Atheists simply refrain from acknowledging that God exists. That negative position concerning God does not provide a basis for ethical thinking. It may have removed one, i.e., God as Creator, but it does not provide an alternative. QUOTE]
Hi there, Peter Plato. I’m going to agree with you that a non-believer cannot argue that something is objectively immoral, in the sense that it violates a law of the universe. I don’t think nature cares if we as a humanity destroy ourselves, and I don’t think I can prove there is a being who created the universe, and who does care. A theist can argue for objective morality and be consistent with his beliefs, but may be begging the question in doing so (“it’s wrong because it’s wrong”; “it’s wrong because God established that it’s wrong”) – but that’s another question.
Atheism, in and of itself, is indeed the non-belief in a supreme being, nothing more. And this does imply, common sensically, that – since nature is indifferent to human conduct – so must the cosmos itself be indifferent to human conduct. But an atheist philosopher or social thinker still can argue for man-made rules of conduct and social norms, based on fairly fundamental axioms that are inter-subjectively held. In other words, not on mere subjective preference, but on an understanding of what the inter-subjective preference of millions of humans beings is, and then an objective understanding of the best way to achieve those inter-subjective preferences. It holds pretty tight, and pretty stable, like a common currency.
I don’t believe that human societies decreed that stealing was wrong, and that murder was wrong, based on any divine revelation or even metaphysical reasoning. Instead, I think people came to the recognition that, if they don’t want to be stolen from or murdered, that they have to refrain from trying to do so, to others. Thus, social norms became a kind of truce. This was the most pragmatic level. This abstract principle – “stealing is wrong” – was derived from this dynamics of human interrelationships. From there, human empathy was enhanced-- just as we developed our intelligence – such that one could feel guilt or remorse at stealing from someone, or murdering someone. Human empathy was already a constant, because humans naturally form attachments and alliances. If that weren’t the case, probably no infant would have survived until adulthood, nor would there be any such thing as a public language. For language, obviously, is based on social cooperation and the agreed upon meaning of words.
In a sense, if someone asks me, “why shouldn’t I kill?” they are already one of the “tough cases”, assuming they’ve lived in a society their entire lives, and been acculturated to appropriate norms of conduct. A religious person does not have an enviable task, either, in trying to answer such a person, to whom it is not self-evident. After all, our society, as a rule, considers sociopathy (lack of conscience and of respect for others) to render one unfit for social living. It would be like playing a sport and suddenly attacking one of your teammates, who wears the same uniform. It’s simply self-evident that the team cannot function as a team, if that behavior is allowed.
It would be (to use a metaphor from Wittgenstein), as if somebody suddenly said, “why should I subscribe to your public language. I have my own private language. “Cheese” means “hippopatamus”! “Language” means “sky”! I don’t have a common language with you, because you haven’t convinced me why I should. Your language is arbitrary; I think I’ll speak Russian to you, or a language of my own.”
Similarly, he could say, “I declare that a $1 dollar is worth $20 dollars. You want $20 dollars for what I purchase from you, I give you $1. Why should I subscribe to your valuation of currency, which is arbitrary?”
This would be quixotic behavior, but I submit that doing so in regards to respecting others’ property or life is even more quixotic, because the consequences will be anything but arbitrary (in fact, rather predictable). Simply put, if I don’t respect the rights of others, they will not respect mine. Further, if that’s the only reason I respect others’ rights – cynical calculation – I probably will break down at some point and do it anyway, unable to control myself. To really make it stick, I have to have some measure of empathy, identifying my neighbor as part of my clan – my family, my country, my species.
So you use those pragmatic arguments with someone who asks you, “why shouldn’t I hurt others?” but you acknowledge that, if that’s the only reason he refrains from doing so, he’s probably not going to succeed. Empathy, viewing them as not so alien from himself, viewing them as part of his clan or family or species, will be as important to his life in society as agreeing upon a common currency, or speaking a common language.
If he doesn’t care to live in society at all – to speak a common language – to respect a common currency – and to adhere to certain basic values of social conduct – then you have a “public enemy” on your hands. As stated above, though, I doubt that religious arguments would be very convincing to such an individual, either. Obviously, in the world as it actually exists, religious arguments are not very convincing, to such individuals (until they are incarcerated, and have the opportunity to appreciate what a “bitter pill” their behavior has been, and how severe the unintended consequences).
, let’s try again:
