In Atheism can objective morality exist through evolution?

[jcm2017]

Might cannot make right.
Very simple.

The political ethics you propose above are relativist quicksand.

 

[niceatheist]

Might cannot make right.
Very simple.

The political ethics you propose above are relativist quicksand.

All too often, might as made right, at least temporarily. But that’s also part of my point. Dictatorships never seem to sustain themselves long. Where the ruling class seems wholly bent on its own interests, like, say Stalinist Russia, eventually the system will reform or fall. It’s my point that our ideas of morals and ethics, to a large extent, are based on our parents’ morals and ethics, going back a long long way. We don’t just concoct a whole new set of morals and other fundamental philosophical precepts with each generation, but societies will alter them over time.

Two hundred years ago in many Western countries, in particular in the Anglo-saxon world, women were chattel; a daughter was effectively the property of her father, until she was married, at which point ownership was transferred to her husband. Despite the fact that such a system created generations of misery for some women, it wasn’t until the 19th century that some began to question this, and women began to gain clearer property rights, and ultimately, the right to vote and hold political office. By now, the view of women as inferior beings who need to be under the protection of a wiser male is viewed as anathemic even among many of the more social conservative groups in the West. That’s a pretty significant shift in the moral, ethical and philosophical view of half the world’s population.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Let’s see how much of this I can type on a phone before hopping on a plane…

This is fanning out to separate topics.

1. Can atheist develop morality?
2. What can be inferred about ones morality given their position to the god-proposition?
3. How is conflict resolved when there is a moral disagreement

I’ve given my answer to the first one in previous posts. To summarize here my answer is “yes.”

To the second one the answer is “not much.” Knowing that someone believes there is a god/gods/God doesn’t by itself inform of the person’s morality. This are some behaviours that if seen by someone as moral might imply their position on the god-proposition (ex:a person that thinks it is wrong to use a name of God in a disrespectful way even if there is no one around to hear it probably thinks there is a God, though not all people that believe there is a God will conform to this).

Your question falls in the third category.

One person believes that eradicating inferior human beings is a societal good, and he feels it deeply, and might have deep care for others.

I had actually written a related paragraph about this but declined to post it earlier. While you’ve written this as a hypothetical it is also part of the history of the USA (but not only the USA). Various states in the USA had eugenic programs. One might go in or encourage another to go in for a vitamin shot without realizing that it was actual chemical sterilization. A woman might go into a hospital to give birth to a child and be sterilized without her consent or of being informed of it. A victim of this action might not ever be aware it was done to her. To The targets of these actions were primarily indigenous Americans, African-Americans, and of any race classification women in poor economic conditions or disabled in some way. Such programs were promoted by bad information but upheld by the Supreme Court (Buck v. Bell). California lead the eugenics pathway in the USA publishing several papers that were consumed by and influenced Nazi scientist. The SCOTUS support was never expressly overturned and post war aspects of up show up from time to time (such as aims at sterilizing people serving jail or prison time). It is believed that the the connection between the USA and German eugenics programs and Germany having documented, photographed, and made video records of their implementations contributed to a drop in popularity of the ideas because it made the suffering visible. The ideas of eugenics were supported by bad science and misinformation that didn’t stand up long term. While there was a drop in the popularity the idea of it is not dead. It could be said to have never been completely dealt with.

(Continued)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There’s not a universal panacea for resolving conflicts on moral evaluations. It’s a problem that we deal with living in diverse society. People within the same religion may also disagree on some more questions. There have been multiple responses to dealing with conflicts. Dialog between those that disagree sometimes helps. At times it has been helpful to those negatively affected when they are to make their voices heard and their suffering visible. This has been done though lawful protest, illegal protest, civil disobedience, or convincing someone with a voice that other groups will hear to speak. Some improvements have come out of threatening the interest of those with influential power for the issues at hand. Boycotts are one way in which economic interests were threatened. Wars and violence have been used to threaten a broader rance if interest including safety and stability. Those using the violent solution may have their own internal conflicts.

When these discussions come up here in C.A.F. I frequently imagine a hostage situation and engaging someone that feels he is justified in holding hostages. Through dialog it may be possible to convince him to change his position. Or it may not, and when it’s not as a backup options sometimes involve violence.

 

[Bradskii]

Both hide the problem of what makes a reasonable human being good by presuming good and rational human beings to be the standard by which decisions are made.

The golden rule – do unto others as YOU would have them do to you – presumes a good and reasonable human being as the standard by which to decide what ought to be done to others. Fine if you are a decent moral being. What if you are not? What then are you to do to others if you are, for example, sado-masochistic or narcissistic? The golden rule would seem much less workable, no?

Similarly, Kant’s categorical imperative presumes something like good faith, a functionally moral practical reasoning ability, and good moral character in order to properly “universalize” moral actions.

Maybe when Jesus suggested that we ‘do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets’ you’d be up the back shouting: ‘Well, that’s all well and good…but what about the sado masochists and narcissists, eh? Doesn’t seem to work then, does it!’

Well, no. It doesn’t. But if you ask a thousand people would you like to be robbed or beaten or raped, then you’d get pretty much universal agreement on the matter. Yes, there are those in society who do not and will not play by societies rules. That has always been the case and always will be, whatever method of discerning moral matters you’d care to use.

Let’s face it, if the love of God and the prospect of heaven (and the fear of hell) doesn’t work – and it patently doesn’t for countless Christians, then what would you suggest? My suggestion would be to make all due allowance for those who don’t pass muster and we can deal with them in the here and now.

Which is precisely what we do already. From jailing rapists to ostracising the racist and shunning the tight wad who doesn’t buy his round. But that doesn’t mean that this will end rape or that racism will cease to exist. Or that misers will suddenly become profligate with their hard-earned. If you are looking for a moral system that results in a perfect world then first you have to populate it with perfect people who will not take advantage of the systems we put in place.

 

[Bradskii]

And you don’t need to be of good character or have good faith to give an honest answer to the question that Kant’s Categorical Imperative asks. Would anyone want to be beaten because of their colour? Would anyone agree that his possessions could be taken by anyone at any time? Would anyone want to be paid less than someone doing equivalent work?

Obviously not. And the reasonable person (and believe it or not, most of us are) takes that to the next step and must agree that if it’s a rule that protects someone from harming him, then it’s also a rule that prevents him from harming others. Whether we all follow this or not (and most of us do, otherwise we wouldn’t be here), we all recognise it.

As far as I am concerned, a practical method such as Jesus Himself has suggested and as Kant has expanded on, is a much more robust system than any claim that there is some ephemeral standard of morality which we can only attain by virtue of a belief in gods.

 

[HarryStotle]

As far as I am concerned, a practical method such as Jesus Himself has suggested and as Kant has expanded on, is a much more robust system than any claim that there is some ephemeral standard of morality which we can only attain by virtue of a belief in gods.

No one denied that the practical method suggested by Jesus and “expanded” by Kant wasn’t robust, given that it is a good and reasonable moral agent who implements that practical method. Fortunately, we have a western society that has been formed by sound Judeo-Christian beliefs regarding the inherent value of all human beings, that has also implemented that method over many centuries, and there still exists a basic understanding of those moral principles and an implementation of that method in most modern societies.

However, cracks are beginning to appear as belief in “ephemeral standards” wanes and the moral principles that ground the implementation of that practical method become less obvious to more individuals.

We are already seeing individuals and groups who are separating themselves from empathy with others and identifying with their specific “groups” or “identities” that denigrate or diminish the worth of anyone not in their group, even to the point of claiming they are right to stop those “others” from having opinions or from exerting their rights, or demanding that everyone respect some newly contrived right or other.

This separation of human beings into distinct value groups occurred in socialist countries through a great part of the 20th century with death tolls reaching over a 100 million. The denial of the humanity of human fetuses, more recently, has resulted in the deaths of 1.4 billion human beings since the 1970s, worldwide.

Whenever that “ephemeral standard” of morality gets subverted, the human casualty count seems to rise exorbitantly, in spite of the protestations of the aggressors and transgressors who merely shuffle their victims from the category “other humans” (Do unto ‘others’) and displace them to the category “not human” or “less than human,” so that universal “moral” rules continue to retain a modicum of respectability, even when these “rules” permit all manner of mayhem.

Sure, the practical method works very well since it is amenable to any current moral practice, even to the practical benefit and delight of those who wish to justify gross immorality and inhumanity, because the category “human” is fungible.

It is easy to point to the success of that method, all the while ignoring the abuses of it.

 

[HarryStotle]

Maybe when Jesus suggested that we ‘do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets’ you’d be up the back shouting: ‘Well, that’s all well and good…but what about the sado masochists and narcissists, eh? Doesn’t seem to work then, does it!’

Actually, I was also thinking of communists like Stalin, National Socialists like Hitler, anti-fascists, eugenicists, abortionists, race supremacists of all stripes, cultural elites, slave owners, and pretty much anyone who finds the category “human” to be shifting and flexible according to their own determinations and standards.

In short, the character of the moral agent will always determine how the practical rules will be implemented.

That is why moral beings and moral ends are far more critical than the application of practical methods.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Maybe when Jesus suggested that we ‘do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets’ you’d be up the back shouting: ‘Well, that’s all well and good…but what about the sado masochists and narcissists, eh? Doesn’t seem to work then, does it!’

Actually, I was also thinking of communists like Stalin, National Socialists like Hitler, anti-fascists, eugenicists, abortionists, race supremacists of all stripes, cultural elites, slave owners, and pretty much anyone who finds the category “human” to be shifting and flexible according to their own determinations and standards.

In short, the character of the moral agent will always determine how the practical rules will be implemented.

That is why moral beings and moral ends are far more critical than the application of practical methods.

I have no disagreement with anything above. But the question in the op didn’t ask if we have evolved perfectly. We haven’t. So whatever method you use to determine moral actions, there will always be those who do not play by the rules. Whatever your beliefs. Or lack of them.

 

[HarryStotle]

I have no disagreement with anything above. But the question in the op didn’t ask if we have evolved perfectly. We haven’t. So whatever method you use to determine moral actions, there will always be those who do not play by the rules. Whatever your beliefs. Or lack of them.

We don’t need to try to explain why there are some who don’t play by the rules or why some lack certain beliefs; what we need to explain are the rules themselves and how you (Bradskii) would recognize which of those might be “perfect” or nearly so, morally speaking, and which are decidedly not.

So a number of questions remain to be answered.

When you say we haven’t “evolved perfectly,” what is it that makes the word ‘perfectly’ at all meaningful without some reference to what we might actually be like when we attain to being “perfect?” I am assuming this “perfection” has some reference to morality and not merely survivability.

Assuming it does have something to do with humans qua moral agents, evolution might explain to some degree how we got here or why we might not be “perfect,” but it doesn’t explain the ideas of morality, moral agency and what you might mean by being “perfect,” if you do mean something like “morally perfect.”

Ergo, you would still need to reference teleology in terms of how things ought to be in the end if we are “evolving” in some meaningful way towards that “perfection.” Nor does evolution explain WHY we might even be on any kind of path towards that end.

It wouldn’t resolve any aspect of that question if evolution were the “end of story,” because the way we are would simply be the way we are and we truly aren’t “evolving” in any meaningful sense unless you impose some kind of cobbled together value system based upon some way you want things to end up. Even then, that would assume you have some power or autonomy to change the course of the process rather than are confined merely to suffering the process to whatever end it arrives at.

That was my point in post 94, where I stated:

Morality requires a proper teleology or end state of being and at least adequate moral agency – I.e., agents who apprehend that end state as imperative. Absent those you end up with a cobbled together pragmatism which sort of resembles morality.

Any time you insert a qualifier like “perfection” which necessarily points at the way things “ought” to be – and morality would seem to imply a categorical imperative and not merely a subjectively or pragmatically preferred state, because those would not entail obligation on anyone’s part – then the way things are or how they got that way (evolution) cannot account for that “ought,” especially if it IS categorical and imperative.

 

[HarryStotle]

In what way would you discount the Categorical Imperative?

So you see, I am not “discounting,” I am asking you to explain how Categorical Imperatives can be derived from the way things are or how they got that way – i.e., evolution – without reference to teleology? OUGHTS (especially categorically imperative, moral OUGHTS) do not derive easily from “ISes,” especially when those only result from randomness and natural selection.

 

[HarryStotle]

The only end point is the here and now. And it will continue to evolve so long as there are humans.

Morality entails obligation or the imperative to behave in certain ways.

If the only “end point is the here and now,” then you seem to be claiming that we have some kind of moral obligation to act in the way determined by humans in the here and now.

That would seem problematic if you want to allow those “codes of conduct” to change where other behaviours become obligatory in a hundred or a thousand years.

Tell me what those standards could possibly be and we can cut to the chase and just carry those out now.

I submit that you would have no grounds for proposing what those standards might be because you allow that they could be just about anything. But if anything could be the standard at any time, why am I obligated to live by that groundless standard here and now?

Makes no sense that imperative moral principles should be baseless and shifting for no reason except that is the way they are.

Ergo, your conclusion…

There is no ultimate standard.

If there is no ultimate standard, then I have no imperative or obligation to live up to temporary codes of conduct as if they are morally binding. And if I have no such obligation, then neither does anyone else.

Malicious, sadistic dictators have no obligation because there is no “right,” no “absolute standard,” nothing by which they are to be held accountable. Their “code of conduct” is the one they choose to live by and they are no more wrong or right than you or I, according to your “no ultimate standard” conclusion.

It would seem to me that your moral standard is by default “no ultimate standard,” which means you have no obligation to live by any standard NOT EVEN the one you now choose.

As a moral agent then, your explicit moral conclusion is that you are free to live any way you choose and are not obligated to do or refrain from doing anything. That becomes your moral system, by default.

Oh sure, you can claim that is not your system because you have imposed upon yourself moral standards, but if you are completely free to change or alter those as you choose because “no ultimate standard” exists, then your morality is merely capricious and with just as much justification could be anything else.

Even sadistic, malicious, brutal dictators have their "standards,’ which may not be ultimate, but are NO better or worse than yours without a clear ultimate standard by which to assess or compare them. AND you hold there is no such standard.

 

[Rosa]

Wow this is such an interesting question! I am not sure to be honest. I think that Atheists, ones that I have met seem to have strong morality. They have a good sense of right and wrong. Perhaps it has to do with experience and evolution? What was necessary for survival? I find that although I am catholic my values and moral compass are the same as atheists, we just believe different things, or in atheist case, lack of belief. Perhaps morality can come from different perspectives? I was raised in Poland to think that anyone who didn’t believe in God was not moral and lacked compassion. But this was wrong, my experience has taught me that people derive morality from different ways. I think this question brings about all sorts of various answers.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the difference in your approach and mine is that you believe that morality is prescriptive. That there are rules ‘out there’ somewhere which we need to discover. You assume an objective morality and naturally want to know where it is.

Life is a journey. But you keep asking where we are going, and my answer is: I have no idea. Because I don’t believe that there is an end point. The journey is all that there is.

Now when Jesus said ‘Love your neighbour’, he hadn’t just had a brilliant idea that no-one else had had before. He wasn’t giving us rules for living. He was saying that loving your neighbour is what has got us so far on this journey. That looking after others and being cognisant of their rights has enabled us to form societies. Has enabled civilisation.

So He was pointing out to us what has got us so far. And emphasising that we should actively employ it.

Nobody makes moral rules. There weren’t a few guys sitting around a fire in times past suggesting that, hey - if we stop stealing each others stuff and cut out all the violence then life would be a lot easier. It’s only the people that didn’t steal and kill each other that were able to form societies. And succeeding generations had the same propensity for not stealing and killing. And then made some rules for punishing those that did so that society could get on with growing food and building houses and developing art and brewing beer and raising families.

Now Kant worked out a practical method of discerning moral ‘rules’. So if you were unsure about a particular course of action, you could ask yourself: how would it affect me if someone else were to act in the same manner. So you don’t steal your neighbours lawn mower because you wouldn’t want someone to steal yours.

Jesus said the same thing, but He didn’t bother explaining the nuts and bolts of the system. He didn’t explain where these ‘rules’ come from and why they worked. And He didn’t suggest having an internal q and a session to determine what they are likely to be. He was more succinct. He just said: ‘Love you neighbour’. Nice and simple. Handy to put on a bumper sticker.

So there’s no teleology. Because if there’s no final destination, there’s no end goal. And there’s no ultimate objective morality. Morality is just what we call the ways in which we live which results in a relatively peaceful and stable society. If you think it could be improved at any given moment (and it always can), then use the Categorical Imperative.

 

[josh987654321]

No.

Why or why not?

Because there is no objective morality in Atheism, only subjective. There really is objective morality, which is why as fallible people atheistic morals will get some things right, but will inevitably get others wrong. They start from a flawed premise and will reach flawed conclusions.

The following I believe may help -

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[STT]

I think the difference in your approach and mine is that you believe that morality is prescriptive. That there are rules ‘out there’ somewhere which we need to discover. You assume an objective morality and naturally want to know where it is.

Life is a journey. But you keep asking where we are going, and my answer is: I have no idea. Because I don’t believe that there is an end point. The journey is all that there is.

Now when Jesus said ‘Love your neighbour’, he hadn’t just had a brilliant idea that no-one else had had before. He wasn’t giving us rules for living. He was saying that loving your neighbour is what has got us so far on this journey. That looking after others and being cognisant of their rights has enabled us to form societies. Has enabled civilisation.

So He was pointing out to us what has got us so far. And emphasising that we should actively employ it.

Nobody makes moral rules. There weren’t a few guys sitting around a fire in times past suggesting that, hey - if we stop stealing each others stuff and cut out all the violence then life would be a lot easier. It’s only the people that didn’t steal and kill each other that were able to form societies. And succeeding generations had the same propensity for not stealing and killing. And then made some rules for punishing those that did so that society could get on with growing food and building houses and developing art and brewing beer and raising families.

Now Kant worked out a practical method of discerning moral ‘rules’. So if you were unsure about a particular course of action, you could ask yourself: how would it affect me if someone else were to act in the same manner. So you don’t steal your neighbours lawn mower because you wouldn’t want someone to steal yours.

Jesus said the same thing, but He didn’t bother explaining the nuts and bolts of the system. He didn’t explain where these ‘rules’ come from and why they worked. And He didn’t suggest having an internal q and a session to determine what they are likely to be. He was more succinct. He just said: ‘Love you neighbour’. Nice and simple. Handy to put on a bumper sticker.

So there’s no teleology. Because if there’s no final destination, there’s no end goal. And there’s no ultimate objective morality. Morality is just what we call the ways in which we live which results in a relatively peaceful and stable society. If you think it could be improved at any given moment (and it always can), then use the Categorical Imperative.

That was a nice reading.

 

[IWantGod]

So there’s no teleology

Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your argument. Best you say you don’t believe there is a moral teleology.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So there’s no teleology

Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your argument. Best you say you don’t believe there is a moral teleology.

If you mean that I am suggesting that moral rules such as ‘don’t kill’ and ‘don’t steal’ are the purpose for forming societies and civilisation, then you are looking at the situation from the wrong direction.

As I posted earlier, no-one decided that certain moral rules were required to reach a particular goal. Certain traits that became relatively common gave a particular result. Which was civilisation.

If humans has evolved in a way that resulted in 7 or 8 live births per conception, then a requirement for getting off the African plains might have been a rule that said ‘kill the weaker babies so that the stronger will survive’. And that would have been considered the right thing to do.

As it turns out, up until very recently, nature took care of the problem of too many children and a great many died in infancy (according to my family Bible, more than half the children born to my great great grandparents died before they were two years old).

Where we are today is not an end point. It’s not even a way point. There is no final destination. There is no purpose in the long run.

Obviously, with a belief in God, your mileage is going to vary significantly from mine. My belief is that your religion has clouded how you think about these things. Whereas you believe it gives you greater clarity.

It will always be thus.

 

[HarryStotle]

I think the difference in your approach and mine is that you believe that morality is prescriptive. That there are rules ‘out there’ somewhere which we need to discover. You assume an objective morality and naturally want to know where it is.

Actually, this isn’t my approach. There are no “rules out there” to speak of except as guide posts. The end or teleology that I am referring to is ontological in character. There is an end state of being towards which we are headed, but it isn’t a natural one. We don’t simply live morally to get along in relative peace on earth. That might be a starting point, but growth in understanding or wisdom, in virtue and in unity with God and each other is taking us towards a state of being or existence far beyond the confines of this earthly existence. This is merely a training ground

We can be content with striving to get along in this life, enjoying the goods which are found in the natural order. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that these goods aren’t as fulfilling as they might seem after we’ve had our fill. We get glimpses of life beyond the temporal order for which we are in training and development in this life. It is that end of which I am speaking.

Perfecting ourselves in this life by properly exercising the virtues unique to natural humanity is a start, but these are the first steps only. As we develop those natural virtues, we begin to see glimpses of what lies beyond.

You might insist this life is all there is and all we need to focus on is getting through it, and that is all well and good. However, if that is it, then it would seem a fruitless endeavor, in the end. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die would seem to sum it up quite well, if we are honest and truly believe this is it. I don’t think that is the case, so I’ll continue with a larger moral landscape in mind.