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.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #40]

I feel like we may be getting far from the intent of this thread and its becoming a bit unwieldy.

I agree. This is par for the course because life - and understanding life - is complex.

There are many things I’d love to talk with you about in what you’ve said. But I feel that should be in another thread and one at a time. Would you like to start a new thread/PM to where we could do that?

I would not know where to start re doing that as I think it would be better that we come to an agreement on the thread subjects, and order in which they are best presented.
PM would be the place to discuss those things, but I am fairly positive you would agree that anything we might discuss in private need to be agreed to be eventually shared in public...perhaps in the debate setting or perhaps in the informal chat section, depending on how that might unfold and then be best suited to.

As far as this thread goes, what is your overall view on morality’s connection to this Earth mind worldview? Is good/evil objective or subjective?

Fundamentally subjective, as opposed to the idea of there only being an overall creator mind outside of the creation which has to be understood as the objective source of morality, which is what I think you are arguing for when you use the phrase "objective morality"?

As to critiques of what I am mainly claiming in relation to this thread, I saw this:

Likewise, the theist world is also pure fiction.
The overall take-way is that "we" (the stronger) were not just Christians/theists (remembering that the Nazi proclamations were theistic in nature declaring to be a vessel of Gods will). Atheists too, resented the evolution and actions of Nazism and added their strength and support to defeating it.

By “pure fiction” I wasn’t making a comment on atheism itself being false. I was saying that if atheism is true, then morality, having an optimal path, something being precious (not just liked) are fictions. Under atheism’s own beliefs, morality is a fiction.

That’s not the same with (some) theism. If those theisms are true, morality is not a pure fiction, but actual reality.

I do not think there is evidence that under atheisms own beliefs (presumably beliefs which reinforce the idea that we do not exist in a creation, therefore there is no God) morality is "pure fiction". I think the atheist argument is that morality is real, but does not come from or have to be sourced in some idea of a creator mind who resides outside of its creation or for that matter, some creator mind which resides inside of the creation (as with the Earth mind worldview).

[The Tanager]

I would not know where to start re doing that as I think it would be better that we come to an agreement on the thread subjects, and order in which they are best presented.
PM would be the place to discuss those things, but I am fairly positive you would agree that anything we might discuss in private need to be agreed to be eventually shared in public...perhaps in the debate setting or perhaps in the informal chat section, depending on how that might unfold and then be best suited to.

I don’t think any of it has to be done in public, but I’m okay with it all being eventually done in public. I’m fine doing it in H2H, or just a thread. I’m not sure I’ve done anything in the informal chat section and don’t know if that would be a good place or not.

Fundamentally subjective, as opposed to the idea of there only being an overall creator mind outside of the creation which has to be understood as the objective source of morality, which is what I think you are arguing for when you use the phrase "objective morality"?

I don’t think a creator mind outside of the creation is the only logically possible way to get objective morality, but I haven’t come across another way that works.

I do not think there is evidence that under atheisms own beliefs (presumably beliefs which reinforce the idea that we do not exist in a creation, therefore there is no God) morality is "pure fiction". I think the atheist argument is that morality is real, but does not come from or have to be sourced in some idea of a creator mind who resides outside of its creation or for that matter, some creator mind which resides inside of the creation (as with the Earth mind worldview).

I think the reasoning is quite clear that atheistic beliefs directly lead to subjective morality and, therefore, any claims for objectivity would be pure fiction. Atheists who claim morality is objectively real, I think, are being clearly inconsistent with their beliefs. I’m very open to seeing differently.

[Purple Knight]

Seeing as how I'm not personally omniscient, I'd have to either trust, in which case I could be wrong, or simply tell him, look, I have no way to know you're telling the truth so I have to go try it and see for myself. If someone tells me something will make me happy I'll usually at least try it. If someone tells me something won't make me happy, without a compelling reason not to do it, I want to try anyway.

Yes, but that trust could, conceivably, be built up and, if it is, wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing to lean on in trying to figure life out?

Absolutely. And it's the reason I have no beef with Christians who testify that God has earned that trust with them. He just hasn't earned it with me - and with many others. I don't even think God has to exist to earn trust. If you read the Bible and trust the character God based on what that character does, then he can still be a good influence on you and a source of love and comfort.

But more toward the OP, you have to go outside that trust to 1) acquire that trust in the first place, to decide this God is a good person and 2) to be moral. Just trusting somebody blindly is not moral.

It's still not just about carnal happiness. I can value something above my own happiness. I can select something that will make me miserable and hurt me. Intentionally. And if there's a good reason that's kind of what makes us human.

I definitely agree.

That's why it may not go quite so far as a sentient car putting orange juice in his gas tank, but it might easily go so far as him sacrificing himself or some other way of deciding to go against his design. His engine was designed for him. It might be sub-optimal in another car. But he can give it to that other car and that's an act of higher love. That's what I mean by deciding our own optimal. The designer can only decide what is optimal for a purpose. He can give us great gas mileage but we decide where we go. We're free to choose our own purpose.

Because if somebody really is objectively morally right, he's every bit justified going into the other side and forcing them to live as he does.

Not if forcing someone to live as he does isn’t objectively moral.

I don't know how you can even say that. What if, inside Bolokia, the Festens are considered superior and force the Blops to live contrary to Blop ways, and make the Blops live as Festens do? Would you be justified going into Bolokia and making the Festens stop? You're stopping something objectively immoral, after all.

That's the thing about objective morality: It gives you the right to oppress others. It's just no one bothers about it or considers it oppression that, for example, a genuine criminal is in jail. Maybe his ways are murdery ways. We put him in a concentration camp and reeducate him not to murder. We're justified because murder is objectively immoral.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #42]

I don’t think any of it has to be done in public, but I’m okay with it all being eventually done in public. I’m fine doing it in H2H, or just a thread. I’m not sure I’ve done anything in the informal chat section and don’t know if that would be a good place or not.

Since it is your turn to reply to what I have posted, I will leave it up to you to decide and go along with that.

I don’t think a creator mind outside of the creation is the only logically possible way to get objective morality, but I haven’t come across another way that works.

Since I have been given no particular definition which cannot be thought of as subjective anyway, I remain at a loss as to what anyone means when they use the term.

I think the reasoning is quite clear that atheistic beliefs directly lead to subjective morality and, therefore, any claims for objectivity would be pure fiction. Atheists who claim morality is objectively real, I think, are being clearly inconsistent with their beliefs. I’m very open to seeing differently.

I can't say I have ever seen an example of an atheist claiming there is such a thing as objective morality. Do you have any examples of this which could enlighten the reader?

[Purple Knight]

I can't say I have ever seen an example of an atheist claiming there is such a thing as objective morality. Do you have any examples of this which could enlighten the reader?

I have done so. I think subjective morality can be reductio'd, but only to a small degree.

If morality is not objective, then your morality does not apply to me. You can say it does, you can even give yourself the right to lie, but it is still a lie.

Objectively, your morality does not apply to me. You can kill me or cut off my legs or whatever else you want, define it as moral, it might be moral for you; I can't know.

But your subjective morality ends where mine begins. If you start saying it's moral for me to chop legs, that is not correct. It might be, but if it's not, your morality cannot make it so.

So even if morality is subjective, we have one objective moral truth: You can't apply your morality to me. You may force me to do whatever you want, if it's moral for you to apply that force. You can morally whip up mobs, bully me, lie and say your morality is objective... but it isn't and I don't have to do anything abhorrent to me. You can point a gun at me, shoot me if I don't do it, all of that is moral for you, if you say it is. And I can say nothing against any of it. But at the end of the day, my refusal to do any of that, if motivated by my morality, is still moral.

[William]

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

[Bust Nak]

Whatever the words would have meant if you used that phrase is unimportant; I’m directly telling you I don’t accept that one decides what is fun to them and what isn’t.

Then who does? Does anyone even decide? Surely you accept that "fun" is as subjective as "tasty" and "pretty?"

I did that with the phrase “I don’t just decide what is fun to me and what isn’t”. If I were to italicize something in that sentence, it would have been “I don’t just decide...”

As in it's a more involved process than "just deciding?"

Self-assigned and objective (in this context) are contradictions. It must be something assigned outside of one’s self, just like the shape of the earth, etc.

I would say the same to assigned and objective being contradictions. For something to be objective, it must be not something assigned by anyone, just like the shape of the earth, etc.

So, all you are saying is (1) you don’t like it, not something else beyond that, namely, (2) that I should not do it because you don’t like it?

Maybe? To be clear: under subjectivism me not liking it when you are lazy, is the literally same concept as you should not be lazy; they are synonymous, fully interchangeable. With that in mind, I read (2) as "I don't like it when you are lazy because I don't like it when you are lazy."

So am I saying (2) or not? Kinda, yes and no. The word "because" suggests an cause and effect, so no, I am not saying one thing causes the other thing - there is only one thing here. On the other hand, "A implies A" is a tautology, so yes, I am saying (2) in that sense.

[The Tanager]

But more toward the OP, you have to go outside that trust to 1) acquire that trust in the first place, to decide this God is a good person and 2) to be moral. Just trusting somebody blindly is not moral.

I agree. My point is that you don’t really hate moral castigation itself, you hate moral castigation by beings whom you can't trust to be correct.

That's why it may not go quite so far as a sentient car putting orange juice in his gas tank, but it might easily go so far as him sacrificing himself or some other way of deciding to go against his design. His engine was designed for him. It might be sub-optimal in another car. But he can give it to that other car and that's an act of higher love. That's what I mean by deciding our own optimal. The designer can only decide what is optimal for a purpose. He can give us great gas mileage but we decide where we go. We're free to choose our own purpose.

Here you’ve hit on what Jesus says is our optimal, though. There is no greater love than to lay one’s life down for others. Love your neighbor as yourself. The kind of love that is willing to do this (if necessary) is what maximizes joy in humans, I think. There are many ways (short of sacrificing one’s own life) that express this kind of love, too. Jesus says pursue that kind of love. He taught about it constantly and calls his followers to do that. If we choose a different purpose from this in the various situations we find ourselves in, while we can feel some joy, we will be settling for second best at best. That's the Christian claim, at least.

I don't know how you can even say that. What if, inside Bolokia, the Festens are considered superior and force the Blops to live contrary to Blop ways, and make the Blops live as Festens do? Would you be justified going into Bolokia and making the Festens stop? You're stopping something objectively immoral, after all.

That's the thing about objective morality: It gives you the right to oppress others. It's just no one bothers about it or considers it oppression that, for example, a genuine criminal is in jail. Maybe his ways are murdery ways. We put him in a concentration camp and reeducate him not to murder. We're justified because murder is objectively immoral.

I think you’d be justified in trying to make the Festens stop, yes. But that doesn’t mean you turn around and start forcing the Festens to do everything like you would like them to. Freeing the Blops by resisting the Festens and controlling the Festens moving forward are two different things. You can use the word ‘oppress’ to cover both freeing the Blops from the Festens' control and the safeguards you put into effect to keep the Festens from oppressing others, but they are clearly different senses of that word.

[The Tanager]

Since it is your turn to reply to what I have posted, I will leave it up to you to decide and go along with that.

Okay, I’ll PM you.

Since I have been given no particular definition which cannot be thought of as subjective anyway, I remain at a loss as to what anyone means when they use the term.

Which term? ‘Objective morality’? If so, I’d say something like human morality is objective if those moral assertions are true independent of people’s opinion on the matter.

I can't say I have ever seen an example of an atheist claiming there is such a thing as objective morality. Do you have any examples of this which could enlighten the reader?

The scholarly names that pop to mind are Sam Harris, Erik Wielenberg, Louise Antony, Shelly Kagan, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

[The Tanager]

Then who does? Does anyone even decide? Surely you accept that "fun" is as subjective as "tasty" and "pretty?"

As in it's a more involved process than "just deciding?"

Yes, I think so. I don’t just decide what flavors I like, either. Sure, I can grow to like a flavor I didn’t before because I kept making myself try it and eventually liked it (that’s me with salad, for instance). But it doesn’t matter how many times I’ve tried to get myself to like coffee; I just can’t like it. I naturally like some flavors more than others. I naturally have fun playing sports, always have. Not everyone does, even if they try to like them.

I would say the same to assigned and objective being contradictions. For something to be objective, it must be not something assigned by anyone, just like the shape of the earth, etc.

I’m using “assigned” more loosely than that. Obviously, if God exists, God could have assigned the shape of the earth, but even if atheism is true, there was an outside process that “assigned” (maybe determined is a better word?) the shape of the Earth to be what it was.

Maybe? To be clear: under subjectivism me not liking it when you are lazy, is the literally same concept as you should not be lazy; they are synonymous, fully interchangeable. With that in mind, I read (2) as "I don't like it when you are lazy because I don't like it when you are lazy."

So am I saying (2) or not? Kinda, yes and no. The word "because" suggests an cause and effect, so no, I am not saying one thing causes the other thing - there is only one thing here. On the other hand, "A implies A" is a tautology, so yes, I am saying (2) in that sense.

That’s my point. To use “should” is useless in your own view (because it really means the other thing that is already covered by your language) and confusing when comparing it to a view like mine, where “should” touches a different concept from what we like.