Is morality an illusion?

[olavisjo]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

[olavisjo]

No, we are not in agreement.

Morality is a result of enlightened self interest. That is the point you are stubborn about acknowledging.

Yes, we are in total agreement, let me say it so you will have no doubt...

Morality is a result of enlightened self interest.

And by implication that means that there is no reason why anyone should do anything other than what they want to do.

Where you are going wrong is that you are trying to explain why we behave the way we do, you are not explaining why we should behave in any particular way.

[Goat]

No, we are not in agreement.

Morality is a result of enlightened self interest. That is the point you are stubborn about acknowledging.

Yes, we are in total agreement, let me say it so you will have no doubt...

Morality is a result of enlightened self interest.

And by implication that means that there is no reason why anyone should do anything other than what they want to do.

Where you are going wrong is that you are trying to explain why we behave the way we do, you are not explaining why we should behave in any particular way.

Again, you are misrepresenting what I am saying.. and not taking it one level further.

You are being dishonest, or incapable.



y

[olavisjo]

Again, you are misrepresenting what I am saying.. and not taking it one level further.

You are being dishonest, or incapable.



y

You are making claims and accusations without backing anything up with any evidence or reasoning.

How am I misrepresenting what you are saying? What are you saying? And how am I "not taking it one level further"?

What do you mean by dishonest? Do you think that I am lying about something?

What do you mean by incapable? Do you think that I am not capable of accepting your assertions because you keep repeating them so forcefully that I should accept them? Well I am not, if you want to make a claim you need to provide some evidence or a rational argument in support of your claims.

Please, I am trying to understand you, but you have to try and tell me where your head is at.

[bernee51]

I would suggest that it is the evolution of self aware consciousness that brought about the concept of 'moral behaviour'. The lion may kill the antelope but it doesn't know it has killed it nor does it know that it does not know.

If the development of 'moral' behaviour enhanced and furthered the evolution of self aware consciousness then these traits would be selected as beneficial.

Yes, for the atheist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that selects beneficial genes.

It also informs of a worldview which is the most appropriate for further evolution.

Eventually the lion will evolve the knowledge of good and evil, then we can hold it accountable for murder.

Only if in doing so the lions ability to pass on its genes were enhanced. I see no reason why that would be the case.

An Atheist may desire to be moral and it may be very beneficial to be moral, but there is no reason why they must be moral, it is an option for each person to decide how they want to behave.

Other than cultural indoctrination, enlightened self interest and the existence of a mimetic drive toward a moral existence (memes being the genetic material of the noosphere - the realm of existence in which concepts such as morality exists)

I agree with you, there is no reason why anyone should be moral.

I have not said there is no reason to be moral..in fact I have said the exact opposite.

Either you have not read, what I said,....could not comprehend what I said...or you are being deliberately dishonest.

And if you want to impose your morality on others you are free to do so.

And suffer the consequences.

Exactly, I could not have said it any better myself.

Consequences determined by society.

There is no right and wrong to appeal to, all that matters is that you have the power and desire to make others conform. The law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, might makes right etc.

And if the 'fittest' is moral in in its outlook?

The fittest will be moral in its outlook. By definition moral is whatever enhances survival the most.

Exactly, I could not have said it any better myself.

[Bio-logical]

I have to interject on the subject of human evolution and morality.

This debate can go on forever about why humans would have evolved morality, but truly morality is a behavior that is not genetically regulated. Humans may have pre-dispositions, but ever since we became self aware and started developing technology and living in tribes, we have begun to direct our own evolution.

This is where your argument about morality being given by god since it couldn't have evolved entirely falls apart: The evolution of morality was not a biological one, it was cultural just like language and customs.

Humans have reached a point at which illnesses that once meant certain death are now only slightly detrimental inconveniences - diabetes being a perfect example. Type I diabetes was an absolute death sentence to any person who contracted it until medical technology developed insulin injections and glucometers, now we can artificially regulate blood sugar. As a consequence of such, Type I diabetes is far more common now than ever before. Our culture and technology bring us beyond simple "natural selection" because we are able to defeat death and to deal it in much larger and broader scales than ever before. Our choices now dictate how our species grows and thrives and we have chosen large cultures, a necessity of which is some sort of moral structure for the protection of those within.

As we became self-aware and learned to think about thinking, we developed philosophy and ethics as disciplines of study, we examine ourselves and judge ourselves to a level that non-sentient beings could not fathom. Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

The traits ancestral that we evolved long ago that allowed this?

A large brain and a social inclination, both of which can easily be shown to be selective advantages in the environments of early humans.

[olavisjo]

Yes, for the atheist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that selects beneficial genes.

It also informs of a worldview which is the most appropriate for further evolution.

Yes, eugenics.

Eventually the lion will evolve the knowledge of good and evil, then we can hold it accountable for murder.

Only if in doing so the lions ability to pass on its genes were enhanced. I see no reason why that would be the case.

It worked for humans, why not lions?

An Atheist may desire to be moral and it may be very beneficial to be moral, but there is no reason why they must be moral, it is an option for each person to decide how they want to behave.

Other than cultural indoctrination, enlightened self interest and the existence of a mimetic drive toward a moral existence (memes being the genetic material of the noosphere - the realm of existence in which concepts such as morality exists)

I agree with you, there is no reason why anyone should be moral.

I have not said there is no reason to be moral..in fact I have said the exact opposite.

Either you have not read, what I said,....could not comprehend what I said...or you are being deliberately dishonest.

I agreed with you, there are reasons to be moral, but since you did not list any reasons why anyone should be moral, I assumed that you hold that there are none.

There is no right and wrong to appeal to, all that matters is that you have the power and desire to make others conform. The law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, might makes right etc.

And if the 'fittest' is moral in in its outlook?

The fittest will be moral in its outlook. By definition moral is whatever enhances survival the most.

Exactly, I could not have said it any better myself.

Yes, if the Nazis had won the war, the list of what is moral would be very different today.

[olavisjo]

This debate can go on forever about why humans would have evolved morality, but truly morality is a behavior that is not genetically regulated. Humans may have pre-dispositions, but ever since we became self aware and started developing technology and living in tribes, we have begun to direct our own evolution.

This is where your argument about morality being given by god since it couldn't have evolved entirely falls apart: The evolution of morality was not a biological one, it was cultural just like language and customs.

The question that I wanted to explore in this thread is not "why humans have evolved morality?" but rather "why humans should abide by any moral code?". If morality is just the product of evolution or any natural process, then why should anyone abide by it?
For example, why would it be wrong to kill another person? The theory of evolution would not care. According to the theory of evolution only getting caught is wrong, because your chances of reproducing your DNA would plummet. So evolution would favor a race of very skilled murderers who profit from killing and do not get caught.
We all know that some behaviour is just wrong, yet there is no reason for us to hold such beliefs. So is our belief in morality irrational like our belief in gods?

[bernee51]

Yes, for the atheist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that selects beneficial genes.

It also informs of a worldview which is the most appropriate for further evolution.

Yes, eugenics.

Which what teaching a god given morality is.

Eventually the lion will evolve the knowledge of good and evil, then we can hold it accountable for murder.

Only if in doing so the lions ability to pass on its genes were enhanced. I see no reason why that would be the case.

It worked for humans, why not lions?[/quote]

If there is no evolutionary imperative to evolve - it will not occur. So far other mammals have shown little (if any) movement in that (self reflective) direction.

But then we have not had it very long either.

An Atheist may desire to be moral and it may be very beneficial to be moral, but there is no reason why they must be moral, it is an option for each person to decide how they want to behave.

Other than cultural indoctrination, enlightened self interest and the existence of a mimetic drive toward a moral existence (memes being the genetic material of the noosphere - the realm of existence in which concepts such as morality exists)

I agree with you, there is no reason why anyone should be moral.

I have not said there is no reason to be moral..in fact I have said the exact opposite.

Either you have not read, what I said,....could not comprehend what I said...or you are being deliberately dishonest.

I agreed with you, there are reasons to be moral, but since you did not list any reasons why anyone should be moral, I assumed that you hold that there are none.[/quote]

I have stated that the reasons for moral behaviour are an evolutionary imperative. Without the emergence and ongoing evolution of moral behaviours we would not be having this conversation.

There is no right and wrong to appeal to, all that matters is that you have the power and desire to make others conform. The law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, might makes right etc.

And if the 'fittest' is moral in in its outlook?

The fittest will be moral in its outlook. By definition moral is whatever enhances survival the most.

Exactly, I could not have said it any better myself.

Yes, if the Nazis had won the war, the list of what is moral would be very different today.

The very existence of Nazis has lead to an enhancement of morality and the further evolution of spirit.

[Artheos]

Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

[Goat]

Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

In their culture, that is moral.. here, it is not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective