In the world of an Atheist who defines right and wrong?

[Jake_]

Where does your moral code come from?

The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......

Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.

[sayak83]

Biology and psychology are the 2 most important sources from which ethical feelings emerge and is subsequently molded by the socio-cultural interactions. The point has been somewhat under-emphasized here, so saying it.

All social animals require behavior norms to successfully cooperate and root out cheaters. Humans have one too and we call it morality. But typical of all human traits we have a lot of flexibility on shaping these norms based on the situation that other creatures do not have.

My own moral code comes from repeated interactions with other people, like everything else....

[mad_maverik93]

Where does your moral code come from?

The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......

Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.

The issue of objective morality is often overlooked by atheists. I don't think I've ever heard a proper response to this issue by anyone other than the "hard" atheists of the past, like Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin, etc.

Let me take the question further, to clarify; if there is no God and no metaphysical foundation for morality, then there can be no objective moral values. What is "right" and "wrong" must be arrived at by logic. And, for an atheist, there can be only two sources of logical morality: evolution and the Marxist ethical concept of "justification of the means by the ends." If there is another that I've missed, please inform me, but I can't imagine any other foundation for morals that can be understood without appealing to the metaphysical.

If evolution is the source of morality, then moral inhibition (not including sexual inhibition) is simply a chemical phenomenon in the brain that was developed after thousands of generations to make the individual organism more suitable for survival in a community. This would naturally be a very selfish "morality".

But then, say, man evolved more and was able to reason. He could then look and see that the "greater good" is the survival of the whole of his community, race, or whatever. His reason would then override his natural evolutionary tendencies. This would have been the source of selfless "morality", as we now know it. Here is where the Marxists take up the mantle; "What is morally just is simply whatever furthers progress for humanity as a whole," they said. "Thus, any means are justified by their ends." Granted, the Marxists had a pretty deluded idea of what was good for humanity as a whole, but, nonetheless this thinking is intellectually flawless, assuming that there is no God or objective morality. Unfortunately, it also justified the Marxists' killing of 300 million people throughout the 20th century, at least in their minds.

So, I have another question for the atheist, and I'm very interested to know what one would say to this. Suppose, in a hypothetical situation, that you are a public servant that does an incredible amount of good for your community. You are changing the world for the better, and you know that you are just getting started. Then say that, by some awful circumstance, you are placed in a situation where you have to choose between your life or the lives of five (or more) physically and/or mentally handicapped children. These children will never be able to have a job or contribute to society in any way, and you know this. Is it morally right to allow those children to die so that you may live? Or is it right to let yourself die for their sake?

I know what the Marxist would say. "What is best for humanity is morally justified, no matter what it is. You can contribute to society, and they cannot. Thus, it would be a crime to let yourself die so that they can live." If you are an atheist and disagree, then please, tell me from whence your moral argument comes. Please refrain from appealing to abstract moral values like "compassion" or "love"; these need a justification if you do not believe in a metaphysical foundation for moral objectivity.

I know this is an extraordinary scenario. But at the same time, it would be intellectually dishonest to espouse a worldview but not own up to its ethical implications, even in undesirable circumstances like these. Furthermore, there have been so many times in the past that tyrannical leaders--like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong--believed that they were in a similar situation. "Either I let the people be and allow them to hinder the progress of humanity as a whole," they thought, "or I do what is best for humanity and kill them." And kill them they did; there are tens of millions of deaths credited to each of the names I previously mentioned. Now, you can argue that the particular reasons that they killed the people they did were misguided, but can you challenge the underlying moral ideas that they held without appealing to moral objectivity?

Any thoughts?[/i]

[Artie]

"Either I let the people be and allow them to hinder the progress of humanity as a whole," they thought, "or I do what is best for humanity and kill them." And kill them they did; there are tens of millions of deaths credited to each of the names I previously mentioned.

You previously mentioned some names but why didn't you include the Christian God who time and again commanded the slaughter of men, women and infants in the Old Testament because they were bad and it would be "best for humanity and kill them?"

[mad_maverik93]

"Either I let the people be and allow them to hinder the progress of humanity as a whole," they thought, "or I do what is best for humanity and kill them." And kill them they did; there are tens of millions of deaths credited to each of the names I previously mentioned.

You previously mentioned some names but why didn't you include the Christian God who time and again commanded the slaughter of men, women and infants in the Old Testament because they were bad and it would be "best for humanity and kill them?"

Good point. However, the two situations are nothing alike. When dealing with seemingly unethical actions undertaken by God (especially in the Old Testament), we cannot exclude the eternal from our evaluation. God is far more concerned with the eternal destination of souls than He is with the "blink of an eye" that men live on earth. While, to us, God's command to kill the Canaanites initially seems like an undesirable event for them, it was designed, in the long run, to pave the way for a Savior, who would also offer salvation to those that died before His coming (1 Peter 4:6). If one Canaanite was killed by God's command only to be later renewed by Christ unto eternal salvation (an event which could not have happened had he remained alive to threaten the Israelites, either physically or religiously), do you really think he would have complained or questioned the reason why he had to die? God's decrees in the Old Testament endorsing genocide are hardly the same as a man's, because God sees the eternal picture and every side-effect that His actions will have on eternity. His intentions are only good-willed; He seeks to enable the eternal salvation of everyone. With that taken into account, the deaths of the Canaanites can even be viewed as beneficial for them in the eternal sense.

That being said, you did not respond to the question or address the issue at all. This is precisely what every modern atheist does; he ignores the argument itself and points to an alleged moral discrepancy in the Bible, essentially calling all Christians hypocrites. As I have shown, we are not hypocrites, and the actions of God can be seen as evil only when one evaluates them with naturalistic presuppositions. Furthermore, by condemning those allegedly immoral actions in the Bible you yourself are reinforcing the point I was trying to make to begin with: there ARE objective moral values that would make such actions inherently wrong. I assume that you would also think it immoral to let the handicapped children die to save yourself? Why? I've proven, from a naturalistic standpoint, why it would be moral to save oneself, and why (in some cases) even genocide can be morally justified. The only way to say otherwise is to appeal to objective moral values, which require a metaphysical foundation; since you cannot do this, you are stuck. The way I see it, there are only two intellectually honest options for an atheist in this situation: either he must admit that the Marxists had it right all along and it would be "right" to let the children die to save yourself, or he must abandon his naturalistic presuppositions and open himself up to the possibility of a metaphysical moral foundation. If you prefer the latter option, then I can easily show you how this would imply a personal deity as that metaphysical foundation.

Every contemporary atheist I have ever heard combat this argument does exactly what you have just done. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. You haven't answered my question at all, and my point still stands.

[Artie]

Good point. However, the two situations are nothing alike. When dealing with seemingly unethical actions undertaken by God (especially in the Old Testament), we cannot exclude the eternal from our evaluation.

But there is no eternal. There are no gods. People make up gods. Wikipedia alone lists 108 creator gods people have made up. Read the book A History of God by Karen Armstrong and learn how the Hebrew made up their gods.

That being said, you did not respond to the question or address the issue at all. This is precisely what every modern atheist does; he ignores the argument itself and points to an alleged moral discrepancy in the Bible, essentially calling all Christians hypocrites. As I have shown, we are not hypocrites, and the actions of God

There are no actions by any of the thousands of gods mankind has made up. There are only actions men attribute to gods. Men are responsible for all actions.

can be seen as evil only when one evaluates them with naturalistic presuppositions. Furthermore, by condemning those allegedly immoral actions in the Bible you yourself are reinforcing the point I was trying to make to begin with: there ARE objective moral values that would make such actions inherently wrong. I assume that you would also think it immoral to let the handicapped children die to save yourself? Why?

Because in a social context we all depend on each other and if we all take care of each other no matter how handicapped we might be we enhance all our chances of survival. That is why evolution evolved the Golden Rule and all the other moral norms. Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos, just read animal altruism in Wikipedia. They don't do that because the Bible says so. It's because it's evolved behavior.

I've proven, from a naturalistic standpoint, why it would be moral to save oneself, and why (in some cases) even genocide can be morally justified.

Actually in a social context evolution evolved morals such as the Golden Rule etc. Christians are the ones who has to have a god tell them what even bonobos do naturally. A lot of people are capable of making sound moral judgements themselves. Some people aren't. If they aren't, evolution makes them believe in a religion with a god that makes the moral judgements for them under the bait of eternal life and threat of eternal punishment.

1. Organisms started cooperating.
2. Cooperating organisms enhanced their chances of survival.
3. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals.
4. People incorporated these morals into judicial systems and religions.
5. Behave morally or go to jail or go to hell. Exactly the same principle.
6. Some made up religions played on the survival instinct and said behave nicely and live forever, behave badly and burn forever.
7. Religion is simply one way for evolution to try to ensure people behave morally.

[Nickman]

"Either I let the people be and allow them to hinder the progress of humanity as a whole," they thought, "or I do what is best for humanity and kill them." And kill them they did; there are tens of millions of deaths credited to each of the names I previously mentioned.

You previously mentioned some names but why didn't you include the Christian God who time and again commanded the slaughter of men, women and infants in the Old Testament because they were bad and it would be "best for humanity and kill them?"

Good point. However, the two situations are nothing alike. When dealing with seemingly unethical actions undertaken by God (especially in the Old Testament), we cannot exclude the eternal from our evaluation. God is far more concerned with the eternal destination of souls than He is with the "blink of an eye" that men live on earth. While, to us, God's command to kill the Canaanites initially seems like an undesirable event for them, it was designed, in the long run, to pave the way for a Savior, who would also offer salvation to those that died before His coming (1 Peter 4:6). If one Canaanite was killed by God's command only to be later renewed by Christ unto eternal salvation (an event which could not have happened had he remained alive to threaten the Israelites, either physically or religiously), do you really think he would have complained or questioned the reason why he had to die? God's decrees in the Old Testament endorsing genocide are hardly the same as a man's, because God sees the eternal picture and every side-effect that His actions will have on eternity. His intentions are only good-willed; He seeks to enable the eternal salvation of everyone. With that taken into account, the deaths of the Canaanites can even be viewed as beneficial for them in the eternal sense.

That being said, you did not respond to the question or address the issue at all. This is precisely what every modern atheist does; he ignores the argument itself and points to an alleged moral discrepancy in the Bible, essentially calling all Christians hypocrites. As I have shown, we are not hypocrites, and the actions of God can be seen as evil only when one evaluates them with naturalistic presuppositions. Furthermore, by condemning those allegedly immoral actions in the Bible you yourself are reinforcing the point I was trying to make to begin with: there ARE objective moral values that would make such actions inherently wrong. I assume that you would also think it immoral to let the handicapped children die to save yourself? Why? I've proven, from a naturalistic standpoint, why it would be moral to save oneself, and why (in some cases) even genocide can be morally justified. The only way to say otherwise is to appeal to objective moral values, which require a metaphysical foundation; since you cannot do this, you are stuck. The way I see it, there are only two intellectually honest options for an atheist in this situation: either he must admit that the Marxists had it right all along and it would be "right" to let the children die to save yourself, or he must abandon his naturalistic presuppositions and open himself up to the possibility of a metaphysical moral foundation. If you prefer the latter option, then I can easily show you how this would imply a personal deity as that metaphysical foundation.

Every contemporary atheist I have ever heard combat this argument does exactly what you have just done. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. You haven't answered my question at all, and my point still stands.

You cannot exclude god from his own standards with an appeal to special circumstances.

The very standards god is telling his creation to uphold and obey he blatantly disobeys them himself. Do you think that is ok if he is our exemplar and what we are trying to be like? I can challenge his "morality" and determine if he is actual moral based on my own standards. He does things I consider to be wrong. He does hypocritical things such as telling his people to obey certain "laws" and then breaks them himself. My morality is far superior than the christian god's.

[Bust Nak]

The issue of objective morality is often overlooked by atheists. I don't think I've ever heard a proper response to this issue by anyone other than the "hard" atheists of the past, like Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin, etc.

It's not over looked. We flat out deny the existence of objective morality. Objective morality simply doesn't make sense. There is no morality without moral agent. If morality depends on moral agents then it's subjective to said moral agents.

Let me take the question further, to clarify; if there is no God and no metaphysical foundation for morality, then there can be no objective moral values. What is "right" and "wrong" must be arrived at by logic.

Why? I arrive at what is right and wrong by feelings. Logic is only a tool to help break down the consequence of actions to see how they measure up to my personal feelings. Do you think of feelings as a product of evolution, metaphysical?

If evolution is the source of morality, then moral inhibition (not including sexual inhibition) is simply a chemical phenomenon in the brain that was developed after thousands of generations to make the individual organism more suitable for survival in a community. This would naturally be a very selfish "morality".

Close enough, I am guess by "individual organism more suitable for survival in a community," you are referring exclusive to larger social animals. There are plenty of other strategies that doesn't depend on individual survivability. I also take issue with calling it selfish, it's only selfish in the sense that the self is the source of morality - raw evolutionary tendencies can be pretty selfless too.

Is it morally right to allow those children to die so that you may live? Or is it right to let yourself die for their sake?

A simple conflict of value, the benefit to society vs empathy to these five children vs self preservation. I feel it's right to allow them to die.

Please refrain from appealing to abstract moral values like "compassion" or "love"; these need a justification if you do not believe in a metaphysical foundation for moral objectivity.

But compassion or love do have a non-metaphysical justification, they are the product of evolution.

Now, you can argue that the particular reasons that they killed the people they did were misguided, but can you challenge the underlying moral ideas that they held without appealing to moral objectivity?

Any thoughts?

I am thinking you don't have enough interactions with atheists. Most of us are moral subjectivists who have no problem appealing to personal perference/opinion - I simply don't agree with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong and think they are morally wrong, that letting five handicapped children die is ok but millions is not ok.

[mad_maverik93]

But there is no eternal. There are no gods. People make up gods. Wikipedia alone lists 108 creator gods people have made up. Read the book A History of God by Karen Armstrong and learn how the Hebrew made up their gods.

Your initial argument was that the actions of the Christian God in the Bible are immoral; I'm assuming that your implicative argument was that belief in such an inconsistent God is incoherent. I responded by explaining to you how, in the biblical scheme of things, the actions of that God are not immoral, because He can foresee the eternal ramifications of every action He takes or commands. You responded by saying that there is no eternal and no God; thus, His actions are immoral. Do you see the circular reasoning here? If you're going to maintain the presupposition that there is no God and no eternal in your evaluation of God's morality, then what's the point in debating the issue at all? You haven't made an argument at all.

You cannot exclude god from his own standards with an appeal to special circumstances.

The very standards god is telling his creation to uphold and obey he blatantly disobeys them himself. Do you think that is ok if he is our exemplar and what we are trying to be like?

How could God possibly be measured by the same standards as man? He is God; man is man. He is the Creator; man is not. He can foresee the eternal ramifications of every action undertaken by Himself and man, and He coordinates these actions as best He can to result in the best possible eternal result. Half the time, man doesn't even know what the consequences for his actions will be an hour after he takes them. How could we possibly view the actions of one in the same light as we view the actions of the other?

Did you read my argument concerning genocide in the Old Testament? Is there something wrong with it? Because you didn't address it at all. Taking an action that would benefit a being eternally but cause him temporal pain is hardly immoral; in fact, I'd say it's the most moral action anyone could take.

So when, you say that we desire to emulate the character of God, then I would say you're right. Absolutely. In fact, we believe that the character of God is the foundation for morality. This is the sense in which morality is objective for the Christian. The difference is that God is omniscient, and we are not. No man has the right or authority to make the decisions that God made in the Old Testament, and no Christian (I hope) sees those events as examples to follow.

Artie and Nickman, you're still attacking the ethics of the Old Testament, but my initial point had nothing to do with that. As I said before, you're still avoiding the issue. I'm talking about moral objectivity, or more specifically, the inherent worth of a human being. How would you answer the question I asked?

Why? I arrive at what is right and wrong by feelings. Logic is only a tool to help break down the consequence of actions to see how they measure up to my personal feelings. Do you think of feelings as a product of evolution, metaphysical?

How can feelings be a foundation for morality? Feelings themselves are subjective to morality; the feeling of compassion is morally right, but the feeling of murderous rage is morally wrong. Feelings cannot possibly act as a basis for morality.

There are plenty of other strategies that doesn't depend on individual survivability. I also take issue with calling it selfish, it's only selfish in the sense that the self is the source of morality - raw evolutionary tendencies can be pretty selfless too.

I'm not about to deny that just yet, and, to be honest, it's not an argument I need to make to prove my point. But, out of curiosity, what kind of evolutionary strategies are there for developing a selfless morality? Natural selection--survival of the fittest--is the engine of evolution. Self-sacrifice cannot further one's own genes, but stops them cold. Isn't it more likely to impede evolution, then?

I'm absolutely prepared to be made a fool of if I've jumped the gun on this one. Don't hold back!

Is it morally right to allow those children to die so that you may live? Or is it right to let yourself die for their sake?

A simple conflict of value, the benefit to society vs empathy to these five children vs self preservation. I feel it's right to allow them to die.

Finally! An answer! Thanks for your honesty. However, I feel that you're also illustrating my point. As long as morality is defined by a "simple conflict of value," then there is no inherent worth in the individual and no limit to how far this moral philosophy can take you. What if there were six handicapped children? Seven? Twenty? In all honesty, if they cannot contribute to society, then they can only be a drain on it. Thus, even a thousand would not be worth the self-sacrifice of a useful public servant. In fact, what would be immoral about simply removing them from society anyway? It would likely cause chaos, and mourning mothers and fathers would tear the society apart, but is there no other reason not to? If their genes cannot (or should not) go on, and if they have no chance of recovery, then what is their worth? Why should we feed and care for them?

This thinking, taken further, is the justification for ethnic cleansing and genocide. You can say that it "feels" wrong, but of what worth is that? Again, as long as morality is decided by "a conflict of value," then there are limitless examples of how man could (and have) justify (or justified) horrendous acts of violence and cruelty.

Again, if you appeal to an emotion as a moral inhibitor to these actions, then it's not enough to tell me how that emotion developed through evolution (though I'd be very interested to see how you think it did, as I said before). You must tell me, rationally, how it is a viable moral inhibitor to the progress of humanity.

[Artie]

Double post.

[Artie]

If you're going to maintain the presupposition that there is no God and no eternal in your evaluation of God's morality, then what's the point in debating the issue at all? You haven't made an argument at all.

The argument is that since we know people make up gods and there's no evidence for the actual existence of gods morality cannot come from non-existent gods. So morality is a result of evolution. Or do you have a third possibility?

we believe that the character of God is the foundation for morality.

How can a god we know the ancient Hebrew made up be a foundation for anything? Wikipedia lists 108 creator gods, do they all have their own individual morality?

This is the sense in which morality is objective for the Christian.

But obviously that is logically impossible because it would be your gods subjective morality. You can't simply pronounce something subjective to a god to be objective.

what kind of evolutionary strategies are there for developing a selfless morality?

Here is how morality evolved. Later I explain how and why selfless morality evolved.

In a social context evolution evolved morals such as the Golden Rule, empathy, compassion, altruism etc. Christians are the ones who has to have a god tell them what even bonobos and vervet monkeys do naturally. Just see Animal Altruism in Wikipedia. A lot of people are capable of making sound moral judgements themselves. Some people aren't. If they aren't, evolution makes them believe in a religion with a god that makes the moral judgements for them under the bait of eternal life and threat of eternal punishment.

1. Organisms started cooperating.
2. Cooperating organisms enhanced their chances of survival.
3. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals.
4. People incorporated these morals into judicial systems and religions.
5. Behave morally or go to jail or go to hell. Exactly the same principle.
6. Some made up religions played on the survival instinct and said behave nicely and live forever, behave badly and burn forever.
7. Religion is simply one way for evolution to try to ensure people behave morally.

Natural selection--survival of the fittest--is the engine of evolution. Self-sacrifice cannot further one's own genes, but stops them cold. Isn't it more likely to impede evolution, then?

Of course not. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. This behavior is a result of evolution. It may draw attention to the particular monkey but the benefit for the whole community outweighs the extra risk for the one. Self-sacrifice evolved simply because it benefits the community as a whole and ensures the survival of as many as possible. What a paradox that you have to explain to a Christian a moral behavior that comes naturally to even vervet monkeys.