Can Atheists be Moral? Can the Religious?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Can Atheists be Moral? Can the religious be moral?

I've heard the idea that atheists can't be moral, because physically, we're all just selfish apes, protecting and increasing our genes, and without some supernatural addition to this formula, good is not possible. The ape mother protects her child because that increases her genes. This act, the idea goes, is not moral, but selfish. Any time a human helps another human, this idea would apply.

I've also heard that religious people can't really be moral because whatever they do that is supposedly moral, they don't do it for its own sake, but for the reward. I've even heard that religious people can't be moral because their morality is unthinking. Random total obedience is morally neutral at best, so, the idea goes, if you're just blindly trusting somebody, even a powerful entity, that's not really morality.

Both of these ideas frankly seem to hold water so I'm curious if anyone can be moral.

[Bust Nak]

Not a different connection than I was talking about to begin with, though. You brought in the new connection to the discussion.

Is it? This is what I am getting at:

1) "The Earth is flat" is objective statement no connection with a person's nature at all.
2) "Everyone likes ice-cream" is objective statement. There is connection between nature of people and the nature of ice-cream.
3) "Ice-cream is tasty" is a subjective statement. There is a connection between nature of the person (speaker) and the nature of ice-cream.

The connections mentioned in 2 and 3 are the same kind of connection to you? Either way, do you accept 2 is objective while 3 is subjective, right?

I never claimed the statement indicates morality is objective. I claimed that this language picks out a certain concept to be discussed and that you aren’t accepting that concept, but using the phrase to speak about your view on a different concept.

Okay, I am doing that. I agree with the words being said but do not accept the concept you were conveying - I understand those words differently to you do.

You disagree that there isn’t a gap, but do you think they are logically consistent and rational in their denial of that gap? Can they consistently and rationally say it’s immoral (remember they are objectivists, not you, so this is different from them meaning “I don’t like”) to kick (or do something worse to) babies?

Sure, I accept that moral objectivism (whether under theism or atheism) is logically consistent. It is possibly true, I cannot rule it out as impossible or nor prove it false. Instead I reject it on the basis that subjectivism simpler and sufficient explanation of morality. It's also intuitive to me, but I wouldn't present that as an argument because others think objectivism is more intuitive.

Which post? Post 53? If so, because you didn’t account for it in post 52. You said the moral “should” is just another way to share one’s preference on a matter like ‘tasty’ and ‘pretty’. Saying the second concept doesn’t exist (or it’s false) goes beyond this because that second concept objectivists have is in addition to any preference on the matter. You obviously distinguish the two things because you think personal preference exists, but that the second concept doesn’t. But you didn't account for that second option in that post.

Saying it's just the first concept doesn't count as denying the second concept?

First, we were talking about ‘should’, not ‘morality’. Second, it doesn’t really matter for this discussion. You don’t want to use ‘should’ or ‘oblige’ to talk about the second concept that you reject as existing/being true. Fine. What term do you want to use so that we can focus on the issue?

Just qualify it with "objective" when you want to refer to to the second concept.

[The Tanager]

Is it? This is what I am getting at:

1) "The Earth is flat" is objective statement no connection with a person's nature at all.
2) "Everyone likes ice-cream" is objective statement. There is connection between nature of people and the nature of ice-cream.
3) "Ice-cream is tasty" is a subjective statement. There is a connection between nature of the person (speaker) and the nature of ice-cream.

The connections mentioned in 2 and 3 are the same kind of connection to you? Either way, do you accept 2 is objective while 3 is subjective, right?

Yes, it is different. “The earth is flat” is analogical to “the nature of a game of football” in what I was talking about. Not analogical in the sense of I’m saying both are objective or both are subjective. Using my previous language, if you wanted to apply it to the shape of the earth, you’d have to say that my nature and your nature both connect to “the earth is flat” the same way (that is false), which equals objectivity. Yet our natures connect to “ice cream X is tasty” in different ways (yum and yuck).

So, in 2 and 3, (with my previous meaning of ‘connection’ in mind), you and me are both connected to “everyone likes ice-cream” in the same way (i.e., it’s an objective truth) and connected different to “ice-cream X is tasty” (i.e. it’s subjectively true).

But if you want to use your meanings, I agree with there being different kinds of “connections”.

Sure, I accept that moral objectivism (whether under theism or atheism) is logically consistent. It is possibly true, I cannot rule it out as impossible or nor prove it false. Instead I reject it on the basis that subjectivism simpler and sufficient explanation of morality. It's also intuitive to me, but I wouldn't present that as an argument because others think objectivism is more intuitive.

My claim here is that I agree it is possibly true that moral objectivism and atheism could both be true (I can’t rule it out), but I’ve yet to see an actual example that (assuming all their beliefs are true) logically works unless one just assumes the logical connection is there. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Saying it's just the first concept doesn't count as denying the second concept?

Saying by football (the second concept) you are talking about soccer (the first concept) isn't saying anything about the football the American was talking about. You could be denying the American's football is a thing or you could simply not be addressing the sport.

Just qualify it with "objective" when you want to refer to to the second concept.

So, subjective morality says that abusing a child is simply objectively different than not abusing that child, not that it is objectively worse. Just like eating chocolate or pistachio ice cream are objectively different, not objectively worse or better. That’s the kind of point I've been making.

[Purple Knight]

So are you saying that our morality is objective in relation to one another, and that is all you mean by objective morality?

I'm saying that if morality is subjective, then morality is objective (to a tiny, tiny degree) because you can't apply your morality to me and that's what subjective morality means.

So yes, you are saying that our morality is objective in relation to one another, and that is all you mean by objective morality...

Isn't that what subjective morality means? Your morality only applies to you, and mine only applies to me?

[Purple Knight]

If you agree their way is better, then it seems that it’s not because your heart is bad, it's that you can't follow your heart.

If you don't do it because it doesn't bring you the feels you want, then it seems you may be trusting your own wisdom (that the immediate feels are more desirable and will make you happier) and don't really believe their way is better.

Here's how it seems to me: There's no "way" about it. They can do anything and have it be good, because they are good, therefore whatever they do is motivated by their good hearts and therefore good. There's nothing I can do and have it be good, because I am not good. Therefore, any seemingly good act I do is actually motivated by selfishness.

We definitely aren’t called to judge your motives and tell you that you didn’t do something out of the goodness of your heart or that you can’t because you aren’t that kind of person. Only God can know and judge that kind of stuff.

But I can freely admit it's true. It's hard to admit it, but it is. The only reason I want to be a good person is so that the harassment from good people will stop. It's totally selfish. There's no way a person can start out evil and become good, because motives matter. And any motive that comes from selfishness (which the motive for any act done by an evil person will come from) makes the act evil.

Christianity teaches that you and I can’t (and were never meant to) do everything we can to be good and meet God’s standard of perfection. It teaches that God’s plan from the beginning was to partner with us so that we could live in good ways. We want to get the wisdom and goodness without the relationship, and while we will do some good, we are going to mess up in lots of ways as well. But God never gives up and continues to seek that partnership (heaven) that will lead us into more and more good. Without that partnership we are stuck in the hell we are creating for ourselves.

I don't think Christians have a monopoly on this way of thinking. Many loosely religious people, agnostics, or atheists seem to see it the same way. The partnership just means, your heart is in the right place. If you have that, do whatever actions you want. Those actions are motivated by good and therefore are good acts. If you don't, well, sucks to be you.

I definitely realize a lot of Christians have given this kind of image, but it’s not Biblical. Poking those who are down the hellish path isn't a Christian expression of being good. Hurting them isn't. Gloating that they are wrong isn't. Saying they never do anything good isn't (neither is it true). You love them, you seek their good, you offer corrections if they are up for it. You don’t push your beliefs down their throat. You don’t write them off. You don’t think you are better than them; we are all people in a complex world that need help to be more moral.

It's not just Christians. There's a large segment of atheist and nonreligious extremely moral people, now. Everyone seems to think this way. I see it this way too. I will be the first person to admit that they are better than me. I don't think it's wrong for them to notice and act accordingly. Imagine if people were not allowed to notice that they were better at basketball. Nobody could instruct anyone. Teams would have random assortments of good and bad players. The same person would cost a team the match each time and they would always scratch their heads and wonder why they had lost. People are not equal and reality is not kind. But ignoring it... is less so.

I agree that it must be good and a choice. I agree that we choose what we think is good. But I think we are often wrong about what is truly good (for a complexity of reasons). So, our greatest joy isn’t about choosing our own purpose, but freely coming to choose the best purpose. Freedom is what necessitates that Hell exists (what Hell is is another matter). God won't force people to join his loving (more and more each day) community, if they believe another path is going to bring them more joy, even though it won't.

This goes back to what we were talking about before. God can make a car and decide the optimal fuel, but not where we go with it. If Christianity were true I imagine I was created with a dislike of avocados baked in. I will never like them no matter what. So he has decided that. But that's not the end of the story. Maybe I become an epicure and learn to tell a good avocado dish from a bad one, and that brings some joy. Full-on gag reflex. I have never hated any food so much. But even as a fairly good analogy for at least a little orange juice in my gas tank (in that it will hurt me but not literally melt my guts) I can find a purpose for it, and a joy in it.

Let's take it further and imagine God made us never intending for us to hurt or kill each other. That doesn't mean we can't have the Hunger Games and enjoy it, and that even the participants can't enjoy it. In the movies, it was largely involuntary though some did train and volunteer. This was always funny to me because it indicates that however crappy and dystopian their society seems, most people in it want to live, to where they can't find enough people to volunteer and fill 12 bloody slots. Imagine giving that opportunity to suicidal people - in a country where every year, about 20 people in 100,000 die this way - as well as giving that act a value to others, and using that value to, for example, give money to their families. What's to hate about this? I figure it's an act of love all the way around, and if God is pissed it's out of spite.

I think you are justified in invading and changing some aspects of immorality, but not all. Let’s assume homosexuality is wrong for this point. I don’t think objective morality necessarily gives one the right to invade the lives of homosexuals, look them up, fine them, etc. But murderers need to be locked up (and try to be redeemed) for the safety of others.

I think that's a really good example because nobody tries to explain why homosexuality is wrong. What if it really is hurting people, just in a way that's not direct, and by not prohibiting the act, or punishing it, we're all just passing the buck?

I do agree that subjective morality is weaker in your sense here, that by its very nature it isn’t binding on others. Moral disagreements are very much just fights and whoever is stronger wins. But if objective morality is true, at least in the long run (and I’m not talking just about eternal states here), immoral acts will lead to a lower level of happiness and joy. Whoever is stronger may get their way in the immediate, but they will end up not liking that victory.

At first I thought this was an unfalsifiable, unobservable statement but I realised that was because I was looking at it backwards. If not-B then not-A, can also be expressed by, If A then B.

The logical contraposition of your statement that we won't be happy if we go against purpose and thus generate immorality, is that if someone really does find joy in their way of life, and does not suffer for it, then it must not have been immoral. This is 100% observable if you're honest. Are gay people happy? Tbh there's at least some evidence that they're not. Males are more jealous and more promiscuous and that makes two males an inherently bad combo. My opinion is that it just means more effort needs to be spent to make it work. But your theory is that this is an acid test for actually just a matter of taste versus actually immoral, right?

My proposition though this whole thing has been that taste is everything. Or at least, most things, with extreme exceptions like a car pouring orange juice into his gas tank and thus melting his guts. Yours is that where taste ends is where morality begins, and that's 1:1 with whether this thing we think we want will actually make us happy or not, right?

[Bust Nak]

Yes, it is different. “The earth is flat” is analogical to “the nature of a game of football” in what I was talking about. Not analogical in the sense of I’m saying both are objective or both are subjective. Using my previous language, if you wanted to apply it to the shape of the earth, you’d have to say that my nature and your nature both connect to “the earth is flat” the same way (that is false), which equals objectivity. Yet our natures connect to “ice cream X is tasty” in different ways (yum and yuck).

So, in 2 and 3, (with my previous meaning of ‘connection’ in mind), you and me are both connected to “everyone likes ice-cream” in the same way (i.e., it’s an objective truth) and connected different to “ice-cream X is tasty” (i.e. it’s subjectively true).

But if you want to use your meanings, I agree with there being different kinds of “connections”.

How about 2 is a statement about the connection, while 3 is an expression of the connection?

My claim here is that I agree it is possibly true that moral objectivism and atheism could both be true (I can’t rule it out), but I’ve yet to see an actual example that (assuming all their beliefs are true) logically works unless one just assumes the logical connection is there. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Why can't they borrow your argument: the universe has assigned us human with a certain nature. According to that nature, by acting in a certain way, we would get the optimal result.

Saying by football (the second concept) you are talking about soccer (the first concept) isn't saying anything about the football the American was talking about. You could be denying the American's football is a thing or you could simply not be addressing the sport.

Okay, then let me be explicit and say objectivism should be rejected, morality is just subjective opinion/feelings/preference.

So, subjective morality says that abusing a child is simply objectively different than not abusing that child, not that it is objectively worse. Just like eating chocolate or pistachio ice cream are objectively different, not objectively worse or better. That’s the kind of point I've been making.

Yes, no complains from me here, the qualifiers made all the difference.

[William]

So are you saying that our morality is objective in relation to one another, and that is all you mean by objective morality?

I'm saying that if morality is subjective, then morality is objective (to a tiny, tiny degree) because you can't apply your morality to me and that's what subjective morality means.

So yes, you are saying that our morality is objective in relation to one another, and that is all you mean by objective morality...

Isn't that what subjective morality means? Your morality only applies to you, and mine only applies to me?

Wouldn't' that mean that any morality we agreed on could be thought of as "objective"?

[Purple Knight]

Wouldn't' that mean that any morality we agreed on could be thought of as "objective"?

Yes, with a massive if.

One of the things we agree on, and truthfully, has to be that agreements mean something. If you're a Libertarian who thinks you have the right to lie in your agreements because it isn't aggression, because it is a "mere promise" that you can break, and that's your morality, then your agreement to a certain morality doesn't mean I can hold you to it.

[The Tanager]

Here's how it seems to me: There's no "way" about it. They can do anything and have it be good, because they are good, therefore whatever they do is motivated by their good hearts and therefore good. There's nothing I can do and have it be good, because I am not good. Therefore, any seemingly good act I do is actually motivated by selfishness.

Why does it seem this way to you? What divides people into good and bad in the first place?

But I can freely admit it's true. It's hard to admit it, but it is. The only reason I want to be a good person is so that the harassment from good people will stop. It's totally selfish.

You don’t do things like abuse children, steal, murder, etc. simply because you want “good” people to stop harassing you?

There's no way a person can start out evil and become good, because motives matter. And any motive that comes from selfishness (which the motive for any act done by an evil person will come from) makes the act evil.

Motives can change.

This goes back to what we were talking about before. God can make a car and decide the optimal fuel, but not where we go with it. If Christianity were true I imagine I was created with a dislike of avocados baked in. I will never like them no matter what. So he has decided that. But that's not the end of the story. Maybe I become an epicure and learn to tell a good avocado dish from a bad one, and that brings some joy. Full-on gag reflex. I have never hated any food so much. But even as a fairly good analogy for at least a little orange juice in my gas tank (in that it will hurt me but not literally melt my guts) I can find a purpose for it, and a joy in it.

Yes, we have free will to do what we want with what we are given. As the avocado goes, what exactly do you mean there, say, with the avocado of murder? That God bakes in the person’s desire to murder or that God bakes in a desire to not murder?

I think that's a really good example because nobody tries to explain why homosexuality is wrong. What if it really is hurting people, just in a way that's not direct, and by not prohibiting the act, or punishing it, we're all just passing the buck?

Would prohibiting and punishing anything really keep it from happening? If morality is about motives, then forced action isn’t really helping anyone.

The logical contraposition of your statement that we won't be happy if we go against purpose and thus generate immorality, is that if someone really does find joy in their way of life, and does not suffer for it, then it must not have been immoral. This is 100% observable if you're honest. Are gay people happy? Tbh there's at least some evidence that they're not. Males are more jealous and more promiscuous and that makes two males an inherently bad combo. My opinion is that it just means more effort needs to be spent to make it work. But your theory is that this is an acid test for actually just a matter of taste versus actually immoral, right?

I think it’s impossible for us to test. First, not all suffering (if that includes any discomfort) is bad. Second, I don’t see how we could judge whether that person is truly experiencing joy or if they are settling for simply the greatest benefit they have experienced and wrongly calling it “joy”.

My proposition though this whole thing has been that taste is everything. Or at least, most things, with extreme exceptions like a car pouring orange juice into his gas tank and thus melting his guts. Yours is that where taste ends is where morality begins, and that's 1:1 with whether this thing we think we want will actually make us happy or not, right?

I’m not sure I’d put it like that. I think morality and taste can match up. I think our tastes change as we become more and more moral. I also think morality makes room within tastes, although certainly not the whole spectrum.

[The Tanager]

How about 2 is a statement about the connection, while 3 is an expression of the connection?

Sure.

Why can't they borrow your argument: the universe has assigned us human with a certain nature. According to that nature, by acting in a certain way, we would get the optimal result.

Because they don’t believe the universe is purposeful/intentional.

Yes, no complains from me here, the qualifiers made all the difference.

Sounds good.

[Bust Nak]

Because they don’t believe the universe is purposeful/intentional.

They don't need to believe in universal purpose or intentions to objectively verify what acts are optimal according to human nature.