Does atheism have a Problem of Good?

[ThinkingSapien]

I would hope not. I’m not asking if atheism is true or not, but simply whether it has a Problem of Good in some way corresponding to the theistic Problem of Evil.

In general such threads have a better chance at survival if they don’t explicitly mention “atheists.” At first that prohibition may sound like it will interfere with communication, but this is done more easily than one may think. For example, you could say “Is there a secular explanation for natural order in the universe” which ask the same question (if my understanding of the question is correct) without delving into prohibited grounds.

Sounds like I might be banned any moment. In that case, it’s been fun!

I seriously doubt it. The moderators tend to be pretty forgiving. The few bans that I’ve witnessed were after repeated violations from people that were pretty difficult to interact with. Typically the thread is either silently closed or closed with a comment from a moderator.

Here’s a question for you. If person is born blind, and behaves as a blind person would be expected to behave, is that behavior morally wrong?

If a person is born a sociopath, and behaves as a sociopath would be expected to behave, is that behavior morally wrong?

I think there may be more than one issue intertwined here. Concentrating on the person with a mental disorder it is difficult to assess their morality because the disorder may cause the person to have a distorted perception of the universe. When I’m looking at one’s morality I’m also trying to take into consideration one’s intent.

If a person has the intent to act morally but is fed misrepresentations that she believes it’s possible to exploit their tendency to try to be moral to manipulate her into a destructive pathway. Her intents are good but the outcome of her actions may be negative. For example, if a person were given the choice to either commit act which is considered immoral or refuse to commit act with the consequence that many people will die the person may decide to perform act as it is seen to have the lower number of consequences or casualties. But let’s say that there are not really consequences for not committing act , only a deceptive yet convincing set of misinformation that makes the consequence seem likely. I may still evaluate this is being a good person that didn’t have good information on the reality of her situation.

For a person that has a mental disorder it’s possible that their disorder is preventing her from being able to get an accurate view of the world around her. Especially in the case of one that is schizophrenic or hallucinating. This doesn’t mean the person is incapable of having negative intent. But in general without further information to her mind our assessments will less informed than about people without these disorders.

In the more specific case of a person that meets the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder as defined in the DSM-IV (aka sociopathic personality ) I’d probably skip over the moral assessment and quickly conclude that it is a person I would rather not deal with. Even qualified mental professionals have challenges in treating people in this classification. Such a person may not have the full set of mental facilities that others do for making moral judgement. People that have suffered damage to their prefontal cortex may also fall into this category.

 

[Stillness]

I would say that there is no need to address the question of either “good” or “evil” since there is no good and there is no evil. To make moral judgements about anything would require a firm philosophical basis to make that judgement. It would assume that there is some inherent goal that must be worked toward in life, or at least some inherent set of rules in the universe that directs the behavior of human beings.

Assuming neither of these things to be true, I see no way to judge anything as right or wrong. Seeing some actions or ideas as better or worse than others is indeed making a moral judgement about them. This is why I am troubled by those atheists who make claims of moral superiority; in thinking that anything can truly be morally superior to anything else, they think along the same lines as the religious. Nothing is morally superior or inferior, there are just things that happen and things that don’t happen. There will be no long-lastin effects of these things either way.

Most things that are seen as “good” are just things that can be explained biologically. Why do we feel the need to feed someone if we see them starving? Our mind is set up to be able to feel empathy and to imagine our own suffering if we were in the same situation. We also feel the need to develop a community of other humans in order to provide protection for ourselves, therefore we can’t allow certain members to be weak. But is it morally good to feed them? No. There is nothing to say that they should have lived to begin with, or that a human community should have developed to begin with. We certainly can choose to feed them or to not feed them, but neither of these actions are laudable or damnable.

 

[dshix]

I would say that there is no need to address the question of either “good” or “evil” since there is no good and there is no evil. To make moral judgements about anything would require a firm philosophical basis to make that judgement. It would assume that there is some inherent goal that must be worked toward in life, or at least some inherent set of rules in the universe that directs the behavior of human beings.

Assuming neither of these things to be true, I see no way to judge anything as right or wrong. Seeing some actions or ideas as better or worse than others is indeed making a moral judgement about them. This is why I am troubled by those atheists who make claims of moral superiority; in thinking that anything can truly be morally superior to anything else, they think along the same lines as the religious. Nothing is morally superior or inferior, there are just things that happen and things that don’t happen. There will be no long-lastin effects of these things either way.

Most things that are seen as “good” are just things that can be explained biologically. Why do we feel the need to feed someone if we see them starving? Our mind is set up to be able to feel empathy and to imagine our own suffering if we were in the same situation. We also feel the need to develop a community of other humans in order to provide protection for ourselves, therefore we can’t allow certain members to be weak. But is it morally good to feed them? No. There is nothing to say that they should have lived to begin with, or that a human community should have developed to begin with. We certainly can choose to feed them or to not feed them, but neither of these actions are laudable or damnable.

You’re a nihilist all right.

In summary, permit me to simply state I disagree with everything you just said.

 

[snarflemike]

You’re a nihilist all right.

In summary, permit me to simply state I disagree with everything you just said.

But I think he (she?) at least has the courage to follow a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. That is something that most who start with similar beliefs can’t or won’t do.

 

[dshix]

But I think he (she?) at least has the courage to follow a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. That is something that most who start with similar beliefs can’t or won’t do.

But he started with an unfounded premise: that there is no good or evil. Nothing he says can be proved until he proves that.

 

[Stillness]

But he started with an unfounded premise: that there is no good or evil. Nothing he says can be proved until he proves that.

It can’t be proven one way or the other. My ideas stem from my original assumption, that is, the lack of a law-giving entity or any other source of objective purpose and morality in existence. In the same way that your morality and ideas stem from the assumption that there is one. Neither of us can prove our original assumptions. We just build up a philosophy based on those assumptions. We may be able to provide evidence one way or the other, but evidence is not proof.

 

[dshix]

It can’t be proven one way or the other. My ideas stem from my original assumption, that is, the lack of a law-giving entity or any other source of objective purpose and morality in existence. In the same way that your morality and ideas stem from the assumption that there is one. Neither of us can prove our original assumptions. We just build up a philosophy based on those assumptions. We may be able to provide evidence one way or the other, but evidence is not proof.

Oh, but it can be proved.

Evidence is not proof, yes, but lack of evidence is even less proof. Therefore, when evidence points in one direction, and holds that direction very strongly, it is proper for that direction to be held as true until further evidence disproves it.

 

[Stillness]

Oh, but it can be proved.

Evidence is not proof, yes, but lack of evidence is even less proof. Therefore, when evidence points in one direction, and holds that direction very strongly, it is proper for that direction to be held as true until further evidence disproves it.

Yes, but such evidence can be interpreted differently. Which is why such evidence has led me to nihilism instead of a religion. However, I do not want this to turn into a discussion about atheism, instead of atheistic “morality”, as I believe such discussions are against forum rules.

 

[dshix]

Yes, but such evidence can be interpreted differently. Which is why such evidence has led me to nihilism instead of a religion. However, I do not want this to turn into a discussion about atheism, instead of atheistic “morality”, as I believe such discussions are against forum rules.

Thank you.