Atheistic hypoethical?

[Qoeleth]

Each time you bring up the ethical “challenge” you substitute different words with different meanings for the two alternatives.

Here you pit ‘pain’ against ‘joy.’ In the OP it was ‘happiness’ in opposition to ‘suffering.’

Let’s be a bit clearer here:

1. Pain contrasts with pleasure.
2. Joy contrasts, though not perfectly, with sorrow.
3. Suffering is difficult to locate a precise corollary because it depends entirely upon what it is that one is ‘suffering’ or having to ‘bear with.’ It could mean suffering pain, displeasure, ill-health, sorrow, torment or a whole host of maladies. So the best contrasting idea would be to be ‘free of’ all or most of those unwanted negatives.
4. Happiness (and this is very problematic because of the hugely variant views on what ‘happiness’ truly comprises) contrasts – to some degree – with sadness, but I think Aristotle was closer to its true meaning, in the case of human beings, when he defined (very roughly paraphrased) happiness as: human beings being what we were meant to be within a political, economic and social landscape that fully permits and facilitates that fullness of being.

With regard to 4) it is entirely possible that happiness in the sense of living a full human life will necessarily involve some pain, some sorrow and some sadness – or even a preponderance of those over all – if pain/pleasure, joy/sorrow and suffering/freedom from suffering are not ends in themselves but are, rather, aspects of attaining the more proper ultimate end of forming fully human, fully alive, moral beings.

Of course, this all presupposes an Aristotelian view of teleology or final causation which atheists may or may not find acceptable. In the case of the latter, objecting atheists would have to defend their own reasons for why pain, suffering, sorrow, etc., might be tolerable even when these exceed pleasure, joy, and all positive emotions, generally.

I’m sure that a lot of people consider ending life if it contains nothing but pain and misery. But it would be a personal decision.

What puzzles me is that a lot of Christians believe that an eternity of pain and misery awaits, should they not live up to God’s expectations, yet they don’t seem concerned about it in the least.

I realise my original hypothetical was ambiguous- I was NOT suggesting any ‘act of killing’ (which no-one would find acceptable), but rather a ‘conclusion’ that extinction would be preferable. For example, if there is a patient, with a terminal disease, in constant pain- one might think “It would be a blessing if they pass soon”. This is quite different from actually killing.

The same philosophical dilemma perhaps can be re-formulated more palatably with a different scenario: For the atheist, are there any grounds for objection (apart from practicalities like the possibility of coercion, etc.), to permitting euthanasia? Christians would see this as something morally wrong, as breaking one of the commandments.

 

[Qoeleth]

As someone who may or may not be an atheist depending on your definition, let me answer this question with definitively no.

First, an atheist isn’t required to hold any particular form of ethics. An atheist can be a virtue ethicist, a nihilist, an act utilitarian, a rule based utilitarian, they can even not have a very well thought out position. In fact, I think that this last position is the most likely. And not just for atheists .

Implicit in your question is an acceptance of utilitarianism, so let’s assume that the atheist is a utilitarian. Well, in the hypothetical you describe, a thoughtful atheist would simply cease to be a utilitarian. One of the best attributes of atheism is that it allows an epistemological humbleness that requires one to always be doubting whether your ideas are serving the ends that you want. I think most utilitarians are utilitarians because it strikes them to be the best ethical theory they’ve seen.

If it turned out that a fully flushed out utilitarianism meant killing everyone, most atheists would just say “Oh, I guess I was wrong that utilitarianism was the right moral theory”. And I consider the ability to reconsider your principles when you realize they’ve encountered situations they weren’t designed to handle to be one of the great strengths of a properly conceived atheism.

I am not clear how an atheist could be anything other than a ‘utilitarian’. Granted, that few people rigidly follow, in practical terms, a philosophical ethical system (in particular, the distinction between act and rule utilitarians seems nebulous, in real life)- but, for the atheist, what other objective could ethics have than ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’, and therefore amount to some variant of utilitarianism.

Now, Bentham’s utilitarianism imposes the restriction of Divine Law- and I am sure atheistic act utilitarians would draw the line at ‘active killing’. There is a big difference between ‘killing everyone in the world’, and considering it preferable that the human race cease to be (perhaps due to widespread use of contraceptives, or something).

But, consider the re-formulation of the hypothetical in terms of individual euthanasia. I believe this represents exactly the same issue, but just reduced to an individual scale. Could an atheist object to euthanasia, in principle?

 

[Bradski]

I realise my original hypothetical was ambiguous- I was NOT suggesting any ‘act of killing’ (which no-one would find acceptable), but rather a ‘conclusion’ that extinction would be preferable. For example, if there is a patient, with a terminal disease, in constant pain- one might think “It would be a blessing if they pass soon”. This is quite different from actually killing.

The same philosophical dilemma perhaps can be re-formulated more palatably with a different scenario: For the atheist, are there any grounds for objection (apart from practicalities like the possibility of coercion, etc.), to permitting euthanasia? Christians would see this as something morally wrong, as breaking one of the commandments.

I have no objection in principle to euthanasia but I do see that a blanket agreement to it would cause problems. Not insurmountable problems but problems nevertheless.

That said, if my wife was in constant pain from an incurrable disease with no hope of relief, then I would do all in my power to grant her whatever she wished. I could care less if it was a commandment or whether it was legal or not. I know where my duty lies.

 

[carefullytread]

I am not clear how an atheist could be anything other than a ‘utilitarian’. Granted, that few people rigidly follow, in practical terms, a philosophical ethical system (in particular, the distinction between act and rule utilitarians seems nebulous, in real life)- but, for the atheist, what other objective could ethics have than ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’, and therefore amount to some variant of utilitarianism.

Now, Bentham’s utilitarianism imposes the restriction of Divine Law- and I am sure atheistic act utilitarians would draw the line at ‘active killing’. There is a big difference between ‘killing everyone in the world’, and considering it preferable that the human race cease to be (perhaps due to widespread use of contraceptives, or something).

But, consider the re-formulation of the hypothetical in terms of individual euthanasia. I believe this represents exactly the same issue, but just reduced to an individual scale. Could an atheist object to euthanasia, in principle?

Atheist have a lot of leeway in their ethical beliefs. They really don’t have any reason but their own psychological preferences for adopting any sort of philosophy. You might consider taking a survey of what modern ethical philosophers are writing about. Most of them are atheists and they are constantly producing variations on ethics many of which are quite far from utilitarianism.

I know quite a few atheists (and as previously stated, maybe I am one myself), None of them are strict utilitarians and I’m closer to a virtue ethicist than a utilitarian.

The same applies to your question on euthanasia. Sure, an atheist can object! But you’re right to intuit that I think they’re unlikely too. A possible reason for this is that philosophy is in no small part our attempts to rationalize our intuitions. Any theory which ends up telling you to kill all of humanity certainly seems like it got the wrong answer, so let’s try again. But live through a few of your loved ones dying long painful deaths and euthanasia really starts to seem merciful. A atheist isn’t bound inside any philosophy, so when some principles give the ‘wrong answer’, they are free to try to find better ones.

I can imagine that strikes you as madness. What’s the point of principles if you don’t follow them when they get hard? And that’s the great existential struggle that faces a thoughtful atheist. At some point you realize that all principles are wrong but that you still need them. And you’re left with the tension of always needing to feel out when violating principles is a mistake and when it’s a necessity. It’s the same tension as the slow creative destruction of tradition, but on an individual rather than cultural scale.

Sure, I know atheists who object to euthanasia. And for any number of reasons. Slippery slope, human dignity, death denial, etc, etc. Are those principled stands? Maybe. But another great fact about atheism is that once you absorb the fact that you really will die and these few decades are all you have, most people will decide that it’s better to get on living than doing philosophy to make all your opinions rational. Except those few of us who just can’t stop and end up in places like this

 

[Bradski]

^Well said.

 

[Qoeleth]

I have no objection in principle to euthanasia but I do see that a blanket agreement to it would cause problems. Not insurmountable problems but problems nevertheless.

That said, if my wife was in constant pain from an incurrable disease with no hope of relief, then I would do all in my power to grant her whatever she wished. I could care less if it was a commandment or whether it was legal or not. I know where my duty lies.

Well, aside from my religious belief (and therefore the necessity of following the commandments), I can see no objection, in principle, as well.

But, as a Christian, I believe we must ‘leave life and death to God’, and also that suffering has redemptive or purgative value. If I didn’t believe in God, such a position would be unsustainable.

 

[Qoeleth]

Atheist have a lot of leeway in their ethical beliefs. They really don’t have any reason but their own psychological preferences for adopting any sort of philosophy. You might consider taking a survey of what modern ethical philosophers are writing about. Most of them are atheists and they are constantly producing variations on ethics many of which are quite far from utilitarianism.

I know quite a few atheists (and as previously stated, maybe I am one myself), None of them are strict utilitarians and I’m closer to a virtue ethicist than a utilitarian.

The same applies to your question on euthanasia. Sure, an atheist can object! But you’re right to intuit that I think they’re unlikely too. A possible reason for this is that philosophy is in no small part our attempts to rationalize our intuitions. Any theory which ends up telling you to kill all of humanity certainly seems like it got the wrong answer, so let’s try again. But live through a few of your loved ones dying long painful deaths and euthanasia really starts to seem merciful. A atheist isn’t bound inside any philosophy, so when some principles give the ‘wrong answer’, they are free to try to find better ones.

I can imagine that strikes you as madness. What’s the point of principles if you don’t follow them when they get hard? And that’s the great existential struggle that faces a thoughtful atheist. At some point you realize that all principles are wrong but that you still need them. And you’re left with the tension of always needing to feel out when violating principles is a mistake and when it’s a necessity. It’s the same tension as the slow creative destruction of tradition, but on an individual rather than cultural scale.

Sure, I know atheists who object to euthanasia. And for any number of reasons. Slippery slope, human dignity, death denial, etc, etc. Are those principled stands? Maybe. But another great fact about atheism is that once you absorb the fact that you really will die and these few decades are all you have, most people will decide that it’s better to get on living than doing philosophy to make all your opinions rational. Except those few of us who just can’t stop and end up in places like this

Christians also find themselves changing their ‘moral principles’ to accommodate the clear demands of conscience or charity. We do not consider ourselves ‘infallible’, and in any given circumstance, rules are ‘bent’ according to human necessities.

Normally, we can ascribe this to a failure of our interpretation or application of the law. Conscience (or moral sentiment) is generally a good guide, and often indicates needs to modify or suspend a ‘system of ethics’.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Now if that case is assumed (that suffering necessarily outweighs happiness)- would an atheist, who doesn’t believe in the possibility of a happy afterlife, be ethically bound to consider it preferable that the human race, somehow (preferably painlessly), cease to be?

That would be a permissible conclusion for an atheist to draw. Atheists typically argue that the Christian God is cruel and a bungler, if he even exists, so why not argue that he should not exist? Likewise, an atheist might well argue that humans are cruel and bunglers, and the amount of suffering vastly outweighs happiness, why shouldn’t humans cease to exist? Hence you do not see atheists at the forefront among those who oppose abortion, euthanasia, birth control, etc.

They might, however, be noticed to be at the forefront among all those who defend every imaginable hedonist perversion (or even practice, as in the case of that abominable atheist the Marquis de Sade).

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Let’s imagine it was incontrovertibly demonstrated that the sum total of suffering involved in human existence necessarily exceeded it joys. Hypothetically, let’s imagine that this has been demonstrated by some ‘universal survey’, or the discovery of some principle of human nature. On the other hand, a given hypothetical individual might consider it demonstrated incontrovertibly simply on the basis of their experience and observations. But let’s simply consider it is as a hypothetical ‘given.’

Now if that case is assumed (that suffering necessarily outweighs happiness)- would an atheist, who doesn’t believe in the possibility of a happy afterlife, be ethically bound to consider it preferable that the human race, somehow (preferably painlessly), cease to be?

My life is much more miserable than joyful, and I have tried a few times to end it (not painlessly). I am certainly not obligated to try again (although I intend to). I can not ethically make that choice for anyone else. Their life means it is their decision whether life is worth it.

 

[Bradski]

Well, aside from my religious belief (and therefore the necessity of following the commandments), I can see no objection, in principle, as well.

But, as a Christian, I believe we must ‘leave life and death to God’, and also that suffering has redemptive or purgative value. If I didn’t believe in God, such a position would be unsustainable.

Pain and suffering are redemptive and purgative? Damn those doctors with their palliative care and medication. Who are they to prevent people from benefitting from all that suffering.

 

[Qoeleth]

My life is much more miserable than joyful, and I have tried a few times to end it (not painlessly). I am certainly not obligated to try again (although I intend to). I can not ethically make that choice for anyone else. Their life means it is their decision whether life is worth it.

But there IS a God, who loves each human soul- and will lead them to a final happiness. The sufferings of this present age are nothing compared with the joy that awaits.

Trust in God, who is closest to us when He seems most absent

 

[Qoeleth]

Pain and suffering are redemptive and purgative? Damn those doctors with their palliative care and medication. Who are they to prevent people from benefitting from all that suffering.

It’s a religious belief, a form of language, not an ethical norm. Christians certainly don’t promote suffering- but when confronted with inevitable or inescapable, we say “Offer it up for the souls in purgatory”, or something. At least that way, we affirm that (somehow) inescapable suffering is not entirely futile. Humans have an aversion to suffering, but if somehow the suffering can be understood as serving some purpose, it is a great help.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

But there IS a God, who loves each human soul- and will lead them to a final happiness. The sufferings of this present age are nothing compared with the joy that awaits.

Trust in God, who is closest to us when He seems most absent

Did you think really think you were going to convince me by putting IS in all caps? I think you have overestimated the probative power of fonts.

 

[Bradski]

It’s a religious belief, a form of language, not an ethical norm. Christians certainly don’t promote suffering- but when confronted with inevitable or inescapable, we say “Offer it up for the souls in purgatory”, or something. At least that way, we affirm that (somehow) inescapable suffering is not entirely futile. Humans have an aversion to suffering, but if somehow the suffering can be understood as serving some purpose, it is a great help.

So how should we react to suffering?

By giving thanks: “in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.”

By rejoicing that we have been counted worthy to suffer for Christ: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake.” calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/a-catholic-reflection-on-the-meaning-of-suffering/

Mother Theresa thought that leprosy was a gift from God. Maybe she thought the same about cancer and leukaemia. Or perhaps that was just a form of language she was using whereby the meaning somehow changes to one of compassion.

Seriously, what would you think of a parent who actually did rejoice and gave thanks if their child became seriously ill. Offer it up indeed.

 

[Viki63]

So how should we react to suffering?

Seriously, what would you think of a parent who actually did rejoice and gave thanks if their child became seriously ill. Offer it up indeed.

We don’t give thanks for the illness or the death of someone, but that God is close to us and walks with us through it, no matter how hard it is.
But as a previous poster said, the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
That concept is crucial. In heaven, this life will seem like a bad cold that lasted a few days.

.

 

[Qoeleth]

So how should we react to suffering?

By giving thanks: “in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.”

By rejoicing that we have been counted worthy to suffer for Christ: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake.” calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/a-catholic-reflection-on-the-meaning-of-suffering/

Mother Theresa thought that leprosy was a gift from God. Maybe she thought the same about cancer and leukaemia. Or perhaps that was just a form of language she was using whereby the meaning somehow changes to one of compassion.

Seriously, what would you think of a parent who actually did rejoice and gave thanks if their child became seriously ill. Offer it up indeed.

No, I don’t think they could rejoice. Not at all. But a lot of Catholics, when confronted with unavoidable suffering (myself included), use the language of “offering it up”.

Yes, when Mother Theresa said leprosy was ‘a gift from God’, that was a non-literal religious perspective, in which consolation is found in articulating the belief in an absolute meaning to human suffering.

In religious language, nothing is ever absolutely true (apart from God Himself) but always adapted to frail human needs and contingencies. If ‘offering thing up for the souls in Purgatory’ helps, then it is true precisely (and only) to the extent that it helps…

 

[Aloysium]

My life is much more miserable than joyful, and I have tried a few times to end it (not painlessly). I am certainly not obligated to try again (although I intend to). I can not ethically make that choice for anyone else. Their life means it is their decision whether life is worth it.

I can understand that. Even at times when I was a kid and didn’t think much about myself or what my life meant to others. I’m not sure what got me through those times or what made me fight so hard at others. Almost drowned once when I was alone, and my dad’s voice, of all people, got me through it. I guess it was the mystery of all this, how I could possibly be, there’s no running away from that, and what could happen next. I realized more and more, that there is so much to be done in this world, and regardless of what a lack of self-worth will claim, there is something we can all contribute. We all suffer, but sharing in our burden, together finding meaning in it, just making a connection if there is nothing we can do to alleviate it, brings fullness to our lives. Every suicide is like a suicide bomber, destroying those who are closest. Getting philosophical, more detached, intellectualizing, I would say that it is your free will to do as you choose, but it’s never your life. You didn’t make yourself and only keep yourself going only as far as eating, transforming what is outside into what is you. You don’t bring this instant into existence. There is a God, but it is not up to me to convince you. He understands why you’ve done what you’ve done with your life. He knows it all where He meets us on the cross. We are saved. :twocents:

 

[Bradski]

In religious language, nothing is ever absolutely true…

I’ll be sure to let everyone else know that in due course.

 

[Abba]

I’ll be sure to let everyone else know that in due course.

I have to say, I love your one liners. They crack me up.

 

[STT]

But there IS a God, who loves each human soul- and will lead them to a final happiness. The sufferings of this present age are nothing compared with the joy that awaits.

It is more rational to accept that the life after death to be as good as this life.