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.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #178]

I agree. No other species exactly replicated the evolutionary history of human beings, including behavior. I'm not sure what you think that means, though. I'm pretty sure that you're trying to get me to grind an ax for you here, but I'm not sure what that is, either. Are you saying that if an instinctve behavior exists somewhere in the animal world, then atheists should adopt it as part of their moral framework?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that if atheism is true, then your instinctive behavior is not objectively better than the ethical egoist’s instinctive behavior which is not objectively better than the honey bee’s instinctive behavior and so on. They are just different instinctive behaviors.

Sure. The broad goals of humanity's moral frameworks support social cohesion and wellbeing. The baked-in concept of sexual jealosy does not. If the perceived goal of social cohesion is indeed the goal, then I'd think that gods would have come up with a more socially harmonious rule. In the first place, it's not even clear to me that attempting to preferentially pass my own genes to future generatons should be considered a moral imperative in the ways that most people define morality. It is, however, the kind of behavior that would be preserved evolutionarily, even when most other behaviors favor long-term social benefits in preference to short-term personal ones.

Of course, if you think that there is no cohesive goal behind our moral concepts and they're the arbitrary and capricious dictates of the gods, maybe that argument won't convince you. I'm not sure.

I definitely don’t think morality is based on capricious dictates. I think God’s act of creation determines morality, so that if God did experience sudden, unpredictable changes of mood or behavior, this wouldn’t change what is moral for those created beings.

I’m not sure ‘arbitrary’ fits either, depending on what you mean by that. I don’t think God’s act of creation to make reality in a certain way and make our flourishing as humans include looking out for the well-being of that world is random or reasonless. I think God’s nature includes being loving and for that reason, God’s act of creation of humans within the world He created, naturally leads to make us where our flourishing does include loving others well.

Even sexual jealousy can be good as it speaks of a high, deep investment in the other, of trying to protect them from making a mess of their life (and the lives of children and partner), can spurn growth in the individual feeling jealous, can signal that certain behaviors are causing insecurity and strengthened boundaries or further discussion can help the relationship become even deeper. It can certainly be abused/misused, but there is a good core to it.

My question is why you'd project that particular "should" onto atheists or anyone else. You're claiming that as an atheist, I "should" have a particular moral value, but it's one that violates most existing moral and social norms.

I’m saying that, if my understanding of theism is true, then following certain shoulds and should nots would lead to us flourishing, while other actions would work against that. And I’m also saying that, if atheism is true, then there is no objective way to flourish, so no shoulds and should nots exist.

I don’t think we are legitimately better off with a more selfish set of standards as many of those desires would (and have) harmed society and even ourselves.

Then why are you claiming that atheists should hold those standards?

Contextually, I was arguing against those who think that atheism is true and that we should still follow certain shoulds and should nots (which is usually about social cohesion over self interest and the like). I was asking for a reason for, say, an ethical egoist to follow such preferences.

That something is built in does not mean that all alternatives are capable of building it in. So, if we believe it is built in and one worldview can’t account for that, then it isn’t rational to maintain the truth of that worldview.

Sure, but for the reasons I've outlined above, I don't think this supports your particular brand of theism. Even in broad terms, our individual and corporate senses of morality fit what we'd expect from an evolutionary history of humanity. This is even more true when we examine differences with other animals, like the sharks and mantises that you mentioned earlier, with regard to how their own evolutionary histories and pressures are similar to and different from those of humans. I think it's harder to come up with a cohesive set of reasons for why deity would imbue us (humans and animals alike) with our specific sets of behavioral impulses.

That’s a separate question then what I was addressing there. My point is that atheistic worldviews don’t account for objective morality, so if we think morality is objective and atheism is true, we have a problem and one of those should go unless the other evidence is so overwhelming in the other direction that we’ve got to just chalk this up to a mystery. The other side of that is that if we think morality is objective, this is a very good reason to accept theism as true.

I do think moral history can be accounted for within theism, though. The underlying principles human societies seem to build off of seem pretty consistent even though other species build societies off of other, competing ones. We build societies in a very specific way. What seems to change are beliefs about facts that those principles then get applied to. The difference between us and other species can be explained by us being created as moral agents, while other species are not. That is, we have our flourishing tied to loving others well, while other beings do not.

The problem, though, is that I don't see how this line of reasoning applies to the question of who can be moral and why.

My point was more about how anyone can be objectively moral…I think that requires theism to be true. And if that is true, then anyone can do moral things, whatever they believe, because they were made to act morally. If atheism is true, then no one can be objectively moral because that wouldn’t be a real thing.

Even if Christians can't sufficiently explain them, our moral impulses are real. The fact that some Christians manage to be moral despite how the Bible says to act should be considered evidence of that. The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7ff). Is that indicative of Yahweh's personal moral sense? If so, at least a few Christians have, instead, accepted the atheist moral position that fathers shouldn't do that. How does that affect your overall thesis?

Any specific case doesn’t affect my overall thesis. It could be the case that Exodus 21:7ff isn’t indicative of Yahweh’s moral views. It could also be the case that out of the alternatives, this was the best situation the daughter could enter into, so that Yahweh’s moral view here should be accepted as the right one in the situation.

Thinking about whether something is unclean or not is dependent on a mind. You and I can get a different answers to the question, "Is that unclean?" That itself is the essence of subjectivity in the philosophical sense. "Eating hoopoes and bats is unclean," is objective. "Eating hoopoes and bats isn't unclean for me, but might be for someone else," is subjective.

There are three different issues here:

(1) Is eating hoopoes and bats unclean? Paul directly says in verses 14 and 20 that nothing is unclean in itself, so his answer here would be “no.”

(2) If someone is wrong and answers “yes” to (1), should they go ahead and eat it? Here Paul is saying that this person should not eat it because they would be willfully doing something they think is wrong (v. 23 explores that more).

(3) How should those who believe it’s fine to eat these things treat the person who thinks it is unclean? This is what the passage is really about. Here Paul says don’t judge them (v. 13), don’t eat it in front of them (v. 15) or you could really mess them up (vv. 15ff).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #171]

Perhaps the whole idea that we have knowledge of good and evil is what makes morality so problematic.

I agree! Although we may mean that in different ways.

Is it worthwhile discussing more fully then?

I'm not sure if it'd be a tangent or not. I'll share my thought and let you decide if you'd like to pursue it. I think Genesis speaks of how there is good in all of creation, but there are some things that look good that aren't really good for us and a lot of that is too complex for humans to just figure out on their own, so they ought to trust God's commands instead. We think we know more than we do and will often cause disastrous things to happen when we think we are doing good.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #171]

Perhaps the whole idea that we have knowledge of good and evil is what makes morality so problematic.

I agree! Although we may mean that in different ways.

Is it worthwhile discussing more fully then?

I'm not sure if it'd be a tangent or not. I'll share my thought and let you decide if you'd like to pursue it. I think Genesis speaks of how there is good in all of creation, but there are some things that look good that aren't really good for us and a lot of that is too complex for humans to just figure out on their own, so they ought to trust God's commands instead. We think we know more than we do and will often cause disastrous things to happen when we think we are doing good.

My thinking on this is that if all things are good from the Gods perspective, then all things are good period.
If some things are not good for humans then things which are not good for humans are good in God's understanding. This means that even things not good for humans are still good even if humans think they are not good.

This leads to the Fruit of knowledge of good and evil. It is good in Gods estimate but it is bad for humans to eat of it. This aligns with your "so they ought to trust God's commands instead."

The Fruit of the Tree of Life is also Good - and it was deemed good for humans.
Accessible immediately. No command not to eat of that trees fruit. Only became inaccessible after.

What if "life" in this context? It is having access and relationship with The Voice of God.

Having access and relationship with The Voice of God = Good

Access denied = Good re God, bad re humans.

What humans lost:

Not just immortality, but the safety of direct relationship. Post-Eden, humans cannot handle unmediated divine presence. Moses hides his face. Israel begs Moses to speak instead of God. "No one can see God and live."

What humans gained:

The knowledge of good and evil - which is now their primary moral navigation tool in the absence of direct access.

Is it good to Trust God's commands (mediated through scripture)?

Those commands come through the same fallen, limited, post-Eden human channels that possess the knowledge of good and evil - including the prophets who wrote them. We cannot escape using our moral knowledge to evaluate which commands reflect God's character and which reflect human compromise. Even "trust God's commands" is a decision we make using post-Eden moral judgment.

The garden is closed. The Tree of Life is guarded. We have the knowledge. That's what we have to work with.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #183]

I agree, except that God spoke of One who would come and bridge that gap, which I believe was Jesus "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3)" and "who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boasts in the Lord. (1 Cor 1:30-31)" which itself pulls from Jeremiah 9 (esp. vv. 23-24). If we turn to Him, we can have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16).

To tie it to this thread, I think all can be moral in some clear things, can stumble upon morality in other things, but can truly find the moral choice in every situation only through this relationship Christianity speaks of. Whether that is true or not is a different conversation and not the main point I've been making in this thread, so please don't confuse the two.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #183]

I agree, except that God spoke of One who would come and bridge that gap, which I believe was Jesus "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3)" and "who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boasts in the Lord. (1 Cor 1:30-31)" which itself pulls from Jeremiah 9 (esp. vv. 23-24). If we turn to Him, we can have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16).

To tie it to this thread, I think all can be moral in some clear things, can stumble upon morality in other things, but can truly find the moral choice in every situation only through this relationship Christianity speaks of. Whether that is true or not is a different conversation and not the main point I've been making in this thread, so please don't confuse the two.

Even with Jesus, humans are still interpreting. Which Jesus? Which gospel? Which church? Which translation? Which theology?

The same post-Eden moral knowledge is required to decide between competing claims about Jesus - his divinity, his teachings, his supposed commands.

Jesus did not write a book. Others wrote about him, using their post-Eden moral judgment. We're still filtering mediated claims through human discernment.

The "access" Jesus offers is still mediated - through scripture, tradition, preaching, personal experience. None of those are the unmediated voice of God in the garden. Moses hid his face. No one has seen God at any time, John says - but Jesus has made him known. That's still mediated knowledge (the Son reveals the Father), not direct access for the believer.

So how do we ascertain that any Christians morality is true while any atheists is not - or not as true? Both are still operating post-Eden.

To further this thought:

John 17:3 - "This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (Knowledge here is relational, not merely informational.)

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 - "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation."

John 15:15 - "I have called you friends, because everything I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

If Christianity is primarily about restored relationship with God (access to the voice, the garden reopened), then morality flows from that relationship - it is not the goal but the fruit.

How does one know they are in this restored relationship? How does one discern the voice of God from their own conscience, cultural conditioning, or wishful thinking? And is the same post-Eden moral knowledge required to answer that question? Or...?

Even "I am in relationship with God through Jesus" is a claim that must be evaluated using the very human faculties identified. Or...? Can we escape the garden's gate by asserting we have walked through it. We still have to tell how we know and that knowing requires the Tree of Life relationship with The Father.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #185]

I agree that the knowledge Jesus spoke of is relational, not merely informational. I’m not a Christian because of information, but because of an ongoing experience of God. Yes, I could be mistaken and we have to deal with doubts about this being conscience, cultural conditioning, wishful thinking, etc. And we address those doubts through limited knowledge sources (science, history, philosophy, etc.) just like I do with my wife's love for me.

[Difflugia]

Are you saying that if an instinctve behavior exists somewhere in the animal world, then atheists should adopt it as part of their moral framework?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that if atheism is true, then your instinctive behavior is not objectively better than the ethical egoist’s instinctive behavior which is not objectively better than the honey bee’s instinctive behavior and so on. They are just different instinctive behaviors.

This deceptively short statement opens a few cans of worms.

First, not all thoughts and behaviors are instinctive. While instincts do vary, an "ethical egoist's" moral instincts and mine (whatever I am) are going to be very, very similar. Even if we decide not to unpack social conditioning ("nature vs. nurture") and label everything visceral as "instinct," most social systems aren't that different. Once we're making conscious judgements about morality, though, we're beyond the realm of instinct.

Second, you're now making two different (though parallel) arguments with different concepts of objectivity. That's not invalid, but we have to be careful and I think it's responsible for your confusion in our discussion of Paul's morality. When we argue about moral frameworks, we are necessarily making subjective value judgements about moral precepts that may themselves be either objective or subjective in a philosophical sense.

Third, I don't why you'd imagine that an atheist would consider a bee's behavioral instincts would apply to a human society or that human morality somehow affects bees. If you're not actually claiming that you think we should consider bee morality when formulating our own, then what argument are you making? I'm guessing it's an attempt at some sort of slippery slope, but I'm not sure how you imagine it playing out.

Fourth, I'm not sure what the overall argument is. If you're just claiming that finding an optimal moral framework isn't an easy problem, then you're right. The only thing that theism offers is the option to punt on which morality is best. If we pretend a god is real, we can claim that its priests have accurately represented its moral code and follow it willy-nilly, but I'm not sure what that buys us. Unless you mean that the other way, that the obvious superiority of a particular theist framework is a signal that a particular god is real? What's your claim?

I definitely don’t think morality is based on capricious dictates. I think God’s act of creation determines morality, so that if God did experience sudden, unpredictable changes of mood or behavior, this wouldn’t change what is moral for those created beings.

OK. How do you go about deriving a moral code from "God's act of creation?"

I’m not sure ‘arbitrary’ fits either, depending on what you mean by that.

Are God's moral dictates based on an independently derivable truth or not? If yes, we should be able to at least be able to map God's moral precepts onto that pattern. If, on the other hand, the only reason that moral precepts are moral is because a god said so, then they're arbitrary from our perspective.

I don’t think God’s act of creation to make reality in a certain way and make our flourishing as humans include looking out for the well-being of that world is random or reasonless. I think God’s nature includes being loving and for that reason, God’s act of creation of humans within the world He created, naturally leads to make us where our flourishing does include loving others well.

OK. The sixty-four-dollar question is if we can derive the correct moral code independent of divine revelation. If yes, then atheists can see it, too, and we're just arguing about how reality came to be with its baked-in moral reality. If not, then our moral code is still subjectively sourced, it's just subject to a god's judgement (and the accuracy of its priests) rather than human judgements.

Even sexual jealousy can be good as it speaks of a high, deep investment in the other, of trying to protect them from making a mess of their life (and the lives of children and partner), can spurn growth in the individual feeling jealous, can signal that certain behaviors are causing insecurity and strengthened boundaries or further discussion can help the relationship become even deeper. It can certainly be abused/misused, but there is a good core to it.

That's quite a silver lining you're asserting, but you still haven't made a convincing argument for why that improves social cohesion or provides any other social benefit. Biblically, jealousy just leads to women being forced to drink dirty poop water (Numbers 5:14-24).

I’m saying that, if my understanding of theism is true, then following certain shoulds and should nots would lead to us flourishing, while other actions would work against that. And I’m also saying that, if atheism is true, then there is no objective way to flourish, so no shoulds and should nots exist.

This can only be true if there's no objective standard for "flourish." If it means something to "flourish" and it's something that can be measured, then it's something that can be optimized. Congratulations. You've just defined a moral code that's objectively tied to reality and can be derived independently of any theism. If "flourish" can't be measured, then how are you determining that your theistic moral code does indeed improve how we "flourish?"

Contextually, I was arguing against those who think that atheism is true and that we should still follow certain shoulds and should nots (which is usually about social cohesion over self interest and the like).

What you seem to be struggling with is the concept that atheists can have standards for value judgements of any kind. I value my own survival, comfort, and happienss. I value the same for my family and friends. I value the same for other people in general. Other people objectively have broadly similar sets of values, so you can't really claim that those values don't exist in a human sense. Those shared values can be used as an objectively shared framework for developing a moral code. The arguments over the details are going to get pretty subjective pretty fast, but if everyone cares about the outcome, that's inevitable. Of course, we could just punt an pick someone to do the difficult reasoning for us. We could even pick someone that's imaginary, but that seems silly.

I was asking for a reason for, say, an ethical egoist to follow such preferences.

A consistent "ethical egoist" will likely recognize that acceptance by the society will be in her long-term interest. Or, maybe she really would be better off as an independent agent, like being an outlaw in the historical sense. An ethical egoist that's super bad at math should probably just punt and be a theist.

My point is that atheistic worldviews don’t account for objective morality, so if we think morality is objective and atheism is true, we have a problem and one of those should go unless the other evidence is so overwhelming in the other direction that we’ve got to just chalk this up to a mystery. The other side of that is that if we think morality is objective, this is a very good reason to accept theism as true.

If you mean "objective" in the sense of baked into reality independent of humanity, then sure. I think that's just another way of being bad at math, though. The feeling that morality is true independent of the self as a human and our human evolutionary history is seductive, but I still think it's false. The strength of that feeling is real, though, so in that sense, the existence of that feeling is an objective source from which to start constructing a moral framework. I don't think it has a supernatural origin, though. But maybe it's my math that's bad, rather than theists'.

I do think moral history can be accounted for within theism, though. The underlying principles human societies seem to build off of seem pretty consistent even though other species build societies off of other, competing ones. We build societies in a very specific way. What seems to change are beliefs about facts that those principles then get applied to. The difference between us and other species can be explained by us being created as moral agents, while other species are not. That is, we have our flourishing tied to loving others well, while other beings do not.

That's an interesting direction, but to be more than assertion, you'll have to flesh a lot out, to the point of probably needed its own, dedicated topic. Other social mammals seem to have similar emotional connections, particularly ones that approach our own human sensibilities, like the other great apes. If this is going to be an important part of your argument, I think you have a lot of work to do to show that moral agency is both qualitatively unique to humans and is most likely to be derived from something supernatural rather than plausibly an evolutionary adaptation.

My point was more about how anyone can be objectively moral…I think that requires theism to be true. And if that is true, then anyone can do moral things, whatever they believe, because they were made to act morally. If atheism is true, then no one can be objectively moral because that wouldn’t be a real thing.

I think you're going to have to tighten this up. If it's possible to be made to act morally, then it's possible to have evolved to act morally. That is, unless you're defining morality itself as something that must necessarily exist outside of humanity, in which case your argument is approaching circularity. As this argument stands, though, I don't think it's valid.

If so, at least a few Christians have, instead, accepted the atheist moral position that fathers shouldn't do that. How does that affect your overall thesis?

Any specific case doesn’t affect my overall thesis.

It absolutely does. If moral reality exists independently of humans, then we shouldn't see that kind of ambiguity. You might be able to explain why the human moral judgement is really counter to the morality imbued the universe by Yahweh or something, but if our moral sensibilities and the moral construction of the universe derive from the same source, as I think you're arguing, I think they should be in much closer alignment.

It could be the case that Exodus 21:7ff isn’t indicative of Yahweh’s moral views.

If we have to squint at the Bible using our frail human faculties to divine what God wanted, how does that support your contention that morality is objectively independent of human reasoning?

It could also be the case that out of the alternatives, this was the best situation the daughter could enter into, so that Yahweh’s moral view here should be accepted as the right one in the situation.

If that's the case, I look forward to you supporting why selling children is a reasonable moral compromise, but things like picking up sticks on the Sabbath aren't.

There are three different issues here:

(1) Is eating hoopoes and bats unclean? Paul directly says in verses 14 and 20 that nothing is unclean in itself, so his answer here would be “no.”

So far, so objective.

(2) If someone is wrong and answers “yes” to (1), should they go ahead and eat it? Here Paul is saying that this person should not eat it because they would be willfully doing something they think is wrong (v. 23 explores that more).

That's not what Paul says, though. He's not saying, "play it safe," or something; he says in so many words that if one thinks that something is unclean, then it's unclean. That's subjective in a philosophical sense. We can argue Paul's theology if you want, but this also fits with his broader concept of things done in the name of the Lord being holy, but the same things could be sin if done with a different reason ("whatever is not of faith is sin"). That's not, "be careful," but if anything not done in a particular frame of mind is immoral. That is a subjective moral framework by definition.

(3) How should those who believe it’s fine to eat these things treat the person who thinks it is unclean? This is what the passage is really about. Here Paul says don’t judge them (v. 13), don’t eat it in front of them (v. 15) or you could really mess them up (vv. 15ff).

This might make for another interesting topic as well, but I think you're misunderstanding Paul's theology of sin.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #185]

I agree that the knowledge Jesus spoke of is relational, not merely informational. I’m not a Christian because of information, but because of an ongoing experience of God. Yes, I could be mistaken and we have to deal with doubts about this being conscience, cultural conditioning, wishful thinking, etc. And we address those doubts through limited knowledge sources (science, history, philosophy, etc.) just like I do with my wife's love for me.

If Christian moral access is fallible and mediated - addressed through the same "limited knowledge sources" available to atheists - then there is no epistemological advantage. Both the Christian and the atheist navigate post-Eden with the same tools: reason, experience, tradition, conscience, and critical examination of doubts.

The Christian has no epistemological advantage. He has a relational assertion - but that assertion is supported by the same limited, fallible sources available to everyone, and is subject to the same doubts (probably, more doubts) than a relationship with a physically present person. The atheist is not missing a special tool. The Christian is just labeling his ordinary tool as "relationship with God."

[Purple Knight]

This could be read "I don't have reliable moral knowledge - and I project that onto everyone else."

It's a judgment based on history and the fact that people can seem so sure, but they're always sure of what they have been told. There are many places in the world with almost diametrically opposed moral beliefs. You can marry a 12-year-old versus you can't. If there were less moral certitude over issues like this or it didn't wrap so closely to culture and tradition I'd be a lot more willing to say you were right.

And it's something that wouldn't happen if a fair god existed, though it doesn't rule out an unfair one.

This is a judgement based on morality - knowledge of. The judgment itself may be incorrect but the point is not so much having knowledge as having wisdom in which to navigate.
To call God "unfair" (or to say a fair God would act differently) requires:

Knowledge of what "fair" means

Knowledge of what a fair God ought to do

Yes to the first but not necessarily to the second. What is fair is easily obtainable knowledge. What is right, or what God "should" do, isn't. A clear example of where fair and good seem to be different is treating people with evil beliefs the same. By fairness, yes. By goodness or righteousness, well, at very least people don't, and goodness and righteousness is always apparent in their reasoning.

For example, two people each kill one person. The killed people are identical but the motives are different. One person killed because the twins abused their wives. One killed because he wanted to kill. Both killers did the same action. By fairness, treat them equally - the same punishment. But most people would want to consider motive.

For example, a moral person says, "Standing on one leg in a bucket of water while playing the harmonica is immoral.

Then you offer something which wouldn't normally be contested as an issue of morality.

I, like most people, just shrug my shoulders and agree not to do it because he's probably right.

As if that's how people respond to real moral demands (don't kill, don't steal, help the drowning child). The example along with the action here are not "like most people". Even thinking "he's probably right" is a moral judgement.

Don't steal and don't kill are selfish. I would like to live in a world where people don't do those things, and if we have equality plus those, then I don't get killed or my stuff stolen, so those three things are just good for me. To me these are the ones that are decidedly not moral.

Moral comes up when it's stuff you do or don't do, because it is right, not because it will benefit you personally.

And as far as the drowning child, I actually think Peter Singer functions as a reductio of this on a large scale. It ends up where you must sell all your things to help starving children, which will only create more starving children. But if you have the obligation to help people in desperate need, then you do, and it doesn't end at some point where it becomes inconvenient.

You're saying it's uncontested that standing on one leg in a bucket of water while playing a harmonica is morally permissible? You wouldn't think so, if you had a cultural prohibition against it. "Don't eat during the day on Ramadan," is not different in any significant way.

Meanwhile, I see the vast majority of people having to deal with grievous personal harm, and the moral people say, "Ignore it, make a sacrifice, it is good." and so they ignore it and make a sacrifice.

Meanwhile what do you do that is different from this "vast majority of people"?

You presented saving the drowning child as moral, so I assume you would do that. Is it because you believe it is moral, or because society does?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #189]

The way you are using "fairness" is it good or bad?
You claim fairness is 'easily obtainable knowledge' while goodness is not. But fairness is a moral concept. Saying 'like cases should be treated alike' is not a fact of physics - it's a moral judgment. Why should we treat like cases alike? You can't answer that without appealing to some notion of justice or rightness. You're using moral knowledge to claim moral knowledge is unreliable. You can't have it both ways.

Your critique of God as 'unfair' requires exactly the moral knowledge you say most of us don't have. Either you have it - in which case your whole position collapses - or you don't - in which case you can't call God unfair. Either way, your argument fails.

Fairness isn't a loophole. It's morality. And you just admitted it's knowable.

You can marry a 12-year-old versus you can't.

If we observe nature, 12 year olds are ovulating and ready to produce. That is nature. Also, it is nature that we humans ascertain that this is not enough. A 12 year olds brain hasn't even matured sufficiently, so nature (or the creator) has not taken that into account. WE can build on this back and forth, trying to ascertain the facts and decide on whether our assessment is fair. Knowledge based. Other might argue that God made it as it is and that should be fair enough.

Someone could then argue, that yes God made it that way, and in doing so we have room in which to wiggle. God withdrew at Eden. Since then we have our own wit in which to work with - and how do we know that God would not point out that if we somehow could ask and get an answer?

We have our wit. That's it. And our wit says: a 12-year-old's brain development matters. That judgment may be wrong from God's perspective - but we have no way to know that, because God is silent. So we act on the best knowledge we have.
A theist cannot tell us how we ought act re God's morality.

The debate "can atheists be moral?" becomes trivial. Of course they can. Everyone uses the same tools. The theist just adds a (perhaps) unverifiable label.

WE cannot just assume that because different countries have different laws, that this in itself means any one country is true or truer than every other country. This applies to politics and religion and individuals.

Don't steal and don't kill are selfish.

How does one reach that conclusion without morals?

I would like to live in a world where people don't do those things, and if we have equality plus those, then I don't get killed or my stuff stolen, so those three things are just good for me.

That kind of world appears to be a world where morals are not considered because they are not required because nobody thinks of doing such things.
So what about our world makes us want to contemplate let alone commit those things?

And how can we change our world into the one you want without morals?

The alternate argument is why did God create this world and not one which such things are not considered let alone done?

The Abrahamic argument is that it is not the world we live in which "makes" us think about or actual commit these acts.

It is "because" Adam chose to use his own wit instead of continuing a relationship with God.

The world functions as created. The problem is relational.

Why do we steal? Not because the world (nature) is broken. WE steal because we have inherited system which act against nature. Those systems make humans earn their right to life on the planet. As a result, this produces have-nots who act (naturally enough) as if they have been duped/ripped off.
Human values (money) monetizing human energy blah blah et al... envy, murder, the need to marry, produce off-spring, jealousy, fear of being ousted for another, and even being among the "haves" doesn't eliminate these desires to act against a perceived injustice or opportunity to get what one haver has and add it to ones own pile one has.

So, since you cannot have the type of world you want - what is your alternative? Perhaps act in a way that proves to you that your desire is not unreasonable and shows you that it isn't nature which pushes anyone to steal or murder et al - it is the systems of inequity we have inherited which allow for those opportunities and in some case even reward those who act in such manner - whilst simultaneously punish others (generally the have-nots) for the same offenses.

The nature functions as created. The problem is relational (disconnection from God) and structural (disconnection from fair access to resources).

Morality alone won't fix it - but neither will pretending morality doesn't exist. We need both: moral reasoning to identify injustice, and structural change to remove the incentives for harm.

And meanwhile (because such is unlikely to happen) - you can live your life from that perspective whilst simultaneously not giving a toss what people who don't, think about you or even act against you.

You're saying it's uncontested that standing on one leg in a bucket of water while playing a harmonica is morally permissible? You wouldn't think so, if you had a cultural prohibition against it. "Don't eat during the day on Ramadan," is not different in any significant way.

You just need to navigate - with integrity, using the best knowledge available, and without being paralyzed by the fear of being wrong or disliked or persecuted or killed.

The garden gate is closed. The workbench is open. And what others think about your work is not primarily your business.

You presented saving the drowning child as moral, so I assume you would do that. Is it because you believe it is moral, or because society does?

Neither. I would think it would be a thoughtless act in the moment and in that, it would depend on the exact circumstance unfolding at the time.

We don't need to solve moral epistemology to save a drowning child.