If God does not exist, then everything is permissible

[Sair]

But why ought one care about community building? If one values thievery as their art and calling in life, and manages to elude all consequences through the resourcefulness, what ground do we have to criticize them? We can say that they do not conform to our ideas of good, but it seems that to impose our ideas of good upon them is wrong. But then again, why not ditch the “slave morality” that imposing our ideas is wrong? Why not have the majority dictate to the minority, or the powerful oppress the masses? Sure, there are social norms against this now, but why are these norms justified?

The norms are justified on the basis that if everyone adhered to these norms, social cohesion and individual happiness are the consequences. Other values - such as those of your thief - cannot be justified on this basis, because if everyone lived according to those values, social fragmentation and individual misery and fear would be the ultimate results.

To return to your hypothetical thief, there are a number of things to be said about such a person. If a society is functioning as a healthy community, it ought to be able to absorb the actions of the individual dissenter from established social norms. But is it then justified for the thief to be riding on the back of others’ efforts? I suspect both you and I would say no, and probably for much the same reason. To establish this, if we accept the premise that the universe is godless, what would be your motivation to avoid a life of thievery? Mine would be my conviction that it would result in unhappiness, both for me and for others. I would be obliged to conduct my affairs in secrecy, and that is a stressful way to live. I would also need to live with the knowledge that I was taking things that others might need. While I may have political sensibilities that would make me feel justified in stealing from the wealthy, I could not discount the possibility that one day I would slip up and steal something that someone else really needed - money to pay a debt, for example, or an object that was irreplaceable because of its sentimental value to the owner.

Furthermore, if the only motivation for acting morally is the belief that our actions are observed by a god, we can’t really claim to be moral persons - we would be acting under duress.

An interesting statement, considering that devout believers (in any faith) are, statistically, among the most satisfied and happy demographic. Not that this wisdom is inaccessible to outsiders. Anyone who realizes that “in giving you receive” has immediately made himself healthier and happier.

It would be interesting to find out if any studies had been done to determine the happiness levels of atheists - I rather suspect not, simply because we are not united by anything other than the default position that there is no god (given a complete lack of unequivocal evidence to the contrary), and as such, there are so many variables that it would be difficult to establish any conclusive results.

It’s interesting that you say ‘devout’ believers, as opposed to doubting or wavering believers. I think the essential criterion here is not faith, but living according to one’s principles and ideals, whatever they happen to be. It certainly makes me happy when I can see that I’m contributing to the happiness of others, but that is what it is - I don’t attribute this happiness to the existence of any gods.

 

[Coco82]

This thread is interesting and you’d thnk that’d prove the Christian case to the moral relativists. Unfortunately people of such a nature will never believe. I think considering morality is largely based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs it would show the importance of the belief in God, & I cannot understand how others don’t see that but alas the culture has evolved into one in which religion is no longer venerated and instead people want to live in a world where there are no consequwnces.

 

[Sair]

This thread is interesting and you’d thnk that’d prove the Christian case to the moral relativists. Unfortunately people of such a nature will never believe. I think considering morality is largely based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs it would show the importance of the belief in God, & I cannot understand how others don’t see that but alas the culture has evolved into one in which religion is no longer venerated and instead people want to live in a world where there are no consequwnces.

I might take a leaf out of Mystic Banana’s book here, and say that I have yet to find an argument for the Judeo-Christian basis of Western morality that holds water.

If we consider the source of Judeo-Christian morals, the Bible, we find that it is full of contradictions and contains plenty of unsavoury dealings. If we discard the laborious apologetics that endeavour to explain why the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it says, we are left with a moral system that endorses rape, genocide, slavery, incest, misogyny - to say nothing of the plethora of rules and regulations that serve no purpose other than to demonstrate reverence for a self-confessedly jealous, vengeful god. I would not want to live with anyone who seriously based their morality on the Bible.

On the contrary, I think a quick look at Western history will bear out the notion that most of the values we hold today are Enlightenment values, humanist values - not strictly Judeo-Christian values. One of the criticisms often levelled by religionists is that people who don’t believe in their god just pick and choose their morals based on what works for them. But that is exactly what Christians do - if they hold seriously to biblical morality, why don’t they stone people who blaspheme? Why aren’t half of them walking around with only one hand after cutting it off for ‘offending’? Why don’t they accept slavery? Jesus, according to the gospel accounts, did.

So please offer your arguments for the Judeo-Christian source of morality. I’d love to see one that has some credibility.

 

[Benadam]

Is something “permissible” if it causes your death?

If you cannot decide upon a foundation for “permissible”, then anything is permissible.

To say ‘anything is permissable’ is to say permission is a necessity for things to exist. If the word permissable has no foundational concept then the word wouldn’t pertain to anything Right?

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

The problem is, that although this does work, those within such societies can then seek personal benefit (or personal gratification) at the expense of others, relying on the virtue of others to buoy up society for their benefit

Mmh, this too is adaptive in one sense (but not in another); when those who exploit others are found out, there is typically some retribution payed. These people who exploit others are accontable to the general public, who usually punish such behaviour. Things are impermissible in the social-sense but permissible in a relative sense (as I have said).

If you see caring about others in terms of benefiting ourselves, then you are not really making an ethical decision. You are making a tactical one based on mutual self-interest.

Not like when people do good to get into heaven though, right? It doesn’t matter what the motivations are; behaviour that consistently benefits everyone is beneficial indeed (by which I mean moral - at least in the social sense).

The fact is, I think this argument really bypasses something rather essential, specifically that life has very little real point if every conscious entity has a finite existence. So, I suppose the question is, in this Godless Universe, is there an afterlife? And does what we do effect the nature of existence there?

Not my concern. How you justify the rest of your existence in a morally-relative, finite world is up to you. No truth is imparted by merely* desiring *such things as are begged of religion.

Nicely assumed, but I’m yet to find anything resembling logic in any atheist argument for purposeful living… on the assumption you are a materialist, I see little in the way of any real value of any action, beyond a deliberately blinkered focus on the short term, if we are bound by finite existence

“Purpose” is such a loaded and ambiguous term though. If you intend purpose to mean the desired outcome (as per a creator or our own wish-fulfilling desires), then yes, my view of life has no purpose. If ‘purpose’ is to mean the reason for which we exist, then we may have no answer (at least not which validates us humans specifically). If ‘purpose’ is intended to mean the resoluteness of our existence, then indeed, the very contemplation of our life and our eventual death; the never-so-insignificant contribution and teaching we leave with our progeny; our appreciation for having existed at all - is the fulfilment of that purpose.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What’s the rationale for this assertion?

A purely ethical consideration is one in which the ethical standard is the only thing consulted, because the ethical standard corresponds precisely to one’s own self-interest (and the interest of others). Whenever the ethical standard does not not line up with self-interest, the ethical consideration is not pure. But if God does not exist, we have no reason to expect that “moral” actions – by which I mean actions according to some human code or philosophy – will be self-interested actions, which means that it would often be *irrational *to do good.

(Construe “self-interested” broadly, by the way. Giving to a charity that helps the poor in my neighborhood may be self-interested, in either a theistic or atheistic setting).

Apparently, I don’t share your definition of “permitted” or at least not in its “most absolute sense.”

Well, it seems noncontroversial that the person who breaks the law undiscovered has not been penalized in any way. Thus, although no one permitted them, they have been permitted. This is similar to the early days of Napster: people were tacitly permitted to steal music.

You MUST provide a context or permissibility is meaningless.

And I have: the dominion of God, and the reality of an afterlife.

Apparently you aren’t seeking to substantiate your thoughts either.

No one can ever substantiate his thoughts.

What’s the difference between “morality” and “morality-as-such?”

Morality is simply a set of labels on good or bad. Morality-as-such is the only such set of labels that is not arbitrary.

You’ll have to rephrase the question or define “rational.” We were talking about ethics, not rationality.

But isn’t it obvious that ethics is worthless if it isn’t rational?!? If it were rational to do something wrong, then the wise man ought to do wrong!

Assuming that you pose your question in such a way that it’s relevant to ethics, I would first ask why the money won’t be missed by its owner.

I didn’t say that the money won’t be missed, only that no one will ever know you did it.

Of course, if you’re looking for the best course of action, I might consider donating a decent portion of it.

But that course of action, much as I encourage, seems irrational to the atheist. Why should you care about someone else’s welfare, unless it satisfies some hedonistic desire you have – in which case it is hardly commendable! What makes giving to charity admirable? It is the fact that the welfare of others is objectively good; if this were not the case, then sacrificing yourself for the good of others would always be either irrational or selfish (the satisfaction of hedonistic desire).

Personally, I don’t believe anyone does good for the sake of good, but I guess that depends on your definition of “good.” It’s a bit like cooking for the sake of cooking–who does that? If we can’t eat the food, and if we don’t derive enjoyment from cooking, why would anyone ever cook?

Fascinating. Many people, in fact, do cook because they enjoy it, but not everyone who does good does it because of consequences. In fact, many of the best people in this world never think about doing good; they have simply trained themselves to be good. They do not think about consequences (except in extreme cases), because thinking about consequences makes us calculating, not good.

Actually, I pride myself in having a philosophy devoid of dreams; that is, lacking nonsensical or otherwise unlikely fantasies.

Well, of course, I can’t blame you for not believing in heaven if you don’t believe in God. Belief in the afterlife is a derivative belief, derivative from the conviction that the world is fundamentally good. Some of this comes from revelation. But this presents a question: what reason do you have to believe that physical evidence is the only evidence there is? Consider out-of-body experiences that occur in the absence of brain waves. These are (I believe) well-documented; what do you make of them?

I meant to say, rather, that knowing we have eternal life would reduce the perceived significance of death. What reason would we have to cry at funerals, after all?

There is, as you have pointed out, uncertainty. But worse yet, there is the fact that we won’t see them again, as long as we live (on Earth).

The difference, I would say, is that proof produces certainties while verification is merely suggestive. Verification “allows for induction,” as you might say.

Depends on what you’re verifying. If you want to verify that there’s a cup in your hand, you might check. But if you want to verify that there is an external world in which such a cup might exist, what would you check? All your “evidence” begs the question.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You’re panicking over something that is common to most systems. For example, a hexagon is defined as a six-sided polygon. With this we can infer that if a postulated shape, “A,” is a polygon composed of six sides, it’s a hexagon. Alas, a hexagon is a polygon composed of six sides! Therefore, if A is a polygon composed of six sides, then A is a polygon composed of six sides. Whatever will we do with this tautology?! How can it possibly be a geometrical truth?!

But consider your tautology: “those things people prefer are valuable to them,” rephrased “those things people prefer, they prefer”. The Christian can agree to this. If you define “value” as “preference”, then I can agree that people prefer what they prefer. In other words, your understanding of morality doesn’t address the issue. I might similarly make a claim in economics that “those things people purchase, they buy”. But how would this explain anything?

The atheist has a choice: A) he may define “value” in his own way, and thus make morality a game of tautologies, or B) he may agree that some things are ultimately valuable, apart from people’s opinions. If he chooses A, he is a nihilist, whether or not he realizes it. If he chooses B, he is an objectivist. There is no such thing as a subjectivist about morality, because anyone who chooses A has admitted that there are no truths about the subject. (To call a truth “subjective” is simply to admit that it is not true.)

 

[Sair]

A purely ethical consideration is one in which the ethical standard is the only thing consulted, because the ethical standard corresponds precisely to one’s own self-interest (and the interest of others). Whenever the ethical standard does not not line up with self-interest, the ethical consideration is not pure. But if God does not exist, we have no reason to expect that “moral” actions – by which I mean actions according to some human code or philosophy – will be self-interested actions, which means that it would often be *irrational *to do good.

Some clarity is required here - are you arguing for self-interest, or against it? I agree that self-interest must be construed broadly. If I give to charity because doing so makes me feel happy, is that less noble than if I were to give to charity despite the fact that it made me miserable? In other words, is an absolute sacrifice required for an action to be considered truly ‘moral’?

But that course of action, much as I encourage, seems irrational to the atheist. Why should you care about someone else’s welfare, unless it satisfies some hedonistic desire you have – in which case it is hardly commendable! What makes giving to charity admirable? It is the fact that the welfare of others is objectively good; if this were not the case, then sacrificing yourself for the good of others would always be either irrational or selfish (the satisfaction of hedonistic desire).

Why should I care about the welfare of others? For the simple reason that I would like others to care about my welfare. It’s the golden rule, remember? That is not exclusive to religionist believers. Those who argue that if there is no god, then no morality, are tacitly acknowledging that morality is self-interested. It’s just that religionists imply that a primary motivation for doing good is that their actions are observed by their god, and they want to make a good impression so they will be judged worthy of eternal bliss. How is that not self-interested? You suggest that if there’s no god, we can’t appreciate the value of others. I dispute that conclusion on the basis that we are all human, and the majority of us have the capacity for empathy - we value our own lives and interests, and it is reasonable to assume that others feel the same way. Unless we are hopelessly arrogant, we are capable of acknowledging that the needs of others matter as much as our own.

Fascinating. Many people, in fact, do cook because they enjoy it, but not everyone who does good does it because of consequences. In fact, many of the best people in this world never think about doing good; they have simply trained themselves to be good. They do not think about consequences (except in extreme cases), because thinking about consequences makes us calculating, not good.

On the contrary, thinking about consequences makes us rational. I know that I cook because I enjoy the process of making something to eat, and of course I enjoy the results - cooking therefore results in pleasure, and that’s a good motivation to do it. If people don’t think about doing good, it’s because they are conditioned to do the things that feel right to them, and happiness results. Happiness is the motivation, not the mechanical process of doing something we’ve been told is ‘right’.

Well, of course, I can’t blame you for not believing in heaven if you don’t believe in God. Belief in the afterlife is a derivative belief, derivative from the conviction that the world is fundamentally good. Some of this comes from revelation. But this presents a question: what reason do you have to believe that physical evidence is the only evidence there is? Consider out-of-body experiences that occur in the absence of brain waves. These are (I believe) well-documented; what do you make of them?

Belief in an afterlife does not follow from belief that the world is fundamentally good. I would have thought, rather, that the many imperfections of this world were what made people desire an afterlife of perfect justice and happiness.

Testable, unequivocal evidence is the only evidence that truly justifies belief. I believe that my husband loves me, although I can’t climb inside his head to absolutely confirm this belief. Why do I believe? Because I have innumerable indications from his actions and words to substantiate the conclusion that he loves me. We have no such evidence for the existence of any god, nor of an afterlife. From what I understand about out-of-body experiences, they occur when the heart has stopped, not when the brain has ceased to function. If the latter, revival is not possible, so there would be no reports of the out-of-body experiences.

If you think the evidence for the physical world outside our minds is flimsy, how much more flimsy is the evidence for a spiritual world which offers no external, physical, testable indications?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A really quick response to a misunderstanding, Sair…

I agree that ethics should be self-interested, and that Christian ethics is self-interested (although, of course, not only self-interested).

I’ll respond in more detail to many of the things you have said soon.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The norms are justified on the basis that if everyone adhered to these norms, social cohesion and individual happiness are the consequences. Other values - such as those of your thief - cannot be justified on this basis, because if everyone lived according to those values, social fragmentation and individual misery and fear would be the ultimate results.

I agree. You are in a different boat than Oreo and Antitheist in this conversation, because you make the claim that some things really are valuable (at least, it seems like you do). I respect that claim. But I wonder: what *makes *something good? If someone disagrees, and says that nothing is good in itself, what would you say? Why should they value happiness and social cohesion?

To establish this, if we accept the premise that the universe is godless, what would be your motivation to avoid a life of thievery? Mine would be my conviction that it would result in unhappiness, both for me and for others. I would be obliged to conduct my affairs in secrecy, and that is a stressful way to live. I would also need to live with the knowledge that I was taking things that others might need. While I may have political sensibilities that would make me feel justified in stealing from the wealthy, I could not discount the possibility that one day I would slip up and steal something that someone else really needed - money to pay a debt, for example, or an object that was irreplaceable because of its sentimental value to the owner.

But you seem to be presupposing conventional morality. There are otherwise rational people who steal from others and hide in secrecy. They don’t care about the harm they do others, because they have numbed their conscience to it. What *rational *obligation do they have to change?

Furthermore, if the only motivation for acting morally is the belief that our actions are observed by a god, we can’t really claim to be moral persons - we would be acting under duress.

If so, then any teenager asked to clean his room would be acting under duress. But God clearly isn’t running a reign of terror. Now if – as many atheists demand – God made His presence known to us beyond all doubt – *that *might be a reign of terror!

It’s interesting that you say ‘devout’ believers, as opposed to doubting or wavering believers. I think the essential criterion here is not faith, but living according to one’s principles and ideals, whatever they happen to be.

I would tend to agree, with the caveat that immoral action tends to lead to unhappiness (because of our consciences). But an atheist is fully capable of finding a good deal of happiness and contentment in this life, if his/her principles are robust enough to make them focused on the good of others.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

I really wasn’t “getting at” anything, so I didn’t respond.

You ought to be getting at things within your own thread (of course, that is just my morally relativistic stance )

You seemed to be saying that people had an “inner dialogue, built into us” which kept us within the bounds of conventional morality. But if you look at history, it is quite clear that we don’t.

I don’t know for sure what you think I’m trying to say. I didn’t mention anything about conventional morality. I said that, for the most part, people act in ways that are beneficent to others because it is beneficial to us to do so (social contract) [1]. I said that the internal dialogue, along with socialization, is our propensity to extend the need for our own survival onto the rest of the species [2]. I also said there were outliers (people who show no regard for the quality of life or survival of other people) [3]. So things are permissible because, indeed, I can do anything that I’m capable of doing. Everybody agrees that there should be consequences for wrongful behaviour, however. Most people agree on the what constitute the basic offences against survival. There is debate over what other things count as an offence against our subjective morality, but no matter how arbitrarily (or intuitively) we come up with the rules, all societies generate a system that benefits people in a greater way than anarchy (i.e., “everything is permissible”). So although, in a relative sense, everything is permissible (by virtue of the fact that we are capable of committing an offence), people don’t collectively take advantage of that fact (because there really is no advantage therein).

I’ll mention one more time, for your benefit: their are outliers.

Of course, in times of change and upheaval – where what is right is being redefined – we experience less of the power of evil over the human mind. This accounts for the optimism many modern thinkers have about ethics. When you have accustomed your body to heat, heat seems less hot. When you have accustomed yourself to sin, you can’t even recognize it anymore.

Gibberish. I don’t even know what you’re arguing against or in favour of here.

But you can’t redefine right and wrong to everyone’s liking forever.

Not to the point of absolutism that theism demands, but to varying degrees. I don’t know that anyone would disagree with the assertion that anarchy would be the lowest form of morality, and that our morality (however subjectively interpreted) is greater than anarchy, making us at least relatively moral beings.

 

[Ender]

Where do you get the idea that one isn’t justified in criticizing others’ preferences? Is that opinion not the result of a preference itself?

No, it’s not a preference, it is a conclusion. On what would you base your justification for criticizing anothers choice other than someone was doing something that affected you personally?

This is where the classic theist argument against moral subjectivism crumbles. They state that, if moral subjectivism is the case, then no ethical opinions are of any importance. But then, this claim in itself is an ethical opinion, so the assertion is self-contradictory.

This is a little loosely worded: when you say “subjectivism is the case” are you speaking of a subjectivist living in our world (where the existence of God is unknown) or of everyone living in a subjectivist world (where God does not exist)? In any event, I don’t think the question is really about whether ethical decisions are important but whether (for the subjectivist) they logically exist. If morality no more exists for us than for animals then how would our decisions differ from theirs - e.g. both of us would be acting strictly in our own best interest. The claim that no ethical opinion matters is not an ethical opinion, it is a conclusion that is either correct or incorrect but there is no ethical component to consider.

Well perhaps you can descend from your high pedestal and tell me how your inclinations are derived from greater considerations than mine. To think that I just wake up each morning and rewrite my moral code without a second thought! You have some nerve, dude.

Slow down, that’s not what I meant to imply. For both the theist and the atheist all moral restrictions are self imposed; there is nothing compelling either of them to act in any particular way beyond their own choosing. As as far as that goes both could wake up any morning and completely rewrite their moral codes. The implications of doing so, however, are significantly different. For an atheist it seems that change would be a natural response as one grows in experience and wisdom: what yesterday he believed to be harmful he now realizes is not and therefore is free to indulge that desire. Am I mistaken here?

For the theist, change is not so simple as the rules are laid out and he doesn’t get to change them; he either plays by the rules or finds a different game. Change requires scrapping a world view and starting over.

Because unlike yourself, my personal salvation, whatever I take that to be, isn’t all that concerns me.

I don’t question that but I don’t understand the logic as to why that is.

I’m able to care for the well-being of others because I prefer their happiness, too. Bigots don’t make for a happy population.

If it makes you feel better to see others happy then that would be your reason for making them happy: because it makes you feel better - but would there ever be a reason for you to do anything that was harmful to your interest?

Ender

 

[AntiTheist]

If one values thievery as their art and calling in life, and manages to elude all consequences through the resourcefulness, what ground do we have to criticize them?

On the grounds that the rest of us don’t value thievery.

Look, if some guy wants to be a thief, he’s perfectly free to go for it. But he’s going to have to contend with some obstacles. One huge obstacle will be the fact that every single other person who doesn’t value thievery and who doesn’t want their stuff stolen is going to oppose him and try to punish him.

Why not have the majority dictate to the minority, or the powerful oppress the masses? Sure, there are social norms against this now, but why are these norms justified?

Well, again, “justified” doesn’t make any sense here. There are those of us who value societies without oppression and who would be willing to oppose those who value imposing oppression on others.

You’re getting confused because you want a particular set of values to be magically declared to be “right.” There’s no such thing. There are just values struggling with other values, none of them ultimately right. It happens to be – thanks to thousands of years of civilization – that the vast, vast majority of us share enough of our values that we can have a cooperative society that is beneficial to all of us. That’s it. “Morality” doesn’t enter into the picture anywhere, except insofar as some people want to magically declare their particular set of values to be the “right” ones.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not to the point of absolutism that theism demands, but to varying degrees. I don’t know that anyone would disagree with the assertion that anarchy would be the lowest form of morality, and that our morality (however subjectively interpreted) is greater than anarchy, making us at least relatively moral beings.

When you say that “our morality is greater than anarchy”, what does that mean? How can it be “greater” than something else, if nothing is objectively good? All you’re saying is that we like our morality better than anarchy. Someone who liked anarchy better than our morality would simply say that your statement was false.

If truth is not the same for everyone, it is not truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“Morality” doesn’t enter into the picture anywhere, except insofar as some people want to magically declare their particular set of values to be the “right” ones.

Well, good, then. That’s the conclusion I think every atheist ought to come to. My opinion is that it’s a logical conclusion, but also an absurd conclusion. It means that all you can say to Hitler is, “Boo! I disagree with you!”

The problem is that you picked the wrong premises, at the outset of the conversation. But the logical moves from those premises were perfectly valid.

 

[Sair]

I agree. You are in a different boat than Oreo and Antitheist in this conversation, because you make the claim that some things really are valuable (at least, it seems like you do). I respect that claim. But I wonder: what *makes *something good? If someone disagrees, and says that nothing is good in itself, what would you say? Why should they value happiness and social cohesion?

If it is possible to claim that anything is self-evidently good, I think happiness must be so, almost by definition. Social cohesion, as such, is valuable because it tends to lead to happiness. I can’t imagine how it’s possible for any person not to value happiness, at the very least their own. The question is not whether or not they value happiness, but whether they value other ends over and above happiness, such as the accumulation of wealth. Even then, they may claim that wealth leads to happiness.

But you seem to be presupposing conventional morality. There are otherwise rational people who steal from others and hide in secrecy. They don’t care about the harm they do others, because they have numbed their conscience to it. What *rational *obligation do they have to change?

It is possible to numb one’s conscience to just about anything, given the requisite circumstances. It’s also possible to convince onesself that one has no choice but to act in a certain way. However, both reason and emotion can demonstrate the truth value of such a claim, which is generally not substantial. An analogy may be drawn with the functional alcoholic, who drinks to excess, knows this is a bad thing, but continues the behaviour because they are conditioned to do so, and the consequences of alcohol addiction are not so pronounced as they might be for a chronic alcoholic. Sooner or later, the consequences of the behaviour - both personal and social - will catch up with them, and I believe this is true of any kind of truly antisocial action. It’s not possible to maintain secrecy without considerable stress, and this is a cause of unhappiness.

If so, then any teenager asked to clean his room would be acting under duress. But God clearly isn’t running a reign of terror. Now if – as many atheists demand – God made His presence known to us beyond all doubt – *that *might be a reign of terror!

It’s not so much the notion of a reign of terror, but of constant surveillance. Studies have shown that one of the best deterrents of crime is the belief that one will most likely be caught, regardless of the probable consequences. The point remains, however, that the belief in a god who watches our every action and knows our every thought is a flimsy basis for morality.

I would tend to agree, with the caveat that immoral action tends to lead to unhappiness (because of our consciences). But an atheist is fully capable of finding a good deal of happiness and contentment in this life, if his/her principles are robust enough to make them focused on the good of others.

There is a great deal of truth in the notion that happiness shared is happiness multiplied. Caring about the happiness of others can only enrich our experience of life. I think on this point, at least, we are agreed. :yup:

 

[AntiTheist]

Well, good, then. That’s the conclusion I think every atheist ought to come to. My opinion is that it’s a logical conclusion, but also an absurd conclusion. It means that all you can say to Hitler is, “Boo! I disagree with you!”

Well, actually, we can say a great deal more than that. Remember, I’m not against making value judgments. We’re perfectly free to pass judgment on Hitler’s values and actions and conclude that he is a small, biggoted, dangerous SOB who needs to be dealt with for the security of the rest of the world.

There’s nothing “absurd” about this.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

When you say that “our morality is greater than anarchy”, what does that mean? How can it be “greater” than something else, if nothing is objectively good? All you’re saying is that we like our morality better than anarchy. Someone who liked anarchy better than our morality would simply say that your statement was false.

If truth is not the same for everyone, it is not truth.

In some sense, that’s right. You’re generating the same reponse as I am; that morality is socially constructed.

Since we both acknowledge that to be the case - I’m defining morality as the extent to which a thing or behaviour is socially approved (because it is after all, socially constructed). It’s subjective; it’s democratic; it’s fickle, but it’s all that we have. Anarchy, in it’s extremity, is rarely or never socially approved. The thing that is more socially approved will be the more moral choice (at least given the resources that we have at the time), via our individual authority to make and receive claims by reciprocation. It’s subjective in that there is no higher governance to determine such things, but moral issues (at least at their core) are highly agreed upon - and that’s really the best we can work with.

As C.S. Lewis has said, our differences in morality never amount to anything like total difference:

“Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired”

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Well, actually, we can say a great deal more than that. Remember, I’m not against making value judgments. We’re perfectly free to pass judgment on Hitler’s values and actions and conclude that he is a small, biggoted, dangerous SOB who needs to be dealt with for the security of the rest of the world.

There’s nothing “absurd” about this.

Exactly. I’d like to tie this in with my “reciprocal claim-making” argument.

 

[Ender]

Caring about others is beneficial to us (you can certainly think of reasons why a system built on cooperation is more amenable to our survival than a system built on anarchy). That’s logical.

But isn’t it equally logical to hold that as soon as caring about others ceases to be beneficial to me I should cease caring? If you want to argue that it is good to care for others you can only do so on that basis that it is in some way beneficial to you but isn’t this the same as saying that I not only can but should do whatever I believe is good for me?

Well it’s a good thing because it benefits everyone, not just me.

Why is that a good thing; why should I care about anyone unless I personally benefit from it? Let me use this example:

In 1535, Richard Rich gave perjured testimony against Thomas More. As a result of that testimony More was beheaded and Rich was made Chancellor of England and a baron with a great estate. He died in his own bed of old age at the age of 73.

Is there any basis on which you could condemn Rich’s behavior? Or, given his spectacular personal success, why wouldn’t you hold him up as a model and condemn More’s behavior which caused not only his own death but brought misery and hardship to his family?

Ender