Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[minkymurph]

“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemies, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his daughters and wives.” - Genghis Khan

In this world, different situations call for different solutions. What makes sense in one circumstance is folly in another. While here behind enemy lines still, those who seek eternal happiness should will the good of the other, to make this a kingdom of God. Common sense dictates this when love is in our hearts.

I’m all for willing the good of other. :bounce:

I also think the ‘other’ has a right to determine what ‘good’ is within their capacity, in accordance with the Rule of Law, and does not infringe the rights of others.

 

[o_mlly]

“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemies, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his daughters and wives.” - Genghis Khan

In this world, different situations call for different solutions. What makes sense in one circumstance is folly in another. While here behind enemy lines still, those who seek eternal happiness should will the good of the other, to make this a kingdom of God. Common sense dictates this when love is in our hearts.

Man’s reason (common sense) wounded by the fall can no longer know the natural law with certainty.

CCC#2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.

 

[inocente]

Sorry innocent but that is not even close to what I meant.

Apologies I’m so thick and ignorant . Do you mean you’re claiming moral propositions reflect unknowable objective truths?

Again inocente this is not where I was going.

‘Let the other be the other’ is a principle in terms of a tool for debate with objective of arriving at a consensus. ‘Letting the other be the other’ does not entail letting the other do whatever they want.

You said “If whatever theory we propose involves changing what ‘the other’ (anyone who does not share our views or outright opposes them) thinks or believes, we are obliged to change what they think and believe in order for our objectives to be realized.”

I am saying that the thoughts and beliefs of child rapists don’t play any part in debate or in arriving at a consensus.

Is ‘let the other be the other’ your own maxim, or do you have a source?

 

[Peter_J]

My estimate of the number of regular posters on this philosophy forum still differs from yours by several orders of magnitude.

That’s actually easy to explain: what I was saying is that somewhere between 0.0001% and 0.001% of Catholics are “active CAF posters”, emphasis added, not just this particular section.

P.s. I trust you’ll agree that 0.0001% is a small percentage.

 

[inocente]

Man’s reason (common sense) wounded by the fall can no longer know the natural law with certainty.

The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: “the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts” (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, “natural law”). - iep.utm.edu/natlaw/

When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the thesis of Aquinas’s natural law theory that comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The notion that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6). - plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

(my emphases)

 

[inocente]

That’s actually easy to explain: what I was saying is that somewhere between 0.0001% and 0.001% of Catholics are “active CAF posters”, emphasis added, not just this particular section.

P.s. I trust you’ll agree that 0.0001% is a small percentage.

---

Bishop Cantú is on record as saying "The Catholic Church firmly believes that torture is an ‘intrinsic evil’ that cannot be justified under any circumstance.” - en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/13/us_bishops_say_torture_a_betrayal_of_nations_values/1114614

(I seem to remember JPII stating the same somewhere on vatican.va).

If I remember how our conversation started, I said I was surprised at two Catholic posters who claimed that torturing a suspected terrorist is justified as it may save lives. From memory, their claim was that the Church saying torture “cannot be justified under any circumstance” excludes any circumstance where it is justified. :ehh:

No other posters leaped in to challenge them, and I think perhaps quite a few American Catholics would take their same utilitarian position that torture cannot be justified under any circumstance except where it is. It may be the American common sense.

 

[Vonsalza]

The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example…

An atheist would identify this as pseudo-religious. Additionally, they wouldn’t find Aquinas (a brilliant Catholic) to be a valid, sound source for secular moral law as he was not a particularly secular thinker.

Ergo, it’s not super-pertinent to the discussion of atheistic morality.

The best “secular nature” provides in the way of innate morality is reciprocal altruism. An example is low-ranking male baboons working together to “bed” female baboons that are mate-guarded by other higher-ranking males. They work together provided there’s an net-individual benefit (thus: “reciprocation”).

This is hardly an example of altruistic morality as we generally think of it. But it’s the best nature gives us. It’s not even that common. By far, most species on our planet don’t exercise it. Those that do also exercise relative cruelty.

 

[Peter_J]

Bishop Cantú

Afraid I don’t know anyone with that screen name. What is his post count?

 

[inocente]

Afraid I don’t know anyone with that screen name. What is his post count?

And there was me citing Vatican Radio to you. What was I thinking. Fake news you reckon?

Here’s his CV, you decide:

https://www.dioceseoflascruces.org/pictures/2016/10/web banner 2016_3.jpg

https://www.dioceseoflascruces.org/pictures/2016/1/bc_2013-2.jpg

“Most Rev. Oscar Cantú, S.T.D was born December 5, 1966, in Houston, TX, the son of Ramiro and Maria de Jesus Cantú, natives of small towns near Monterey in Mexico. He is the fifth of eight children, five boys, and three girls. Bishop Cantú attended Holy Name Catholic School and St. Thomas High School in Houston, and he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Dallas, TX. He received his Masters in Divinity and Masters in Theological Studies from the University of St. Thomas also in Houston. He attended the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome Italy where he earned his S.T.L. Licentiate in Sacred Theology, as well as his S.T.D., Doctorate in Sacred Theology in Dogmatic Theology. Bishop Cantú was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Houston in 1994.” - dioceseoflascruces.org/most-rev-oscar-cantu****

 

[EnosJadon]

It would be nice if we could all have this kumbaya moment and mutually decide that the world would be a much better place if we all just got along, but that’s probably not gonna happen. Natural selection usually isn’t swayed by appeals to moral and ethical arguments. Fortunately for us, in our case natural selection is swayed to some degree. As far as humanity goes, natural selection is biased toward altruism and nurturing. Which may seem like a strange thing to say, especially for me, so let me see if I can explain.

When it comes to natural selection two things are crucial, survival and reproduction. If you can do those two things efficiently then the odds of your progeny enduring greatly increase. But there are varying stategies that a species can employ in order to achieve that efficiency. As an example, let’s examine human reproduction. One strategy is the monogamous relationship. A couple pair bonds for life, has children, and then works more or less together to ensure that those children reach adulthood with the tools necessary to repeat the process. An alternate strategy is to engage in numerous relationships without any concern for the future of one’s offspring at all. The first strategy works because although it may produce fewer offspring, it increases the chances that those offspring will survive. The second strategy works because although the lack of parental nurturing may decrease the likelihood of the offspring’s survival, the potential for a greater number of offspring offsets the lower survival rate.

So you have two differing strategies, and numerous variations inbetween. Each successful in their own right. Ranging from nurturing and altruistic, to self-centered and indifferent. But the thing is that the indifferent strategy is dependent to some degree for the survival of their offspring upon the nurturing tendencies of the other strategy. If I’m not going to nurture and raise my children, then I’m dependent upon someone else to do it for me. If no one does, then the chances of my offspring surviving go way down, and the strategy no longer works.

The fact that human offspring are dependent upon the nurturing of others for their survival, means that nurturing and altruism are the pre-eminent survival strategy among humans. Other strategies succeed only in-so-far as they exploit this underlying altruistic strategy to their benefit. And natural selection, as natural selection is want to do, will find a balance between them.

Unfortunately this struggle between selfless and selfish seems to be an inevitable consequence of natural selection. One which neither religion, nor socialism, nor any other form of human construct seems capable of overcoming. Because the overarching driving force behind natural selection is survival and reproduction. However it also seems that nurturing and altruism are similarly fundamental to human nature. So whether they find their expression in religious dogma, social norms, or civil laws, is secondary to the fact that those moral codes are always going to be there in one form or another. No society can persist without some form of moral and ethical code. Some may argue that religion is the most effective means of instilling obedience to that code, but others may argue that religion’s aversion to change will inevitably force it to either adapt or die. Evolution may be just as true for religion as it is for everything else.

It could be argued that inevitably it’s religion and its moral codes that conform to common sense, and not the other way around.

 

[Peter_J]

Here’s his CV, you decide:

https://www.dioceseoflascruces.org/pictures/2016/10/web banner 2016_3.jpg

https://www.dioceseoflascruces.org/pictures/2016/1/bc_2013-2.jpg

“Most Rev. Oscar Cantú, S.T.D was born December 5, 1966, in Houston, TX, the son of Ramiro and Maria de Jesus Cantú, natives of small towns near Monterey in Mexico. He is the fifth of eight children, five boys, and three girls. Bishop Cantú attended Holy Name Catholic School and St. Thomas High School in Houston, and he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Dallas, TX. He received his Masters in Divinity and Masters in Theological Studies from the University of St. Thomas also in Houston. He attended the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome Italy where he earned his S.T.L. Licentiate in Sacred Theology, as well as his S.T.D., Doctorate in Sacred Theology in Dogmatic Theology. Bishop Cantú was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Houston in 1994.” - dioceseoflascruces.org/most-rev-oscar-cantu****

Okay fair enough. (I’ll take on faith that that’s as much work, or more, than I did when I created a screen name and password. )

 

[robsully]

Hello all, please excuse my tardiness in joining the sandbox.
Regarding the OP, “common sense” would be valid if one is not concerned with the reliability of the observations. I believe this has been well covered throughout the thread.
Now to ask, has religion given humanity morality? And I would have to say…yes without doubt. Some of the actions religions have sanctioned include child/human sacrifice, genocide, child mutilation, slavery, rape, animal sacrifice, homophobia, and theft just to name a few.
But as we can all see this is no longer the case in most modern religions (Christianity included) . So it would appear that religions, over time, have …evolved.
It should also be noted that morality/a sense of fairness, emotions, and self awareness has been demonstrated in animals part from humans.
As modern religions now preach compassion,love, self sacrifice and charity, it should be also noted that there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that it is mandated by God.
The same burden of proof required by Atheists to prove their explanation(s) should be required by Theists to prove their explanation(s). If this burden has been met, by either side, my apologies on over looking the posts, it has been a lengthy thread.
Thank you

 

[o_mlly]

The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: “the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts” (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, “natural law”). - iep.utm.edu/natlaw/

When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the thesis of Aquinas’s natural law theory that comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The notion that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6). - plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

(my emphases)

This group seems to stumble with every attempt to define and agree on a basic definition of human nature – the basis of the natural law.

The penalty for disobeying the natural law is often not immediate nor certain to fall on or only on the transgressors. We live in community so for the sake of the community we are obligated to limit the transgressions in as much as we have the grace to do so.

 

[o_mlly]

… that nurturing and altruism are the pre-eminent survival strategy among humans. …

If there is a pre-eminent strategy then there must be a pre-eminent Strategist. No?

 

[minkymurph]

Apologies I’m so thick and ignorant . Do you mean you’re claiming moral propositions reflect unknowable objective truths?

My dear inocente it is nowhere near as complicated as that and you are not thick and ignorant.

‘Letting the other be the other’ simply means dealing with the person in front of you as who and what they are and not who and what you would like them to be where disagreements arise, actively engaging them in the decision making process in terms of who and what they are and not who and what you would like them to be, and arriving at a consensus that incorporates their contributions of which you can live with and vice versa.

To illustrate, if our opponent is an atheist and achieving our objective demands we initially persuade them God exists, chances are we will be fighting a loosing battle. The same can be said in regard to the atheist that is compelled to convince the theist there is no God in order to make progress.

This principle can be applied to other circumstances. If achieving our objectives requires convincing; Catholic Mary is not Mother of God, a Protestant of Apostolic Succession, a trade unionist Margaret Thatcher was the best thing that ever happened to Britain or a British Conservative the monarchy should be disestablished chances are we are onto a looser. ‘Letting the other be the other’ enables us to formulate arguments THEY not WE may find persuasive. No one ever had any difficulty convincing themselves of their own arguments.

You said “If whatever theory we propose involves changing what ‘the other’ (anyone who does not share our views or outright opposes them) thinks or believes, we are obliged to change what they think and believe in order for our objectives to be realized.”

I am saying that the thoughts and beliefs of child rapists don’t play any part in debate or in arriving at a consensus.

Rape is a crime whether it is committed in regard to a child or an adult, no one is calling for decriminalization of rape. ‘Letting the other be other’ does not mean anything goes. We don’t ‘let’ people be criminals.

I saw a documentary about a self confessed pedophile who was campaigning in the Netherlands for the age of consent to be abolished, and argued children are capable of consent. The interviewer was a therapist who works in prisons primarily with pedophiles, and she dealt with him as who and what he is - a child rapist. She is also of the opinion pedophiles don’t change.

Is ‘let the other be the other’ your own maxim, or do you have a source?

I believe I coined the phrase, though I wouldn’t be surprised if someone, somewhere had said it or something like it before - but it’s not my own idea. Progress was made in Northern Ireland when opposing sides in the conflict recognized each others national identity, and started dealing with each other accordingly as opposed to assimilation and repatriation that were advocated in the past.

 

[Vonsalza]

…so let me see if I can explain…

It’s all good-and-well to say that humans both nurture their young and are reciprocally altruistic. But that’s an incomplete moral “doxology” for the atheist, if looking at it from evolutionary biology.

Yes, we do innately nurture our own (whatever we define that as) and cooperate in mutual goodwill with our tribesmen.

But from an evolutionary perspective, we also horde resources for ourselves (to the detriment of others) and make war upon outsiders of the same species.

It’s more honest and accurate to describe our evolved biological moral scheme as “tribal” - with both the wonders and horrors tribalism inherently encapsulates. Citing generic “altruism” is incomplete and dishonest.

However, you may actually be as good as you think you are. But a very large part of that cannot be explained via natural selection.

 

[EnosJadon]

It’s all good-and-well to say that humans both nurture their young and are reciprocally altruistic. But that’s an incomplete moral “doxology” for the atheist, if looking at it from evolutionary biology.

Yes, we do innately nurture our own (whatever we define that as) and cooperate in mutual goodwill with our tribesmen.

But from an evolutionary perspective, we also horde resources for ourselves (to the detriment of others) and make war upon outsiders of the same species.

It’s more honest and accurate to describe our evolved biological moral scheme as “tribal” - with both the wonders and horrors tribalism inherently encapsulates. Citing generic “altruism” is incomplete and dishonest.

However, you may actually be as good as you think you are. But a very large part of that cannot be explained via natural selection.

There’s a story that’s currently in the news here in the U.S. about a missing woman who’s body was discovered on the sandbar of a river. As it turns out she had been attempting to rescue a dog. Now I don’t know if you would consider that to be an altruistic act, but if you do, could you explain how it’s an example of reciprocal altruism. Also, could you explain how a theist is more likely to perform such a selfless act than an atheist is.

 

[Vonsalza]

There’s a story that’s currently in the news here in the U.S. about a missing woman who’s body was discovered on the sandbar of a river. As it turns out she had been attempting to rescue a dog. Now I don’t know if you would consider that to be an altruistic act, but if you do, could you explain how it’s an example of reciprocal altruism. Also, could you explain how a theist is more likely to perform such a selfless act than an atheist is.

Number one, anecdotes are anecdotes. If this were a strict exchange of logical arguments, I could sufficiently stop there.

However,

She plays directly into my stance that altruistic behavior where the sacrifice exceeds any possible benefit has a source outside of the reciprocal altruism that natural selection provides.

Natural selection simply cannot provide that level of altruism. Your intra-species competitors that were more discerning in their “altruism” would have successfully pushed your odd, hyper-altruistic genes out of existence. They’re simply more “fit” in the competition for survival.

However, I agree that you can totally display that level of altruism. I often see it too.

It’s just not naturally sourced. Nature simply can’t provide it because, over multiple generations, it’s suicidal.

You learned it.

 

[Bradski]

Is the Golden Rule ‘Do onto others’ or did you have something else in mind?

I mean that I am quite prepared to live and let live. I have no need, nor indeed any right, to impose my will on others. Unless…

Now those three dots cover quite a lot of exceptions. And getting agreement about what the exceptions are whereby we can justifiably attempt to impose our will is the $64,000 question. But I will again revert to the secular (as opposed to atheist) view that the exceptions must be decided by reasonable arguments backed up with evidence.

I discount an atheist view in this case because whether you believe in a God or not is irrelevant if you are asking for reasonable arguments and evidence in the first instance. That is, your beliefs, or lack of them, aren’t a concern, except where your right to hold them (or not) is under question.

 

[Bradski]

It appears the thread concludes that common sense is a valid source for moral norms iff each moral sense pronounced is truly common – held by all in the community as true.

I’m not sure that is the case, unless I have missed a few posts that suggest that. In any case, it’s completely wrong. Common sense is simply that which would be the case based on our usual everyday experience (if I cut someone they will feel pain, if I steal from someone they will feel a sense of loss). If it was a source in itself of morality simply by the fact that it might be universally held, then all we are doing is voting on morality.

Now our usual, everyday experience (our common sense) may not be good enough in all situations, so if the matter is important enough, then we need evidence to back it up. No more. No less.

If there is a pre-eminent strategy then there must be a pre-eminent Strategist. No?

Indeed there is. A guy called Darwin wrote a book about it.