'Atheist morality'

[Baelor]

Voila? Maybe I’m missing something here. It seems clear that an atheist could easily respond with, “Because I don’t want to be shot in the face myself,” or “Because your kids and wife would then become the responsibility of the state,” or…

In what way do those reasons constitute moral imperatives? They do not.

The problem with atheistic “morality” is that it is an inherent contradiction. Whence does moral imperative come?

 

[gracepoole]

In what way do those reasons constitute moral imperatives? They do not.

The problem with atheistic “morality” is that it is an inherent contradiction. Whence does moral imperative come?

So your assumption is that moral imperatives must come from God? That’s a flawed premise that’s been disproven by centuries of philosophers. It’s, in part, problematic because divine command is oriented in self-interest – one acts a specific way because to not do so is not in his self-interest regarding damnation. He isn’t acting in a specific way because it’s essentially good. But it should also be noted that God has no moral imperatives. If God determines that murdering one’s son is good, one must obey if divine command is accepted. Although that would never happen. Oh, wait…

 

[Baelor]

So your assumption is that moral imperatives must come from God?

That is not at all what I said.

It’s, in part, problematic because divine command is oriented in self-interest – one acts a specific way because to not do so is not in his self-interest regarding damnation.

But self-interest is not the same thing as a moral imperative.

 

[gracepoole]

That is not at all what I said.

But self-interest is not the same thing as a moral imperative.

If moral imperative doesn’t come from God, from where does it come? If divine command is rooted in self-interest, how does moral imperative spring from God?

 

[Baelor]

If moral imperative doesn’t come from God, from where does it come? If divine command is rooted in self-interest, how does moral imperative spring from God?

Those are not the questions I asked, at least in those formulations.

The question is rather how an atheist can believe in moral imperative and maintain a coherent and internally consistent philosophy. I posit that this is impossible.

 

[jonathan_hili]

So your assumption is that moral imperatives must come from God? That’s a flawed premise that’s been disproven by centuries of philosophers. It’s, in part, problematic because divine command is oriented in self-interest – one acts a specific way because to not do so is not in his self-interest regarding damnation. He isn’t acting in a specific way because it’s essentially good. But it should also be noted that God has no moral imperatives. If God determines that murdering one’s son is good, one must obey if divine command is accepted. Although that would never happen. Oh, wait…

Hi Gracepoole, just a comment on what was said.

I agree that moral imperatives can come from more sources than God; in fact, anyone can give a moral imperative (i.e. “command”). However, I think the question should be: When does a moral imperative become obligatory upon an individual. This is where I believe a divine source of morality needs to be stipulated, otherwise moral imperatives can be understood as ethical fashions, evolutionary demands, social or parental bullying, etc., in which cases there is no obligation upon the individual to follow such a moral imperative.

As for God, it’s true that He has no moral imperatives. But that makes perfect sense if He is the source of the Good and morality, just as an ocean has no puddles.

Ummm God (the Father) didn’t determine that murdering His Son was good - rather, it was an evil act that God used to bring about good. Also, you need to factor in that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, and that he himself is also God.

 

[PRmerger]

Dr. Yuval Noah Harari of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem makes the point (see video here) that animal cooperation, including altruism, is limited towards a small subset of the other members of their community, whereas humans have the ability to feel a moral obligation to those we’ve never even met.

Yes. It is only the human person, (and, I posit, a uniquely Christian human person) who is capable of heroic sacrificial love for complete strangers.

 

[PRmerger]

For an atheist, acting moral is possible.

True. And there are some atheists that I would rather have my back than some Christians.

However, the atheist is incapable of true agape-ic love, in the sense of sacrificial love for a complete stranger.

One needs to be a Christian to do this.

That there are atheistic heroes, no one ought to argue against that.

But that there are no atheistic equivalents to the Catholic saints, well, no one ought to argue against that either.

 

[PRmerger]

If moral imperative doesn’t come from God, from where does it come? If divine command is rooted in self-interest, how does moral imperative spring from God?

I think the atheists would argue that the moral imperative comes from one’s conscience.

That is, we are always obligated to follow our conscience, That is an imperative.

BTW: is your screenname a reference to a character from Jane Eyre?

 

[PRmerger]

So…you do good because there is a final judgement?

No. We (Christians) do good because we love. And we love because we were first Loved.

 

[SpringWater]

If a religion is man made, this would include it’s own morality and dogmatic rules as well, last time I checked not all religions share same beliefs on morality, they all have seperated moral views. Different sect, different god, different moral standards, still how can any religious morality be divine when the divine itself isn’t proven?

 

[Baelor]

If a religion is man made, this would include it’s own morality and dogmatic rules as well, last time I checked not all religions share same beliefs on morality, they all have seperated moral views. Different sect, different god, different moral standards, still how can any religious morality be divine when the divine itself isn’t proven?

Bolded for the benefit of readers.

 

[tdgesq]

How would you respond to someone who said that morality comes from an intrinsic altruism that we, as evolved primates, have towards other members of our species? That it is not a uniquely human trait, and is seen in every species that has complex social order, especially in those who exist in groups/flocks etc.?

Animal altruism studies don’t have any explanatory power when applied to concrete instances of human charity. Human beings sacrifice money, time and even their own personal safety for people they have never met thousands of miles distant (not part of the same kin group); who are often weak genetically, weak in terms of age and/or part of an overpopulated region competing for resources (no survival of the fittest); and who hold competing values to the one demonstrating charity (atheists giving to Christian populations, etc.)

Naturalist altruism, which is ultimately deterministic, has no coherent model for how human beings actually behave towards one another when it comes to charity. A good reason to reject it, I think.