - pain, pleasure, "a bad concious" etc

2 is a bit confused. Humans do not "adopt" these things willingly. We attain them as genetic predispositions or have them imprinted by our environments.

3. What is good for an individuals comfort or survival may conflict with what is good for the group. Short term benefit may not be the same as long term benefit. Comparing benefits is difficult (a delicious donut or a slim tummy?) Hence the proliferation of various moral theories.

To an extent though I see moral theorizing as more of a cognitive problem.

I do agree there can be a lot of conflicting values though, within and between individuals.

Therefore, I restate my original nihilistic thought - there can be no absolute morality for atheists.

Well that is unless we posit one rule: do what best serves your overall value system i.e. aggregate of moral norms. I see no possible way to supercede this rule.

I can set up a moral universal where only I matter. Of course my morality will impact on my behaviour and how people treat me, but as long as I am prepared to accept this no one can call me "wrong" or "immoral".

Now we jumped right into a non sequitur. How can you set such a universe up? Do you choose your genes? Do you choose how your environment influences you?

And can't the people say you *are* immoral, in that to them, you *are* immoral?

I think your entire position presumes a great degree of free will, and such an assumption is quite dubious.

 

[Pyrian]

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)

Your counter-argument only works if you exclude the Jewish population. Take out this rather massive hole in your reasoning and it works just fine.

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

If and only if Jews actually are sub-human, to which no evidence exists (or ever did).

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

Other than the invariably negative consequences of such behavior in the long term? Is it even necessary to have other reasons?

I oppose utilitarianism because I don't think people can agree on what is good for people.

Shall I then oppose religious morality because people have PROVEN that they cannot agree on what that consists of, and in fact have historically shown themselves all too willing to commit egregious breaches thereof in the argument?

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...

No, it depends on whether or not they are right. Utilitarianism simply changes the debate from "is it right or wrong" (a question which is difficult if not impossible to objectively answer) to "what are the consequences of establishing this as a rule," a question which has an answer, albeit one that may be very difficult to establish short of experiment.

Anyone who doesn't see this, and follows the rules only because the God's reward/punishment potential, is, in my opinion, a sociopath.

I'm glad that would only be your opinion. Sociopaths are judged to be sociopaths because of their behaviors in society, and not their beliefs.

The one quickly leads to the other. It is those that believe morality consists solely in doing what God says who, in my society at least, preach hatred and condemnation of homosexuals, for example, or the murdering of doctors, or the flying of airplanes into buildings in another society.

People approach religion in such monumental life events. That's got to mean something, even if you don't like religion.

Sure - but what DOES it mean? I suspect my answer would be dramatically different from yours.

This was in regards to mentioning birth rates.

Uh, no, you brought that subject up, and although I read your post and the post it replied to several times I never figured out what you were trying to respond to.

Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.

Of course it has evolutionary benefit, that's the whole point of the utilitarian view, that morality is and always has been beneficial. That's what utilitarianism MEANS.

And much more of the entirety of humanity has been able to function without the evolutionist interpretation of morality.

No - what is YOUR point? Neither utilitarianism nor evolution hold that belief in themselves are any factor at all. That's a religious thing - which is why the argument applies against you and cannot be turned around.

I can't prove that, but I've never seen a society that didn't have a religion.

Monkeys. Ants. Every social animal. They do not have concepts that seem to bear any resemblance to religion, but do have distinct and observable values that could easily be described as moral. Would you like examples?

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

Amen to that. Judging by many discussions I've had on the subject, there are some amongst humanity that simply will not and perhaps cannot grasp secular morality. Send them to the church, IMO.

At what point would the toddler ' instinctually ' start behaving nicely ?

When another toddler instinctually attacks him for taking what that other toddler considered to be his. Interestingly, our concepts of personal property and revenge are much more hard-coded than our concepts of others' property and feelings...

I don't want others stealing / murdering / raping / etc me. If I do those things it can, in numerous ways, lead to those things happening to me therefore I shall not steal / murder / rape / etc.

I like to think of it in terms of societal norms. Do I want to live in a society where stealing, murder, and rape are the norm, for example? Much as I might like to jump some girl, I'd have to say no...

The religious types who claim their religion gives them morality are demonstrably dishonest...Ask them with their religion how they separate out the rela rules -(GOLDEN) from the less important ones (keeping kosher for Jews, for example) to the ones to ignore or avoid (stone adulterers, etc)...They pick and choose their rules just like nonbelievers--based on a rational assessment of the desired outcomes and the means to reach them.
We nonbelievers are just more honest about it.

Excellent, I'm going to have to remember that argument.

Abortion?
Capital Punishment?
Prostitution?
Gambling?
Drug Abuse?
War?
Euthanasia?

One of the prime beauties of utilitarianism is that instead of providing clear answers for the difficult moral dilemmas, it actually demonstrates that they ARE difficult moral dilemmas - while religions tend to provide clear answers that large nubers of people aren't happy with.

That is why I cannot condem sociopaths outright

Infinite understanding is an admirable trait - but would you want to live with them taking your stuff?

For instance, in simple evolutionary simulations the bronze rule "do unto others as they did unto you" beats even the golden rule and any others.

That makes sense to me, given that it is the most instinctive response of humanity.

1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thought

If you replaced "human" with "sentient" I might agree - morality does not apply to rocks. Otherwise, no, I don't see how you can reach this conclusion when there is so much evidence for the darwinistic advantages of cooperation, necessitating an ethical system.

do not think sociopaths are abberations. They are parasitic, but parasites are in darwinian terms just as good as us. Another way of putting it, sometimes being sociopathic would be the best survival choice.

While it may be possible for a sociopath to be good for himself (actual evidence suggests the contrary BTW), it is not possible for a parasite to be good for a society (as opposed to an aggressive person whom could be good and/or bad, e.g. baboon alpha males who bully their companions but defend them against predators).

 

[Yahzi]

If morals are founded upon our personal ability to feel emotion, then why are they not purely subjective?

Because the environment is not subjective.