Atheist's Moral Principles

[a_priori]

aileron isn’t talking about using the scientific method to create an ethical theory. He/She is talking about using science to further our understanding of whether ethics-related concepts like “harm,” “risk,” and “responsibility” are involved in certain scenarios.

He/she is talking about using the sciences to “form the basis of objective morality.” I’m not talking about ethical theory either. Ethics-related terms like “harm”, “risk” and “responsibility” presuppose a utilitarian discussion whereby different “scenarios” are taken for a test drive to see if they can inform the way we relate to each other. This has nothing to do with objective morality.

 

[Eleve]

Read the context of the sentence that you quoted. As an example of science as a basis for objective morality, aileron talks about using science to determine whether solitary confinement harms a person, under the objective ethical principle that it would be wrong to harm a person without good reason. He/she is clearly not talking about deriving ethical axioms themselves from naturalistic observations.

Also: since when do only utilitarians argue against harming other humans, or against taking risks that would cause humans harm? And when was it decided that utilitarianism was not an objective ethical theory?

 

[aileron]

dehumanize : to deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit

I fail to see how saying that you’re not working with a well-defined set of moral principles is dehumanizing.

It is dehumanizing because it denies several innate human characteristics. Human beings have innate morality by nature. There is strong scientific evidence that many primates have primitive morality.

There may be differences, but on the key issues that enable a mutually beneficial society we have more in common than we have differences. Civilizations developed all over the world isolated from one another, yet the basic rules were the same in all of them: respect for life and limb, property rights, proportionality, punishment for offenses, etc. Humans also have innate drives on which we can base objective morality – fairness, compassion, territoriality, group loyalty, aggression, etc.

There are many people who funtion like this–those who believe in God and those who don’t. It seems to be human nature, in fact, to want to go it alone–to make it up as each issue arises–to let no one and nothing (a widely accepted set of principles, for example) determine how we will decide an issue.

We live in a very complex society and as a result people have disagreements about what is going to be best for humanity. It does not mean that naturalistic objective morality does not exist, only that we’ve not resolved the best rules yet.

That can be a good thing, to a point. When you yourself, as a rugged individual, submitting to no authority,earthly or spiritual, can’t define the principles with which you are working, it’s self-imposed anarchy and chaos. It yields disorganized thinking and often directionless and baseless opinion rather than considered opinion.

I honestly don’t know any atheist who does not have a set of guiding principles. It may only seem that way because they are so radically different from religious ones. It may give the appearance that the conclusion was reached capriciously and only for self gain.

This is why I ask you to define your principles–without knowing the basis for your decisions on issues, it’s impossible to understand how you’ve come to the conclusions you have.

My principles are simple. Humans have innate drives and desires. Our aim as humans should be to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. Because we are social beings, anything goes hedonism is not going to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. We need to work together on this. From this guiding principle we can derive objective morality. It is important to learn more about who we are and how the world works through science to make the best rules and means to achieve these goals.

 

[a_priori]

Read the context of the sentence that you quoted. As an example of science as a basis for objective morality, aileron talks about using science to determine whether solitary confinement harms a person, under the objective ethical principle that it would be wrong to harm a person without good reason. He/she is clearly not talking about deriving ethical axioms themselves from naturalistic observations.

Also: since when do only utilitarians argue against harming other humans, or against taking risks that would cause humans harm? And when was it decided that utilitarianism was not an objective ethical theory?

I think the problem is the definition of “objective”. Determining the effects of solitary confinement have nothing to do with objective morality. Claiming the “objective ethical principle” that it would be “wrong” to harm a person is meaningless in a purely mechanical universe. That’s the point. Words like “wrong” have zero moral meaning in a universe where the stars are silent on moral matters. You are left with a purely I-won’t-do-it-to-you-because-I-don’t-want-you-to-do-it-to-me utilitarianism. One cannot objectively claim that a person should not kill another in a purely mechanical universe. There is no basis other than a utilitarian social contract.

 

[Magnus467]

Magnus, you asserted that it is impossible to discern morality without God or religion. My claim is that God and religion have nothing to do with the solution, because religious people are themselves sharply divided on various ethical questions.

An authority outside of what? Morality? Doesn’t this make the omnibenevolence of God a bit of a tautology? Besides, I think we both know that moral statements express something other than interpretations of divine will. If I, as an atheist, say “murder is wrong,” do you think that I am declaring my belief that murder contradicts the will of God? Of course not! The particulars of what it is that I am claiming are an unsettled question of meta-ethics, but divine command theory is certainly not the most robust paradigm therein.

aileron isn’t talking about using the scientific method to create an ethical theory. He/She is talking about using science to further our understanding of whether ethics-related concepts like “harm,” “risk,” and “responsibility” are involved in certain scenarios.

I don’t believe I said without religion, I didn’t want to paint a brush over all religious beliefs. However, Christianity claims an objective morality given to humans by a God. This moral law was revealed to man, recorded in the Bible and also passed down as Tradition. It is the interpretations of this moral law that differ. To claim that because people have different interpretations, and thus disagreements, doesn’t mean God didn’t give us a moral law.

If God exists and you don’t believe in him, it it possible to violate his will, however it is unknowingly. So, no. I don’t believe morality is anything other than divine will.

As for authority, I’m talking about a God outside of humanity. If I am understanding you wonder if God has authority outside of HUMAN morality. Of course.

A world in which scientific formulas determine “moral” decisions is one I do not want to live in.
I appreciate this charitable discussion.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is dehumanizing because it denies several innate human characteristics. Human beings have innate morality by nature. There is strong scientific evidence that many primates have primitive morality.

There may be differences, but on the key issues that enable a mutually beneficial society we have more in common than we have differences. Civilizations developed all over the world isolated from one another, yet the basic rules were the same in all of them: respect for life and limb, property rights, proportionality, punishment for offenses, etc. Humans also have innate drives on which we can base objective morality – fairness, compassion, territoriality, group loyalty, aggression, etc.

That is referred to as Natural Moral Law, actually a better way to name the thread is - If you do not believe in Natural Moral Law how do you explain its presents

We live in a very complex society and as a result people have disagreements about what is going to be best for humanity. It does not mean that naturalistic objective morality does not exist, only that we’ve not resolved the best rules yet.

If you are atheist the “best rules” are changed for every alpha male in charge, and no one else ever gets the “best rules”. That is fundamental to atheism. btw publically practiced today in North Korea where lack of electricity, food, medicine, etcetera are no big problem for the alpha male in charge. So the rest suffer under his “moral” system. This is a common problem to the Pacific Rim.

I honestly don’t know any atheist who does not have a set of guiding principles. It may only seem that way because they are so radically different from religious ones. It may give the appearance that the conclusion was reached capriciously and only for self gain.
My principles are simple. Humans have innate drives and desires. Our aim as humans should be to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. Because we are social beings, anything goes hedonism is not going to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. We need to work together on this. From this guiding principle we can derive objective morality. It is important to learn more about who we are and how the world works through science to make the best rules and means to achieve these goals.

Science will never give you these answers, never, ever. Kahn promoted this theory long ago and died trying to answer a simple question - Why do people lie so often? He had years but never figured it out. The answer is easy, people lie to get ahead, it is a sin, however since an atheist picks his own moral ground his actions can always (if he desires) be moral. Kahn could not rectify how a lot of lying was good for society, yet his theory indicated lying had to be good for society as many did lie and lied often.

 

[Nino]

well lets see,take away the ten commandments and you have life in china,russia,cuba etc…how is the moral situation there anyway! Since the state can do no wrong there is no sin or crime in such left wing nations other then thinking that maybe a higher code must be followed . Reading Islam Unveiled…by Dr.Robert Morey…one can see why in muslim nations the only crime is not killing Christians. The baby killers used as their argument that if abortion on demand is allowed no more child abuse will occur…so lets see.how many of you athiests out there have heard of any children being molested,raped,murdered,left in garbage cans etc.since that infamour verdict by the supremes…gee not one case…maybe then karl marx was correct after all…he left his wife and children to starve while he slepped around europe joining the communist movement that really cared for the common man…lets see…the Christians use an open hand as a greeting while the marxists use a clenched fist…mmmmmmmmmm…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

This is how some Christians, who say they are pro-life, fight abortion and support the death penalty. They are reacting to situations which are emotionally charged. They compare innocence to guilt and conclude that human beings have the right to kill certain guilty people…

Their mistake is …

Kalt
I am not sure they are mistaken, the issue is Liberty. All have it until some chose to risk it, then those who risked their liberty if caught have the liberty taken away. This was supported through the Catholic Church and still is in many ways. However with increased ability to protect society combined with injustice the Church has asked to stop the practical use of capital punishment.

Magnus, you asserted …
aileron isn’t talking…

…As an example of science as a basis for objective morality, aileron talks…
He/she is clearly not talking about deriving ethical axioms themselves from naturalistic observations.

Also: since when do only utilitarians argue…

It seem speaking for others is important? What would be wrong in speaking for yourself? btw “deriving ethical axioms themselves” is the definition of atheism it is a subset “not believing in god”

 

[Eleve]

Summarizing another’s post in order to discuss or defend it is not the same as “speaking for others.” And, speaking of putting words in others’ mouths, you should know that I used the word “themselves” as a reflexive pronoun for “moral axioms,” rather than for the people looking for moral axioms.

If you do not believe in Natural Moral Law how do you explain its presents

A person who doesn’t believe in Natural Moral Law naturally does not believe that it is present. But I don’t see how this would be a better title for this thread, since many atheists do believe in a natural moral law; aileron was agreeing with the concept in that very quote.

If you are atheist the “best rules” are changed for every alpha male in charge, and no one else ever gets the “best rules”. That is fundamental to atheism.

Umm, no. Practically no atheist believes that it is morally right to mindlessly follow a dictator. On the other hand, religious morality is generally defined by uncritical devotion to the supposed will of God.

Kahn could not rectify how a lot of lying was good for society, yet his theory indicated lying had to be good for society as many did lie and lied often.

Even if Kahn’s theory did say such an insane thing, it doesn’t matter; I’m having trouble even figuring out which “Kahn” you’re talking about, which shows how far his theories are from central to atheist thought.

I think the problem is the definition of “objective”. Determining the effects of solitary confinement have nothing to do with objective morality. Claiming the “objective ethical principle” that it would be “wrong” to harm a person is meaningless in a purely mechanical universe. That’s the point. Words like “wrong” have zero moral meaning in a universe where the stars are silent on moral matters. You are left with a purely I-won’t-do-it-to-you-because-I-don’t-want-you-to-do-it-to-me utilitarianism. One cannot objectively claim that a person should not kill another in a purely mechanical universe. There is no basis other than a utilitarian social contract.

Look up ethical non-naturalism. Look up error theory. Look up emotivism. Look up any of the meta-ethical theories that are not divine command theory or ethical naturalism, and quit asserting that they do not exist.

If God exists and you don’t believe in him, it it possible to violate his will, however it is unknowingly. So, no. I don’t believe morality is anything other than divine will.

I’m not talking about a particular moral theory, but about moral statements in general and adherence thereto. Surely you understand that atheists are capable of holding opinions on morality that do not imply belief in divine will.

As for authority, I’m talking about a God outside of humanity. If I am understanding you wonder if God has authority outside of HUMAN morality. Of course.

So, from what outside authority does God get its morality?

A world in which scientific formulas determine “moral” decisions is one I do not want to live in.

Any good scientist knows that science cannot determine a system of morality, but there are other ways that science can assist in taking moral action. For example, it was once believed that blood-letting would help cure diseases. Now that we know, through science, that blood-letting only makes the problem worse, we can make the moral decision to not practice blood-letting.

 

[Magnus467]

I’m not talking about a particular moral theory, but about moral statements in general and adherence thereto. Surely you understand that atheists are capable of holding opinions on morality that do not imply belief in divine will.

So, from what outside authority does God get its morality?

Any good scientist knows that science cannot determine a system of morality, but there are other ways that science can assist in taking moral action. For example, it was once believed that blood-letting would help cure diseases. Now that we know, through science, that blood-letting only makes the problem worse, we can make the moral decision to not practice blood-letting.

Yes, I understand. Obviously, because you don’t believe in a god. However, how do you know what is right or wrong, moral or immoral? Did someone tell you, or did you automatically know everything?

God does not get his morality from anything. God created human morality. I am saying that God is the Authority from which man got his sense and knowledge of morals.

Blood-letting is not a moral decision. It is just an outdated medical practice. We know this because he have new knowledge of the human body. It is not moral or immoral to perform this, it’s just stupid.

 

[kalt]

It is dehumanizing because it denies several innate human characteristics. Human beings have innate morality by nature. There is strong scientific evidence that many primates have primitive morality.

There may be differences, but on the key issues that enable a mutually beneficial society we have more in common than we have differences. Civilizations developed all over the world isolated from one another, yet the basic rules were the same in all of them: respect for life and limb, property rights, proportionality, punishment for offenses, etc. Humans also have innate drives on which we can base objective morality – fairness, compassion, territoriality, group loyalty, aggression, etc.

We live in a very complex society and as a result people have disagreements about what is going to be best for humanity. It does not mean that naturalistic objective morality does not exist, only that we’ve not resolved the best rules yet.

I honestly don’t know any atheist who does not have a set of guiding principles. It may only seem that way because they are so radically different from religious ones. It may give the appearance that the conclusion was reached capriciously and only for self gain.

My principles are simple. Humans have innate drives and desires. Our aim as humans should be to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. Because we are social beings, anything goes hedonism is not going to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. We need to work together on this. From this guiding principle we can derive objective morality. It is important to learn more about who we are and how the world works through science to make the best rules and means to achieve these goals.

Didn’t read your whole post. Got this far (in red), though.

I said that you aren’t working with a well defined set of moral principles. Not that you don’t have “innate morality”. Asking you to define your principles presupposes that you have some, dontcha think?

But if you want to play victim instead of answering the question, have at it.

 

[kalt]

It is dehumanizing because it denies several innate human characteristics. Human beings have innate morality by nature. There is strong scientific evidence that many primates have primitive morality.

There may be differences, but on the key issues that enable a mutually beneficial society we have more in common than we have differences. Civilizations developed all over the world isolated from one another, yet the basic rules were the same in all of them: respect for life and limb, property rights, proportionality, punishment for offenses, etc. Humans also have innate drives on which we can base objective morality – fairness, compassion, territoriality, group loyalty, aggression, etc.

We live in a very complex society and as a result people have disagreements about what is going to be best for humanity. It does not mean that naturalistic objective morality does not exist, only that we’ve not resolved the best rules yet.

I honestly don’t know any atheist who does not have a set of guiding principles. It may only seem that way because they are so radically different from religious ones. It may give the appearance that the conclusion was reached capriciously and only for self gain.

My principles are simple. Humans have innate drives and desires. Our aim as humans should be to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. Because we are social beings, anything goes hedonism is not going to maximize our pleasure and minimize our suffering. We need to work together on this. From this guiding principle we can derive objective morality. It is important to learn more about who we are and how the world works through science to make the best rules and means to achieve these goals.

And what of the individual? It may be that an idividual would be much happier living a hedonistic life. It’s his pleasure alone that counts to him. This is his morality. His pleasure is all that counts.

Are individual desires negated, then? Is his innate desire for pleasure at all costs to others an invalid innate drive and desire?

Should pleasure really be the goal, hedonistic or not? Is that what life boils down to? Seeking pleasure? There is no other goal?