Is morality an illusion?

[olavisjo]

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

[kayky]

You can have morality and ethics without religion.

It would seem like you could, but I doubt that you can support your claim with any evidence or reasoning.

Can it not be proven through observation? Are atheists committing more sins than religious people?

[TXatheist]

You can have morality and ethics without religion.

It would seem like you could, but I doubt that you can support your claim with any evidence or reasoning.

Can it not be proven through observation? Are atheists committing more sins than religious people?

And what does it mean that I know of some very unethical, immoral "Christians" and I know of some very ethical and moral Atheists?

Also, I am an Atheist, olavisjo; are you saying I have poor morals?

[Goat]

You can have morality and ethics without religion.

It would seem like you could, but I doubt that you can support your claim with any evidence or reasoning.

This line of reasoning has been shown to you many many times (the thread on objective morality).. yet you seem to have your blinders on.

I am sure it wouldn't be evidence and reasoning you accept, since you have rejected it in the past. There have been numerous attempts to show the evidence and reasoning for an evolutionary morality, and you simply ignore it.

[olavisjo]

Can it not be proven through observation? Are atheists committing more sins than religious people?

It has nothing to do with who is committing more sins. The concept of sin does not exist for atheists so they can't sin.

And what does it mean that I know of some very unethical, immoral "Christians" and I know of some very ethical and moral Atheists?

Also, I am an Atheist, olavisjo; are you saying I have poor morals?

I am not saying anything about the quality of your morals, what I am saying is that you are not logically able to defend why you or anyone should live that way.

[olavisjo]

You can have morality and ethics without religion.

It would seem like you could, but I doubt that you can support your claim with any evidence or reasoning.

This line of reasoning has been shown to you many many times (the thread on objective morality).. yet you seem to have your blinders on.

I am sure it wouldn't be evidence and reasoning you accept, since you have rejected it in the past. There have been numerous attempts to show the evidence and reasoning for an evolutionary morality, and you simply ignore it.

I am not ignoring anything, but I don't think that you even understand what we are talking about. Let me try again.

We are not talking about why we behave a certain way, but rather why we should behave a certain way.
Certain behaviour can help our "herd" survive, but there is no reason why anyone should behave in that way. We can be nice to others if we want to, it may give us a pleasant feeling inside, it may make people like and admire us, it may make people feel indebted to us etc. but there is no reason why we should feel obligated to be nice to others.

So, can you give me a reason why anyone should be moral?

[Goat]

You can have morality and ethics without religion.

It would seem like you could, but I doubt that you can support your claim with any evidence or reasoning.

This line of reasoning has been shown to you many many times (the thread on objective morality).. yet you seem to have your blinders on.

I am sure it wouldn't be evidence and reasoning you accept, since you have rejected it in the past. There have been numerous attempts to show the evidence and reasoning for an evolutionary morality, and you simply ignore it.

I am not ignoring anything, but I don't think that you even understand what we are talking about. Let me try again.

We are not talking about why we behave a certain way, but rather why we should behave a certain way.
Certain behaviour can help our "herd" survive, but there is no reason why anyone should behave in that way. We can be nice to others if we want to, it may give us a pleasant feeling inside, it may make people like and admire us, it may make people feel indebted to us etc. but there is no reason why we should feel obligated to be nice to others.

So, can you give me a reason why anyone should be moral?

We have gone over that, over and over and over.

You refuse to acknowledge the concept of enlightened self interest.

[bernee51]

Wouldn't the person who acts morally without fear of a higher power punishing them and without needing to be told that the opposite act is bad in fact be the more righteous of the two?

I agree with you, but you are missing the point.
The terms righteous and moral are religious terms, they have no meaning in Atheism, other than a false mental construct.
For example, when a lion kills an antelope, she has done nothing immoral, she has only enhanced her chances of surviving a little longer. And since humans are only animals that have evolved a little more (in our own eyes) than lions, then there should be nothing immoral about killing each other, for any reason that we desire.

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

If teh development of 'moral' behaviour enhenced and furthered the evolution of self awre consciouness then thse triats would be selected as beneficial.

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

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

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

And suffer the consequences.

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

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

[olavisjo]

We have gone over that, over and over and over.

You refuse to acknowledge the concept of enlightened self interest.

Thank you, so we are in perfect agreement.

There is no such thing as morality, only self interest.

[olavisjo]

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

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

Yes, for the atheist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that selects beneficial genes.
Eventually the lion will evolve the knowledge of good and evil, then we can hold it accountable for murder.

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

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

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

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

And suffer the consequences.

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

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

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

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

[Goat]

We have gone over that, over and over and over.

You refuse to acknowledge the concept of enlightened self interest.

Thank you, so we are in perfect agreement.

There is no such thing as morality, only self interest.

No, we are not in agreement.

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