Atheist Morality ("Atheist author fights back" derail)

[celluloid]

From this thread

Where does the obligation to make the world a better place come from?

First the how:

Just as the entire set of physical features evolve simultaneously, so too are the instincts for social behaviors. It’s like the software you need to run the computer hardware. Obviously, you need both co-evolving, and that is assumed to be the case. We don’t know much about the evolution of instincts though because there is no direct fossil record as there is for physical features. We can only infer behavior from those physical features and from what we observe in today’s animals. Humans have taken it a step further by codifying those social instincts, and adding in some additional behaviors that have benefits, historically in the form of various religious disciplines.

Monogamy makes sense as a way of controlling disease as well as allowing for equal sharing of mates in more populous, agricultural societies. Probably, people back then observed that those who were most sexually active with multiple partners were much more likely to have venereal diseases. Since they didn’t understand biological diseases, some attributed that to evils spirits and so promiscuity was considered evil. They were roughly right for practical purposes but the “evil spirit” model they used wasn’t entirely accurate.

Sometimes instincts in animals are expressed in unusual ways. Dogs have unselfishly saved people. There was a recent story of a dog, after saving its owner, dying in the attempt to save the cat that started the fire. Dogs are as social as we are and you can account for this behavior as one instinct (love/loyalty) overcoming the instinct for self-preservation.

Now the why:

You can’t ultimately justify emotions or instincts. For example, how could anyone intellectually justify loving their wife and children way more than they do other people? Why do sports fans usually root for the home team, or for what constructive purpose do people have deep feelings of patriotism only for the country they happened to be born in? We just do.

But a code of ethics and morals can be intellectually justified as a way of maximizing happiness and limiting suffering. If murder was okay, then we’d all feel pretty insecure about our own survival as well as our loved ones.

So we make a deal, a moral contract. In exchange for the right to live, I have an obligation to live peacefully and refrain from killing other people. I have a right to my property in exchange for respecting and not stealing other’s property. And I have the right to the truth in exchange for the expectation of my own honesty.

And as more general principle, in exchange for holding other people responsible for their actions, I must accept personal responsibility for my own actions. While I’m not ultimately responsible, I do accept responsibility as a moral convention by itself. It’s as in baseball where you accept that the umpire runs the game and that three strikes are an out. There is no law of the universe that makes those baseball rules true, but they are agreed on to make the game competitive and enjoyable. If I don’t accept those rules, I will get booted out of the game. Likewise, if I don’t accept responsbility and commit crimes, then tough, I will be removed from society, sooner or later, one way or another.

One argument I hear from Christians is that atheists can’t justify morals and the big implication is that if true, atheism is undesirable. IOW, if atheism is true, then there’s no morality and wouldn’t that be just awful. Yes, it would be awful. But the implication of the argument defeats its own premise. It’s actually ironic – if it would be awful without morals in an atheist universe, then it only proves that the Christian intuitively understands the importance of morals without reference to God. We obviously need moral rules for the positive results and it would be plain stupid for societies to be without them.

 

[Nullasalus]

And what is a positive result? Well, it depends on who you ask. And therefore what actions should be taken to achieve those results? Depends on who you ask again.

Even if all morality is subjective, atheism is just as interested in progress as theists are. Just, progress can be just about anything. So atheists can be moral too - you just have to accept that any act can potentially be considered moral.

 

[celluloid]

And what is a positive result? Well, it depends on who you ask. And therefore what actions should be taken to achieve those results? Depends on who you ask again.

Even if all morality is subjective, atheism is just as interested in progress as theists are. Just, progress can be just about anything. So atheists can be moral too - you just have to accept that any act can potentially be considered moral.

I think that there are fundamental rules that correspond to maximum happiness and we have learned those through harsh experience. A major part of that experience has been handed down to us through religious culture. The details will be different in different cultures but the basics such as “You shall not murder” are among the universal, if fuzzy core values. There is the reality of human emotions and the logic of the external world that will limit what moral choices are best.

Theistic religions don’t solve the overall fuzziness problem, having many differences among themselves. It is accepted on faith that God wants or allows this or that. Polygamy is acceptable in most arab cultures. And look at the Amish. They apply the nonviolence principle to all people, even those outside their own group or nation. They are pacifists who have to survive in a violent world where it seems almost everyone but the Amish thinks it’s morally acceptable to shoot someone who is born in another country and doesn’t look or think like themselves. It may take one good exchange of nuclear weapons fire for the rest of us to “get it”, but of course I hope it doesn’t.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Celluloid

One argument I hear from Christians is that atheists can’t justify morals and the big implication is that if true, atheism is undesirable. IOW, if atheism is true, then there’s no morality and wouldn’t that be just awful. Yes, it would be awful. But the implication of the argument defeats its own premise. It’s actually ironic – if it would be awful without morals in an atheist universe, then it only proves that the Christian intuitively understands the importance of morals without reference to God. We obviously need moral rules for the positive results and it would be plain stupid for societies to be without them.

The Catholic point of view is that no atheist can escape the moral law because it is built into our nature. In Catholic theology this is called the natural law. That is why atheists will be moral by instinct, as it were. However, because they deny God, they can persuade themselves at will that the moral law built into their nature is not objective because there is no absolute ground for it, and that morals can change depending on time, culture and personal or subjective preference.

The reason God gave us the Commandments in addition to the natural law is so that we could not delude ourselves by choosing a morality that goes against the natural law. We have been fairly warned not to con ourselves into perverse desires … to conveniently view those desires as desires that are natural and to be protected as rights wholesome and protective of a well ordered personal and social life.

 

[RyanL]

I’m gonna’ don my atheist hat for this one, and let you tell me why I’m wrong…

Humans have taken it a step further by codifying those social instincts, and adding in some additional behaviors that have benefits, historically in the form of various religious disciplines.

Right. Which is why it’s better to be amoral. People, like lemmings and sheep, will follow the herd and expect you to do the same. You can survive - indeed, excel! - by disobeying the herd and preying on these “codified behaviors”.

Cunning and deception are survival instincts, and the most cunning survive (and thrive!). Therefore, it’s better for me (not everyone else, just me) to be deceitful and cunning.

Probably, people back then observed that those who were most sexually active with multiple partners were much more likely to have venereal diseases. Since they didn’t understand biological diseases, some attributed that to evils spirits and so promiscuity was considered evil. They were roughly right for practical purposes but the “evil spirit” model they used wasn’t entirely accurate.

Since we now know better and have the technology to combat these diseases, monogamy is a thing of the past. I’m free to be promiscuous - in fact, compelled to be promiscuous - because it increases my overall happiness.

You can’t ultimately justify emotions or instincts.

Correct - including the instinct to benefit society. Therefore, I’m going to ignore it.

For example, how could anyone intellectually justify loving their wife and children way more than they do other people?

I can only justify loving me, so I will do that maximally.

But a code of ethics and morals can be intellectually justified as a way of maximizing happiness and limiting suffering.

For me - I agree. This, however, involves minimizing the happiness of others and increasing their suffering as required in order to further my own selfish ends.

If murder was okay, then we’d all feel pretty insecure about our own survival as well as our loved ones.

Which is why we need religion - to make it easier for me to prey on these sheeple.

So we make a deal, a moral contract.

Wrong - you make a deal. I don’t.

In exchange for the right to live, I have an obligation to live peacefully and refrain from killing other people. I have a right to my property in exchange for respecting and not stealing other’s property. And I have the right to the truth in exchange for the expectation of my own honesty.

Rights are inventions of your imagination. There’s no such thing as a “right”, and therefore I’m going to use your self-restraint against you and exploit you.

And as more general principle, in exchange for holding other people responsible for their actions, I must accept personal responsibility for my own actions.

Why? I don’t.

While I’m not ultimately responsible, I do accept responsibility as a moral convention by itself.

Good for you. That’s not me.

It’s as in baseball where you accept that the umpire runs the game and that three strikes are an out.

If I’m savvy enough to get a fourth swing when no one’s looking, what’s wrong with that?

There is no law of the universe that makes those baseball rules true, but they are agreed on to make the game competitive and enjoyable.

It’s more enjoyable for me if I win.

If I don’t accept those rules, I will get booted out of the game.

Only if I get caught - thankfully, I’m much smarter than you and I’m devilishly (a made-up term) clever.

Likewise, if I don’t accept responsbility and commit crimes, then tough, I will be removed from society, sooner or later, one way or another.

Nope. I’m too fast. No one’s looking, no cameras, no one saw me come in – why shouldn’t I take X? It will make me happy.

One argument I hear from Christians is that atheists can’t justify morals and the big implication is that if true, atheism is undesirable.

It’s only undesirable for Christians, because I’m going to prey on them.

IOW, if atheism is true, then there’s no morality and wouldn’t that be just awful. Yes, it would be awful.

Only for them, not for me!

We obviously need moral rules for the positive results and it would be plain stupid for societies to be without them.

Exactly, which is why I’m content to let people believe their religious lies while I quietly exploit them. I’ll promise the religious girl that I’ll marry her, then I’ll split after I have taken what I want. I’ll do it again and again until I’m out of opportunities, then I’ll move. It’s a big world, and I won’t run out of exploitable people in my lifetime.

Ok, now refute me.

…Removes atheist hat…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[celluloid]

I’m gonna’ don my atheist hat for this one, and let you tell me why I’m wrong…

This is not your atheist hat, it’s your stupid sociopath hat. But I’ll reply, as it’s all in good fun.

Right. Which is why it’s better to be amoral. People, like lemmings and sheep, will follow the herd and expect you to do the same. You can survive - indeed, excel! - by disobeying the herd and preying on these “codified behaviors”.

Cunning and deception are survival instincts, and the most cunning survive (and thrive!). Therefore, it’s better for me (not everyone else, just me) to be deceitful and cunning.

It isn’t just the most cunning that survive. You’re oversimplifying evolution. It’s like saying the animal with the biggest ears will win out because it hears better.

Social behavior improved with better intelligence, and intelligent behavior takes advantage of being in a social group. The more social humans became, the more it demanded a sophisticated brain. And the more intelligent humans became, the more important social behavior and cooperation became in order to take full advantage of that intelligence.

Since we now know better and have the technology to combat these diseases, monogamy is a thing of the past. I’m free to be promiscuous - in fact, compelled to be promiscuous - because it increases my overall happiness.

HIV is treatable but not curable, and hepatitis C is not always curable. Gonnorhea increases the risk of getting HIV and I think there are some nastier new strains of Gonnorhea that are drug-resistant. And being promiscuous may seem to make you happy now but you will miss out on intimacy, and later in life when you aren’t attractive, you will have no one to support you.

Correct - including the instinct to benefit society. Therefore, I’m going to ignore it.

Then you also ignore the benefits of cooperation with society.

I can only justify loving me, so I will do that maximally.

You can’t intellectually justify anyone over another. That was the point I raised a person’s wife and children. You can only justify being indifferent, loving or hating all equally, including yourself.

For me - I agree. This, however, involves minimizing the happiness of others and increasing their suffering as required in order to further my own selfish ends.

Then you miss out on the joy of love, trust, compassion, security and probably your freedom.

Which is why we need religion - to make it easier for me to prey on these sheeple.

Religion or any social organization serves to organize people. It’s you against all of them. Good luck.

Wrong - you make a deal. I don’t.

Then you’re missing out on a good deal. But whether you accept it or not doesn’t matter. You will be held responsible for your actions.

Rights are inventions of your imagination. There’s no such thing as a “right”, and therefore I’m going to use your self-restraint against you and exploit you.

Just because rights are inventions doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Light bulbs were invented too. You will have trouble exploiting me since the vast majority of people are backing me up.

Why? I don’t.

Good for you. That’s not me.

But you will be held responsible by others whether you like it or not.

If I’m savvy enough to get a fourth swing when no one’s looking, what’s wrong with that?

If you could get away with that, which I doubt, you would still miss out on the satisfaction of playing well. Cheating blunts the pleasure of pure competition.

It’s more enjoyable for me if I win.

Cheaters often get caught. Do you enjoy being suspended too?

Nope. I’m too fast. No one’s looking, no cameras, no one saw me come in – why shouldn’t I take X? It will make me happy.

That’s your assertion. Most petty criminals are below average intelligence and tend to be vastly underestimate their chances of being caught.

It’s only undesirable for Christians, because I’m going to prey on them.

Then it’s you against 2 billion people. Good luck.
Continued in the next post…

 

[celluloid]

…Continued from previous post

RyanL:

Only for them, not for me!

Exactly, which is why I’m content to let people believe their religious lies while I quietly exploit them. I’ll promise the religious girl that I’ll marry her, then I’ll split after I have taken what I want. I’ll do it again and again until I’m out of opportunities, then I’ll move. It’s a big world, and I won’t run out of exploitable people in my lifetime.

Christians know the benefits of morality. Some may only know it intuitively that having morals is the smart thing to do, even though they rely on their belief in God to justify it intellectually. Even they would have to admit that God gave people morals for sound intellectual reasons that stand on their own and not just as an abstract exercise to determine who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

As an analogy, God/evolution also gave you legs. So use them. Wheel chairs are fun, but walking and running is funner. If you can’t walk, then I’m sorry I can’t help you.

Likewise, if you are without moral sense, or lacking the intelligence to grasp the benefits, then you are emotionally crippled and I can’t help you.

This whole exercise reminds me of an experienced parent trying to teach their rebelious teen about behavior to keep him/her out of trouble. The teen’s arguments are juvenile. Not saying you are juvenile at all, but when you use such a pretend strawman, the result is a very superficial argument. I’m slightly embarassed that I replied to this.

 

[RyanL]

This is not your atheist hat, it’s your stupid sociopath hat…

It’s my smart atheist sociopath hat, but that’s not the point.

It isn’t just the most cunning that survive. …Social behavior improved with better intelligence…

Thank you, but I’m pretty sure I understand the Darwinian evolutionary model. What I’m saying is that for a person to succeed in America today, cunning is beneficial (like big ears in your analogy).

Why not be cunning? Why not be devious? You’ve done precious little in your answer to refute this question.

HIV is treatable but not curable…

How about this - I’ll only have sex with virgins. No disease, no problem. Is there any reason for me not to be promiscuous in this manner? Are you advocating abstinence until marriage? If not, why not? Isn’t that logically consistent?

And being promiscuous may seem to make you happy now but you will miss out on intimacy, and later in life when you aren’t attractive, you will have no one to support you.

Should I ever feel the need for that, I’ll do it. Perhaps I’ll get a sugar-momma for support and use her, too. Until then, I’ll stick with being promiscuous. Why is this wrong now?

Then you also ignore the benefits of cooperation with society.

This does not logically follow. If I decide I don’t care about society’s progress but only about my utilization of society’s current benefits, I have sacrificed nothing.

You can’t intellectually justify anyone over another. That was the point I raised a person’s wife and children. You can only justify being indifferent, loving or hating all equally, including yourself.

Bogus. I’d like to see a thread where you use logic to justify a compulsion to love all equally, preferring none (including yourself), with an atheist worldview.

Then you miss out on the joy of love, trust, compassion, security and probably your freedom.

You’re trying to restrict my freedom with your morality. If I’m truly free, doesn’t that mean I can do whatever I want? Besides, I’m playing for the short run right now - if I feel like I’m lacking love, trust, compassion (all unjustifiable emotions anyway), I’ll change my tactics. Until then, why is it wrong for me now?

Religion or any social organization serves to organize people. It’s you against all of them. Good luck.

Not quite. I’m a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Then you’re missing out on a good deal. But whether you accept it or not doesn’t matter. You will be held responsible for your actions.

Only if I get caught or violate some law. Adultery and promiscuity aren’t against the law, and lying only is in rare circumstances. If things get bad for me, I’ll move or only do it in moderation. Why is this wrong? I’m increasing my own happiness.

Just because rights are inventions doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Light bulbs were invented too. You will have trouble exploiting me since the vast majority of people are backing me up.

Show me a light-bulb. Now show me a “right”. It doesn’t exist. That’s the materialist worldview, and it’s compatible with (if not indicative of) atheism. And as for your “back up”, I’m a wolf in sheep’s clothing - the other sheeple don’t see me. Good luck to you!

But you will be held responsible by others whether you like it or not.

Again, only if I get caught.

If you could get away with that, which I doubt, you would still miss out on the satisfaction of playing well. Cheating blunts the pleasure of pure competition.

Then why do people cheat? Why corked bats? Why spit balls? I care about winning, and if I can get away with it I should cheat – right? I’m furthering my own goal of being satisfied with winning and I don’t care about “playing well”. Why is it wrong for me to pursue my own selfish goal?

Cheaters often get caught. Do you enjoy being suspended too?

Often is the key word. I’m very slick. Granting this, why would it be wrong for me to cheat? I have a competitive edge (like big ears), and that’s what gets me ahead (see cunning, supra).

That’s your assertion. Most petty criminals are below average intelligence and tend to be vastly underestimate their chances of being caught.

I encounter 100 situations each day where I could act immorally and get away with it. I can be a snot to the person on tech support in India - why not, if that’s what I feel like doing? I can steal 3 paperclips from the office - why not, if I’ll never get caught? Morality applies to the small stuff, too…

Likewise, if you are without moral sense, or lacking the intelligence to grasp the benefits, then you are emotionally crippled and I can’t help you.

I have a logical sense, and it tells me that your case for morality is paper thin.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

…This whole exercise reminds me of an experienced parent trying to teach their rebelious teen about behavior to keep him/her out of trouble. The teen’s arguments are juvenile. Not saying you are juvenile at all, but when you use such a pretend strawman, the result is a very superficial argument.

Now you know how theists feel about 95% of the atheist arguments out there.

I’m slightly embarassed that I replied to this.

Thank you in advance for playing along.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[R_McGeddon]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but is someone trying to say that atheists can’t be moral?

 

[Scottgun]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but is someone trying to say that atheists can’t be moral?

Not at all. RyanL is just saying that one’s decision to act against natural law, manners, mores, and generally acceptable behavior is a perfectly valid one in the atheist worldview.

 

[celluloid]

Thank you in advance for playing along.

God Bless,
RyanL

I’ll try to clean up the scattershot.

From an exclusively first person point of view, moral rules are impossible to understand. You must take into account the expectations of society and imagine it from others’ POV. It’s the effect of one’s actions on others that counts in morality. Likewise, being ultimately responsible from the first person POV is not rational, yet society will inevitably hold you responsible because they have no choice but to do so. If a robot automaton ran wild and killed, somehow it would have to be stopped. It is physically responsible for the destruction and so it must be terminated. We do the same with people. We don’t care how a murderous person is stopped from doing great harm or why he did so, we just do what is necessary to prevent further harm. We remove the offender from society, and in doing so, we deter others from doing the same.

I could choose to only think of myself but then won’t get very far in trying to understand why people have all these rules and impose them on me. But as soon as I think of things from their perpective, I can undertand and accept the rules with dry intellect. I can take it a step further and feel empathy. This requires human imagination and a set of feelings and emotions that are similar to others. When I feel empathy, I truly feel the pain of others and I’m less likely to hurt them as I’d only be hurting myself.

In your example of using virgins for sex, there may be no dry rationale for not doing so from your personal perspective, but there is from the perspective of those being used and maybe more so from the parents and relatives, extending to society as a whole. Your fictional alter ego might think it is okay, but if it were my daughter and I judged your selfish intentions toward her, you’d be out the front door quickly. At the very least, you’d be a health threat in spreading disease by your risky behavior. Religions have rules for its members, institutions such as marriage to formalize and regulate sexual unions. This includes a ban on sex before or outside of marriage, which is wise. Those rules protect the innocent.

So morality is imposed obligations on its members by the larger society. Whether it works or not depends on the good intentions of its members, and failing that, penalties imposed where possible. There will always be cheaters and even devout believers sin.

At this point I should mention that I didn’t entirely abandon my Catholic morality when I no longer believed in God. I remember my concern about my moral compass that had its basis in the faith, so I made the conscious decision to keep the morals. Of course my set of morals doesn’t entirely coincide with R.C. Since I no longer believe, I can’t accept the sacraments obviously. And in the spirit of being honest, I fall short in sticking to those morals I do have.

So I’m not anti-religion. Religions in part are systems of morality and I think that Christianity is one of the better ones. I see them as ways of life, an essential part of culture that has evolved over the millenia. I don’t advocate destroying religion or even abolishing supernaturalism. Particularly religious morals that are adaptations of the wisdom of many people. Who am I to mess with that? But we should always discuss and I think that the Catholic faith has a tradition of critical thought.

 

[Maranatha]

Just as the entire set of physical features evolve simultaneously

Sorry if this was addresses already, I’ve been unable to participate for a while.

If moral precepts have evolved then they are changeable.

If they are changeable then they are optional.

If they are optional they they are not an obligation but a recommendations.

 

[Maranatha]

I think that there are fundamental rules that correspond to maximum happiness and we have learned those through harsh experience.

Where do these fundamental rules come from? Why are they setup this way not another way?

 

[R_McGeddon]

Not at all. RyanL is just saying that one’s decision to act against natural law, manners, mores, and generally acceptable behavior is a perfectly valid one in the atheist worldview.

Well he’d be wrong then. Just because someone doesn’t believe in God, it doesn’t follow that they would find that kind of behaviour acceptable.

 

[Scottgun]

Well he’d be wrong then. Just because someone doesn’t believe in God, it doesn’t follow that they would find that kind of behaviour acceptable.

He is not saying that someone not believing in God would necessarily find it acceptable. Just that it is a perfectly valid alternative and nothing in the atheist worldview mitigates it beyond anemic appeals to social contract.

 

[celluloid]

"Maranatha:

Sorry if this was addresses already, I’ve been unable to participate for a while.

If moral precepts have evolved then they are changeable.

If they are changeable then they are optional.

If they are optional they they are not an obligation but a recommendations.

It’s the emotions and instincts that have evolved that form the moral precepts through reason and experience. But once they’ve evolved they serve as a solid basis. Their not going to change over night. The real problem is how we adapt that basis to changing conditions such as the development of modern technology, reaching the limits of the Earth’s resources or any other extreme conditions. Simply put, the internal factors of human needs are constant enough to be reliable but the external environment for everyone is changing rapidly in the modern age.

That’s no worse than in religious history. If you look at all world’s religions over time you’ll find a fairly neat correlations of age, size and the incidence of religious schism. The bigger and older a religion, the more diversity of splinter groups. You may find an old religion that is fairly unified such as Zoroastrianism, but then they have very few modern adherents. Conversely, a relatively young religion can have a fair amount of divisions if it is popular such as Islam. But if you have an old and popular religion such as Christianity, you get a nice bushy tree of diversity.

The plain fact is though, we have variations of moral systems and I don’t specifically blame religion for that. It happens to be that the world’s religions have in fact been the main source of moral organization, just as they played a substantial role in the early development of modern science. It had to be that way because historically, religions were central to the culture.

I do blame external conditons, cultural circumstances, quirks of history for the differences. But then I think people tend to focus too much on the differences rather than what we have in common.

Where do these fundamental rules come from? Why are they setup this way not another way?

Some things are no-brainers. Clearly no one is going to be happy in a society that allows murder within their own society. Or the real practical benefits of marriage, even polygamous marriages in controlling disease and some control over the suitability of partners for one’s own sons and daughters.

Other things are more complicated and sutble and there you have more controversy. Abortion is complicated because of the dilemma of rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother, with that consideration coming after the question of whether the fetus/baby is a person with rights.

But it gets even more complicated when you add in the rights of the rest of us who may be horrified by abortion. Just as we naturally feel extra-protective and loving toward born infants because of an evolved instinct, we may naturally feel the same for pre-birth fetuses. Beyond religious beliefs, we have a right to not be naturally horrified. I don’t think this third question has been asked enough.

 

[celluloid]

He is not saying that someone not believing in God would necessarily find it acceptable. Just that it is a perfectly valid alternative and nothing in the atheist worldview mitigates it beyond anemic appeals to social contract.

But it does go beyond a social contract. At its deepest level, a common morality requires a normal set of intelligence, emotions and instincts. Things like love, fear, empathy and a sense of fairness.

Under no circumstances will a sociopath have normal morals (or any morals at all), so his little parody of an atheist was a classic strawman.