Athiests and morals

[JoshB]

After reading through some forums, I came across the thought that athiests have no basis for morals and/or ethics whatsoever, and ultimatley have nihilistic beliefs. I disagree.

I myself am an athiest (until proven wrong). I believe that life has a purpose, not because of any divine plan, but because of lifes nature. It is natural for every living creature to progress in life. That fact is generally undisputes (suicide is unnatural). For those organisms that are naturally solitary, they will tend to be more ruthless in their survival in progression. But we are different.

We humans are organisms that from my understanding make groups, depending on one another in some way for survival. The real kicker in that group mentality is our "evolved" thinking. So we humans have created civilizations and cultures, which have cultural norms, mannerisms, and ethics. We have these ethics not for no reason, but to assist cultural progression in many areas.

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?

[strike]------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/strike]
"The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

[cnorman18]

As I have written elsewhere:

"Consensus of rational humans is all we have, and all we'll ever have. There is no magic book of infallibly and inarguably correct answers to which we can all turn and by which we can order our laws or our lives. As human beings, we are still obligated to THINK and TALK with each other and figure these things out for ourselves. The thoughts and conclusions of the men and women who came before us, including those who wrote the Bible, ought not be discarded without having a part in that ongoing conversation; but neither ought they be accepted and carved in stone to be blindly followed for all time. That is not the HUMAN way."

Even if God ever did actually speak to a human, all we have is that human's account of it and not the actual words of God Himself. God doesn't have a seat at this table. We're on our own, no matter how you slice it. Rational human debate and consensus is all we have, and all we'll ever have.

We should bear in mind that consensus isn't infallible, either. At one time, the rational consensus was that "witches" should be killed outright and that slavery was just a necessary and routine part of life. Might there be something that we take for granted today as "moral" but which will cause future generations to think us inhuman and insane?

Maybe. Today, we think that virtually requiring individual ownership of horrendously expensive and murderously dangerous status symbols is just a necessary and routine part of life, too. We call them "automobiles," and ordinary people go deep into debt to maintain a system which kills over 30,000 people a year in the US alone and allows the wealthy to lord it over others.

Morality evolves over time. It's supposed to. The species grows and matures just as individual members of it do.

[Lux]

I can conceive of an objective good existing without the existence of a god. But unless you have an omniscient being, at a bare minimum, nothing could possibly know what that good is, much less how to act in accordance with it. Which renders the very existence of any such objective good completely irrelevant to anything at all.

To put it another way, good could exist without God, but without God I see no manner in which 'good' matters at all, even in principle.

I agree that since we have no means to find out which morals, if any, are the objectively correct ones, they are automatically irrelevant.

However, I can't imagine there being an absolute set of morals without a god (and therefore I don't believe there is an absolute set of morals), and I disagree that without a god "good" doesn't matter. I also have the feeling that we could get into a very long, possibly off-topic discussion about this


Edit: I got 6.66 tokens for this post

[Flail]

After reading through some forums, I came across the thought that athiests have no basis for morals and/or ethics whatsoever, and ultimatley have nihilistic beliefs. I disagree.

I myself am an athiest (until proven wrong). I believe that life has a purpose, not because of any divine plan, but because of lifes nature. It is natural for every living creature to progress in life. That fact is generally undisputes (suicide is unnatural). For those organisms that are naturally solitary, they will tend to be more ruthless in their survival in progression. But we are different.

We humans are organisms that from my understanding make groups, depending on one another in some way for survival. The real kicker in that group mentality is our "evolved" thinking. So we humans have created civilizations and cultures, which have cultural norms, mannerisms, and ethics. We have these ethics not for no reason, but to assist cultural progression in many areas.

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?

[strike]------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/strike]
"The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

Morals are nothing more than natural, common sense social contracts which have evolved for the common good and survival of the species, for order, peace and justice. Attributing morals to particular Gods is something man has always done.

[olavisjo]

Morals are nothing...

If a friend of yours were to tell you that he is going to murder someone and make a lot of money in the process and he has almost zero chance of getting caught and even if he gets caught he does not care, he is even willing to kill himself if he can to avoid the jail time. He tells you that what he is doing is not really wrong, because our notions of right and wrong are nothing more than natural, common sense social contracts which have evolved for the common good and survival of the species, for order, peace and justice and don't apply to him specifically but just our species generally.

What would you say to him?

[flitzerbiest]

If a friend of yours were to tell you that he is going to murder someone and make a lot of money in the process and he has almost zero chance of getting caught and even if he gets caught he does not care, he is even willing to kill himself if he can to avoid the jail time. He tells you that what he is doing is not really wrong, because our notions of right and wrong are nothing more than natural, common sense social contracts which have evolved for the common good and survival of the species, for order, peace and justice and don't apply to him specifically but just our species generally.

What would you say to him?

That his chances of getting caught just went up dramatically.

[Flail]

Morals are nothing...

If a friend of yours were to tell you that he is going to murder someone and make a lot of money in the process and he has almost zero chance of getting caught and even if he gets caught he does not care, he is even willing to kill himself if he can to avoid the jail time. He tells you that what he is doing is not really wrong, because our notions of right and wrong are nothing more than natural, common sense social contracts which have evolved for the common good and survival of the species, for order, peace and justice and don't apply to him specifically but just our species generally.

What would you say to him?

After I turn him in and he's incarcerated I would remind him that he is, after all, an idiot for not comprehending the social contract that is the law and the common sense to keep his mouth shut.

[JoshB]

[font=Georgia]Flail, if only I could've high-fived you when I read your comment...

To state this: I think morals and good CAN arise without a god. I take the position that morals and good arise from perspectives on what progressive humanism is...or, more basically, morals are invented from what people think is good or bad for whatever they consider to be the significant things effected by an action or any stimulus.

To go back to the Hitler analogy, Hitler self-justified what he did using the moral compass he obtained by defining what he thought to be the significant things that he had to care about, and determining the progressive or non-progressive things for that group. He acted according to these beliefs. He acted upon morals based on what he though to be progressive humanist acts.

Now, Im sure plenty of people will disagree with my statement that Hitler was a progressive humanist, but if you look up the definitions of both these words (progressive and humanist), you'll see what I mean.

An I dont agree with Hitlers interpretation of progressive humanism. Just FYI... [/font]

[100%atheist]

Morals are nothing...

If a friend of yours were to tell you that he is going to murder someone and make a lot of money in the process and he has almost zero chance of getting caught and even if he gets caught he does not care, he is even willing to kill himself if he can to avoid the jail time. He tells you that what he is doing is not really wrong, because our notions of right and wrong are nothing more than natural, common sense social contracts which have evolved for the common good and survival of the species, for order, peace and justice and don't apply to him specifically but just our species generally.

What would you say to him?

I would tell him that the law of natural selection works and that he, unfortunately, proves it by taking himself out of the gene pool.

[Grumpy]

olavisjo

If a friend of yours were to tell you that he is going to murder someone and make a lot of money in the process and he has almost zero chance of getting caught and even if he gets caught he does not care, he is even willing to kill himself if he can to avoid the jail time. He tells you that what he is doing is not really wrong, because our notions of right and wrong are nothing more than natural, common sense social contracts which have evolved for the common good and survival of the species, for order, peace and justice and don't apply to him specifically but just our species generally.

What would you say to him?

Sounds like the very definition of a sociopath. Such people need to be removed from society, hopefully before they actually do anything stupid. I would say whatever I needed to to disengage and drop a dime on him at first opportunity.

Grumpy

[Adamoriens]

by all means, do whatever you please.

Such a response is rare and honest.

I think that you have answered the op, your response tells me that there is no such thing as morality on it's own. Nothing is really right or wrong, some acts are just desirable or undesirable to those that are in power. So if you have enough power you can make any rules you want and those rules will pass as morality. And this is exactly the reason that some claim that atheists have no basis for morality. (although in my opinion they do have a basis and that basis is the Law of the Jungle)

It is strange that you should criticize non-theistic moral theories in this manner. Many versions of divine-command theory derive their authority from a being who desires humankind to act in a certain fashion, and who happens to be in power. What is the qualitative difference here?

Those who assume that atheists cannot logically have morality or moral standards are usually only indulging their assumptions about what atheists do or do not believe. That is about as legitimate as assuming that all "theists" are the same as well.

You are confusing "moral ontology" with "moral epistemology".

The subject of moral epistemology asks "How is moral knowledge possible?"
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries ... stemology/

The subject of ontology is the study of the categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain. http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/

I am certain that there are those who argue that atheists can not know about morality, but that is a very difficult position to prove as the evidence is clear that atheists can be moral.

But, how can an atheist say that morality does exist in some domain? They can say that it does exist in the mind (imagination). Can they say that morality exists in the natural domain of matter, energy or the laws of the universe?
So if morality does exist in some domain other than the imagination, it must exist in some supernatural domain. And since most atheist reject the supernatural, they have no peg (basis) to hang the concept of morality on.

You confuse atheism with conservative naturalism; the latter entails the former, but not vice versa. I'm tending toward rejecting "natural" and "supernatural" categories, since they don't seem to exist in reality. What exactly is it about non-contingent moral facts that require a deity?

If a friend of yours were to tell you that he is going to murder someone and make a lot of money in the process and he has almost zero chance of getting caught and even if he gets caught he does not care, he is even willing to kill himself if he can to avoid the jail time. He tells you that what he is doing is not really wrong, because our notions of right and wrong are nothing more than natural, common sense social contracts which have evolved for the common good and survival of the species, for order, peace and justice and don't apply to him specifically but just our species generally.

What would you say to him?

Suppose a friend of yours believed in the truth of Christianity and adhered to the doctrine of eternal damnation. Suppose that he also found pain pleasurable, and, moreover, that the prospect of eternal pain was attractive to him. What basis, then, for moral action?

I'm still out on the is-ought problem, but I can say that the statements, "Don't do that because that violates our evolved social contract," and, "Don't do that because an omniscient deity desires that you do not," are semantically equivalent.