Godless morality?

[Portofino]

Atheism is just a shorter way of saying that there is not a final moral authority. The universe does not define any moral laws. Its laws only concern the physical world. What does an atheist point to as the highest guiding principle? As far as I can tell it is logic, but logical thinking is a choice. There are some people who believe that chaos and anarchy are good. An appeal to logic and reason will fail with them and without a final authority, who can determine what is ultimately the truth?

In all fairness, most of the individuals who believe that chaos and anarchy are good – in my experience – are adolescent and young adult males (I know, I used to be one! ). Of course, you also have individuals such as Charles Manson, who is famous because he is such an exception to the rule (in wartime, of course, the exception is in danger of becoming the rule, by bringing out this anti-social behavior in human beings in general, and young men in particular).

I agree that atheism cannot, by definition, give you a metaphysical commandment to behave “appropriately.” It can, however, impose a social and legal commandment – a social norm. And it is not accident that those social norms evolved in the way they did – for example, the fact that someone like Charles Manson is an exceptional figure, the rule rather than the exception; and the fact that his behavior is considered “anti-social”, so that he is to the social body what deadly poison would be to the physical body - something to be avoided, and not encouraged.

Most aggressive, angst-ridden young men calm down – become responsible adults with jobs, which necessitates being “polite” and “civil” and treating others with “respect”, at least to a minimum degree – and most, even, become husbands and fathers. What was anti-social becomes “socialized” – or, if one prefers, one matures, “grows up.” In a Nietzschean vein, there is perhaps something lost in the “taming” of youth – but this fighting energy can, indeed, be channeled in more “constructive” ways (becoming a firefighter; a death-defying athlete; a mercurial composer of symphonies), so this “primal scream” of energy is not lost so much as it is transformed and rendered “productive” (as opposed to destructive).

I think non-believers’ values are logically derived from the basic value of survival and, more than survival, quality of life (health, happiness, human flourishing). Charles Manson is not conducive to these; Gandhi is. That ultimate metaphysical question – why value life at all – cannot be answered by a non-believer but, then again, doesn’t really need to be answered (pragmatically, at least). It is only a minority that will conclude, on principle, that life is not worth living – and even fewer who will ever dare act on that theoretical knowledge (Schopenhauer declared that life was not living at the age of 20, and lived to be 72!) Obviously, it is all but impossible for all but a minority of humans to truly believe that life is not worth living (unshakeable faith in life, if not faith in God). It’s just the way we’re made, just like most of us have two arms and ten fingers.

 

[Bradski]

Isn’t the point that religious people are making is that without the higher authority of God that morality must become a relative thing?

This is the bit that confuses me. If you’re trying to decide as to whether torturing a cat is morally acceptable of not, what are the practical steps you take to ensure that your decision is in accord with the ‘higher authority of God’? This is perhaps, for me, the most important question.

It’s quite easy to say that one shouldn’t steal beause there are enough iinstructions not to do so in scripture. But where does it say that dragging a cat around by a hook embedded in its mouth is wrong and doing the same thing with a fish is not? (and please, don’t take the examples literally. If you don’t think it’s right to do it to a fish, just keep working backwards until you reach a suitable example. Let’s concentrate on the principles involved).

They do get on with each other, more so out of fear and necessity than out of love. As for example in North Korea, where religion is merely the worship of a supreme lawgiver.

It appears that you think that I’m talking about atheists. I’m talking about the two billion people who don’t believe in God. How do all those in India, Pakistan, Vietnam, China, Japan etc etc get on?

What does an atheist point to as the highest guiding principle? As far as I can tell it is logic, but logical thinking is a choice.

No. Logic is not a choice. If all men are mortal and Aristotle is a man, you don’t have a choice as to whether he is mortal or not. Moral decisions are not based on logic in any case. They are based on reason. To go back to the Q and A example, if someone says it is wrong for someone to torture them for fun, it would be unreasonable for them to say that it would be OK for them to do it to someone else. A tleast, I hope that you see that it’s unreasonable. If you don’t, then we have a serious problem.

The problem with atheistic morality is that there isn’t any such thing as atheistic morality. Atheism says nothing about morality. All it says is that there is no God. So every atheist by his own monotonous creed can make up any morality as he goes along.

That’s just about right. The only ‘position’ that an atheist holds is that he or she doesn’t believe in gods. So you are quite correct in saying that there’s no such thing as an atheist morality. It might be a good idea to compare a religious morality with a humanist morality. That is, secular, but not necessarily (although generally) atheist.

Every theism claims a specific morality endowed by God.

You probably mean ‘a god’.

 

[tonyrey]

I think non-believers’ values are logically derived from the basic value of survival and, more than survival, quality of life (health, happiness, human flourishing). Charles Manson is not conducive to these; Gandhi is. That ultimate metaphysical question – why value life at all – cannot be answered by a non-believer but, then again, doesn’t really need to be answered (pragmatically, at least). It is only a minority that will conclude, on principle, that life is not worth living – and even fewer who will ever dare act on that theoretical knowledge (Schopenhauer declared that life was not living at the age of 20, and lived to be 72!) Obviously, it is all but impossible for all but a minority of humans to truly believe that life is not worth living (unshakeable faith in life, if not faith in God). It’s just the way we’re made, just like most of us have two arms and ten fingers.

There is no reason why a person who believes we exist for no reason or purpose should believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

 

[Portofino]

So we made some arbitrary rules, and because we like them, they apply to everyone? What if I decided that all people needed freedom from seeing people standing on two feet, and so granted that freedom to everyone by deciding that all people who don’t stand on one foot have committed a capital crime? If I get enough people to go along with me on that, and convince most of the “reasonable” people that exist that it should be so, does that make it good?

Bradski’s example is hardly arbitrary – it is not merely subjective, but an inter-subjective human desire that is all but universal.

This is our baseline, as a society; which is what makes certain commandments – “do not kill indiscriminately; do not steal” – seemingly as universal as the creation of art, or the ingestion of water and nourishing food.

There is a line in the old film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986), that always get a laugh from the audience, and it gets a laugh because it is so obvious, that it scarcely bears mentioning, which is the point of the humor in that line:

“I’m very cute, I’m very alone, and I’m very protective of my body. I do not want it violated or killed! All right?!”

 

[Portofino]

That’s great and good, as far as it goes, but the question is how far does it actually goes.

So you’ve come up with a system of behavior that you like and makes sense to you. Why does it apply to me? You say you are a reasonable person. What does that mean and how can you tell? And why does it matter.

It’s in your best interest that it apply to you – if you value your own life. Our laws – the illegality of manslaughter, or premeditated murder – protect you, protect me, and protect others.

If a law doesn’t represent your interest, protest it – which is precisely what happens, in real societies. If a law is injurious to nearly everyone’s interests, then you have a much higher chance of social unrest, and of that law being rejected (for example, the law – in East Berlin – that it was illegal to leave the country; that law was upheld not through the consent of the governed, but through the threat of violence and terror).

, you can come up with a set of rules, and follow them, and maybe even show that they’d be consistent. But that doesn’t imply that they actually have any force. The fact that you like them and that I like them too doesn’t actually mean anything for anyone else, whether we think we’re reasonable or not.

The same goes for a morality based on the invocation of God’s authority, unfortunately. Whose God. Your God? You ask me to have faith in your God, or you declare that you’ve proven that your God is the right one. And if I’m not convinced that you’ve proven it? Does that mean I am exempt? And if I declare that I am, what are you going to do about it?

Morality is just a tough, tough nut to crack, regardless of whether one is a theist or a non-theist.

it this way: does your system imply that a psychopath that goes on a murder spree has actually done something that is actually bad, not just something of which you and most of us would disapprove?.

Metaphysically wrong – I don’t know. The sun, the moon, and the stars don’t seem to mind someone going on a murder spree; nor do cows grazing in pastures, to give one example.

The most I can say is, "the behavior is anti-social ; it is a threat to your safety, my safety, and the safety of all of us in our society (“no one is safe”); it is in no one’s interest (for those who value their life) that this maniac be left to roam the streets; this is not “normal” or “healthy” behavior, insofar as socialization is just as important to social life as health is to the life of the body. The behavior is socially unacceptable, and anyone fit to live in society will probably find it emotionally repugnant, abhorrent. If one doesn’t, or defends the rights of that individual to engage in that behavior, then one is probably a borderline sociopath, oneself – a danger to you, to me, to everyone.

Those are actual reasons, which many would find more convincing then all of the various proofs purported to demonstrate the existence of God (which is why a theistic morality is itself vulnerable, because it is absolutely dependent on whether you have convinced them that your God exists and is the right one, and because one’s claiming that one has proven it – or, failing that, that one has to have faith – does not necessarily make it so, in the eyes of others.)

Better to have a plan B for those who don’t believe in your God, say I. And, believe it or not, a little simple argument like “no one is safe, if you adopt that as a principle of life in society” can actually convince a good number of people to “see the light.”

 

[Bradski]

There is no reason why a person who believes we exist for no reason or purpose should believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

These type of comments are becoming tiresome. For the umpteenth time, quite a lot of people believe that there is no ultimate purpose in the universe. That it just is.

That does not mean that people therefore accept that there are no benefits in actually being alive. That there is no way we can live a fulfilled and enjoyable life. That we can’t enjoy the company of friends and family. That we cannot enjoy music and art. That we cannot enjoy good food and a decent wine. That we cannot feel satisfaction in the work that we do. That we cannot take enjoyment in seeing our children grow into responsible adults. That we cannot, quite simply, enjoy life.

Having a certain amount of liberty is a requirement to able able to do all those things mentioned. To accept that other people are equal in worth is to hopefully encourage others to treat you as an equal. To accept that we are all fellow travellers in life, all worthy of equal rights is to encourage a sense of fraternity.

So if your freedom is taken away, it still has the same affect on you whether there is ultimate purpose or not. If someone harms your family, it doesn’t matter if there is ultimate purpose. The pain is the same.

If you don’t actually realise this, then I believe you have a problem. It is my belief, however, that you do realise it. Or at least understand it. So your reasons for making these trite comments is open to debate in itself.

 

[JamesATyler]

This is the bit that confuses me. If you’re trying to decide as to whether torturing a cat is morally acceptable of not, what are the practical steps you take to ensure that your decision is in accord with the ‘higher authority of God’? This is perhaps, for me, the most important question.

It’s quite easy to say that one shouldn’t steal beause there are enough iinstructions not to do so in scripture. But where does it say that dragging a cat around by a hook embedded in its mouth is wrong and doing the same thing with a fish is not? (and please, don’t take the examples literally. If you don’t think it’s right to do it to a fish, just keep working backwards until you reach a suitable example. Let’s concentrate on the principles involved).

We rely on Church teaching to define what the will of God is. That’s a big part of what the Church is for. We also rely on one another. Notice how many threads there are about whether something is a sin or not. We also rely on the clergy. It’s a community effort.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Put it this way: does your system imply that a psychopath that goes on a murder spree has actually done something that is actually bad, not just something of which you and most of us would disapprove?

It may be worth pointing out that by the time some one is labeled as a psychopath (antisocial personality disorder, sociopath) then it’s already been concluded that the person has a chronic disorder (as in negative, bad). Also note that some one working in a pharmacy may have access to better tools than those of us in this forum to bring about change in such a person.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

So if your freedom is taken away, it still has the same affect on you whether there is ultimate purpose or not. If someone harms your family, it doesn’t matter if there is ultimate purpose. The pain is the same.

If your freedom is taken away and you believe in a purposeless life to boot, I would not give a plug nickle for such a life. I would be a serious candidate for suicide. And its a well known fact that atheists are more inclined to suicide than religious people who believe they live a purposeful life.

Too many atheists wait until the end of their lives to hope for purpose in their lives. That’s why atheist deathbed conversions are commonplace. Whereas being converted to atheism on one’s deathbed is hardly ever heard of.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no reason why a person who believes we exist for no reason or purpose should believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

What individuals believe has no bearing on the nature of reality.

That does not mean that people therefore accept that there are no benefits in actually being alive. That there is no way we can live a fulfilled and enjoyable life. That we can’t enjoy the company of friends and family. That we cannot enjoy music and art. That we cannot enjoy good food and a decent wine. That we cannot feel satisfaction in the work that we do. That we cannot take enjoyment in seeing our children grow into responsible adults. That we cannot, quite simply, enjoy life.

What individuals believe and the way they behave has no bearing on the nature of reality.

Having a certain amount of liberty is a requirement to able able to do all those things mentioned. To accept that other people are equal in worth is to hopefully encourage others to treat you as an equal. To accept that we are all fellow travellers in life, all worthy of equal rights is to encourage a sense of fraternity.

The issue is whether belief in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity has a rational basis…

So if your freedom is taken away, it still has the same affect on you whether there is ultimate purpose or not. If someone harms your family, it doesn’t matter if there is ultimate purpose. The pain is the same.

If you don’t actually realise this, then I believe you have a problem. It is my belief, however, that you do realise it. Or at least understand it. So your reasons for making these trite comments is open to debate in itself.

You have failed to refute the reason I have given:

**The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have no rational basis if we exist for no reason.

**In fact nothing would have a rational basis in an absurd universe - as Camus and Sartre have pointed out in great detail…

 

[Bradski]

We rely on Church teaching to define what the will of God is. That’s a big part of what the Church is for.

Let me know where I can find church teaching in regard to the treatment of animals. I specifically want to know if dragging a fish around with a hook in its mouth is worse than doing the same with a cat.

We also rely on one another. Notice how many threads there are about whether something is a sin or not. We also rely on the clergy. It’s a community effort.

So in the absence of any specific church teaching, you maybe start a thread on it, perhaps discuss it and then make a decision on whether it is acceptable or not? Or you ask your local priest? Is there a sporting section on the forum that I’ve missed?

Actually, let’s be honest with each other. It’s none of the above. You make a personal decision on the matter, just like everyone else. It is not feasible to go through life deferring every decision on questions of morality to the church. Which can easily be shown to be the case. Because now I’m going to ask you about the cat/fish conundrum. Is one acceptable and the other not?

Now you don’t have to answer, but if you do, then I know that you won’t have gotten any guidance from church teaching, or your local priest or from any thread. You’ll make the decision yourself. In fact, you already have.

It’s what we all do.

If your freedom is taken away and you believe in a purposeless life to boot…

Charles, are you not reading what I’m writing or are you purposely ignoring it? Did I not give you half a dozen reasons in the post above why my life has meaning? Why my life has purpose?

For the umpteenth (plus one) time:

A Purposeless Universe Does Not Mean That Individual Lives Have No Meaning.

Could you do me a favour and print that out, maybe in a Gothic font, and stick it to the top of your screen. If you say it to yourself a few times every time you log on to the forum, maybe we’ll reach the point where I don’t have to keep typing it out.

 

[JamesATyler]

This is the bit that confuses me. If you’re trying to decide as to whether torturing a cat is morally acceptable of not, what are the practical steps you take to ensure that your decision is in accord with the ‘higher authority of God’? This is perhaps, for me, the most important question.

It’s quite easy to say that one shouldn’t steal beause there are enough iinstructions not to do so in scripture. But where does it say that dragging a cat around by a hook embedded in its mouth is wrong and doing the same thing with a fish is not? (and please, don’t take the examples literally. If you don’t think it’s right to do it to a fish, just keep working backwards until you reach a suitable example. Let’s concentrate on the principles involved).

Let me know where I can find church teaching in regard to the treatment of animals. I specifically want to know if dragging a fish around with a hook in its mouth is worse than doing the same with a cat.

So in the absence of any specific church teaching, you maybe start a thread on it, perhaps discuss it and then make a decision on whether it is acceptable or not? Or you ask your local priest? Is there a sporting section on the forum that I’ve missed?

Actually, let’s be honest with each other. It’s none of the above. You make a personal decision on the matter, just like everyone else. It is not feasible to go through life deferring every decision on questions of morality to the church. Which can easily be shown to be the case. Because now I’m going to ask you about the cat/fish conundrum. Is one acceptable and the other not?

Now you don’t have to answer, but if you do, then I know that you won’t have gotten any guidance from church teaching, or your local priest or from any thread. You’ll make the decision yourself. In fact, you already have.

It’s what we all do.

Bradski, You wanted to know how a religious person verifies he is in accordance with the ‘higher authority of God’. My answer was straightforward. The Church covers a lot of what is or isn’t in accord. If there is something that can’t be found directly then we might seek the council of a priest or someone we trust in the church. Now if it is something that is already known, or something that is easy to figure out, then, sure, I can just make that decision myself.

I don’t need any help with your example about the cat vs the fish and the hook. You said not to take the example literally. Are you so upset that I didn’t? I’m 39 so I’ve pretty much already figured out what is acceptable treatment for an animal but the question about torturing animals might be pertinent to a teenager who has a cruel streak in him. If it were really a problem, and he couldn’t figure it out, then yes, he should seek guidance and spiritual direction from the Church.

I wouldn’t condemn a person for catching either a fish or a cat by hook if he needed to eat. It’s basically the same thing. I assume that’s what you mean by “dragging around”. It would be unfortunate to have to eat a sweet little cat. (I wouldn’t eat mine, but I would eat yours. Haha)

 

[JamesATyler]

Let me know where I can find church teaching in regard to the treatment of animals. I specifically want to know if dragging a fish around with a hook in its mouth is worse than doing the same with a cat.

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

There’s a bit about animal treatment in the online Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[Simpleton]

Godless morality?

Pfft. Without a God, I’m just another animal on this planet doing what other animals do, so how could good and evil even apply to me? Are other animals good and evil for doing the things they do? No! It’s survival of the fittest, and anything beyond this would be contradictory to the reality atheism professes.

 

[Bradski]

Now if it is something that is already known, or something that is easy to figure out, then, sure, I can just make that decision myself. I’m 39 so I’ve pretty much already figured out what is acceptable treatment for an animal…

Now we’re on the same page. I have also ‘pretty much already figured out what is acceptable treatment for an animal’. And if it’s ‘something that is easy to figure out, then, sure, I can just make that decision myself’. The problem is, some people might suggest that the moral position that you reach by those methods (making the decision yourself) is just your own and has no validity.

What you need to do then is put forward explanations as to how you reached that position. Explanations that any reasonable person should be able to accept.

Does that sound about right?

It’s survival of the fittest, and anything beyond this would be contradictory to the reality atheism professes.

Survival of the fittest relates to the survival of those creatures best fitted to their environment. A person best fitted to survive in a civilised state is someone who exhibits a certain degree of fraternity to his fellow man.

 

[RobbyS]

That does not reasonable follow at all.

Modern atheism differs from that of the classical world, because it is not skeptical. It believes in science. not as the ancients believed in astrology, but with a faith in the ability of science to make the world comprehendible.

 

[RobbyS]

Now we’re on the same page. I have also ‘pretty much already figured out what is acceptable treatment for an animal’. And if it’s ‘something that is easy to figure out, then, sure, I can just make that decision myself’. The problem is, some people might suggest that the moral position that you reach by those methods (making the decision yourself) is just your own and has no validity.

What you need to do then is put forward explanations as to how you reached that position. Explanations that any reasonable person should be able to accept.

Does that sound about right?

Survival of the fittest relates to the survival of those creatures best fitted to their environment. A person best fitted to survive in a civilised state is someone who exhibits a certain degree of fraternity to his fellow man.

And what “degree” is that? Thomas Jefferson thought that Christian morality was the best suited to “civilized society,” but I doubt you agree,

 

[polytropos]

I am an atheist.

I do not think you can argue for objective morality without religion. Philosophers have argued for subjective morality, but I don’t think subjective morality is a worthwhile concept. (I find it easier to think of morality as not existing if you are going to talk about “subjective morality.”)

Morality can be objective from a religious perspective because it is divinely decreed, which makes it absolute and timeless: objective. If God forbids “murder,” then that forbidding is embedded upon the fabric of the universe. If God does not forbid “murder,” then there was a time when humans (and life) did not exist, so there was a time when “murder” was not defined.

“Murder,” without religion, is a legal term that denotes a very widely held opinion that humans will generally speaking be better off as a group if they do not kill each other. Without God nothing gives it absolute moral force.

In the case of torturing a cat, it is not objectively bad if nothing can be objectively bad. Without God, life was not created; it occurred and as such has no dignity. Humans might have a psychological response against torturing a cat, but torturing a cat does not do anything to “upset” the nature of the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

A Purposeless Universe Does Not Mean That Individual Lives Have No Meaning.

In a purposeless Universe nothing would have any value, meaning or purpose - unless you are indulging in wishful thinking!

 

[Simon_Hurt]

In a purposeless Universe nothing would have any value, meaning or purpose - unless you are indulging in wishful thinking!

People create purpose, meaning, and values for themselves based on their own subjective experiences. Whether an objective purpose - one independent of human cognition - exists or not is irrelevant.