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

[o_mlly]

It’s not clear whether you’re speaking of Christ here, as he wasn’t just a man, a great teacher, but for your claim to be true we’d have to ignore written formulations of the golden rule in diverse cultures going back well over a millennium before him, among other evidence.

We’d also have to abandon biblical support for natural law (Rom 2:14-15), and abandon an absolute unchanging natural law. Evolution doesn’t have any of those issues.

It appears your comments presume an atheistic evolution – random events and not the theistic evolution I premised – divine providence.

From time to time, God sent his prophets (and not only to the descendants of Abraham – we remember the King of Salem, Melchizedek, at every Eucharistic celebration) to teach us His ways. All goodness comes from God. Men who taught His ways could only do so if God willed and initiated their teaching. Things did not usually end well for these men of God or for the ultimate and last prophet, His Son.

In your citation, St. Paul affirms the natural law telling the Jews that they enjoy no real moral supremacy over Gentiles. The Gentiles stand on an equal footing with Jews.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s worth noting that Genghis Khan was absolutely following the Golden Rule in his ruthless domination of Asia.

“Do unto others” allows for any number of horrors when you affirm the Right of Might.

In itself, the GR doesn’t provide any particular moral behavior. It’s a call to be consistent with the views you already hold.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s unusual to find Catholics arguing against Aquinas,

Perhaps … if you’ve only met Western Catholics.

 

[inocente]

It’s worth noting that Genghis Khan was absolutely following the Golden Rule in his ruthless domination of Asia.

“Do unto others” allows for any number of horrors when you affirm the Right of Might.

In itself, the GR doesn’t provide any particular moral behavior. It’s a call to be consistent with the views you already hold.

You’ve mined part of one maxim out of context to cynically rob it of God’s meaning. Here’s what Jesus actually said: “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” - Luke 6

If God’s purpose is still unclear to you, here’s a few of the other formulations of the golden rule typically given in a middle school ethics class:

*Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. - Confucius c. 500 BC

If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. - Mozi c. 400 BC

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. - Laozi c. 500 BC

Shy away from doing to others what you perceive would have harmed you. - Tirukkural K.316

Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing. - Thales c. 600 BC

What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. - Sextus the Pythagorean.

Love your neighbor as yourself - Lev 19:18*

 

[inocente]

Perhaps … if you’ve only met Western Catholics.

“We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform PresbyLutheranism.” - Reverend Lovejoy

*The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism is a Protestant denomination adhered to by most of Springfield’s inhabitants. The First Church of Springfield is the primary church in town which holds services of this form of Christianity. The only known clergy of the denomination are Reverend Lovejoy, The Parson, and Elijah Hooper.

The Church was apparently founded by Martin Presbyluther, who stuck three suggestions on how to change the church on the Pope’s windshield, one of which was evidently that people should be allowed to attend church with wet hair, a right which has since been abolished in Presbylutheranism. - simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Western_Branch_of_American_Reform_Presbylutheranism*

 

[Vonsalza]

You’ve mined part of one maxim out of context to cynically rob it of God’s meaning…

Again, completely useless to atheistic morality as they don’t recognize the metaphysical.

Atheistic morality is what this thread has been discussing.

References to God, Aquinas or anything that mentions the metaphysical is useless in atheistic morality because their belief (or lack thereof) requires them to reject the underlying premise as unsound.

You keep “missing” this with awe-inspiring consistency.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, completely useless to atheistic morality as they don’t recognize the metaphysical.

Atheistic morality is what this thread has been discussing.

References to God, Aquinas or anything that mentions the metaphysical is useless in atheistic morality because their belief (or lack thereof) requires them to reject the underlying premise as unsound.

Atheism usually implies that spiritual reality is an illusion but it is possible to believe (rather inconsistently) that even in a Godless universe there are objective moral values and principles. Yet the problem of reconciling differences of opinion remains unsolved in the absence of a final authority. Who is to decide what is common sense - and why?

 

[inocente]

Again, completely useless to atheistic morality as they don’t recognize the metaphysical.

Atheistic morality is what this thread has been discussing.

References to God, Aquinas or anything that mentions the metaphysical is useless in atheistic morality because their belief (or lack thereof) requires them to reject the underlying premise as unsound.

You keep “missing” this with awe-inspiring consistency.

I wasn’t talking to an atheist, I was talking to YOU. It was YOU and only you who said “‘Do unto others’ allows for any number of horrors”. Those are Jesus’ words, Jesus’ command.

You’ve argued against Aristotle, common sense and human nature, against natural law, natural rights, the UHDR, etc., and clearly you’ve been winging it, the number of times you’ve shot yourself in one or the other foot.

But when you say “‘Do unto others’ allows for any number of horrors”, seemingly unaware they are Jesus’ words and a central plank of the gospel, it would be unsporting not to let you limp off stage.

 

[Vonsalza]

I wasn’t talking to an atheist, I was talking to YOU.

Yes, and I’ve been critiquing the atheistic argument for their own perspective. The whole time. Because this has been about atheistic morality. Not mine.

Why you can’t grasp that is anyone’s guess. The atheist simply has no obligation to Christ, Aquinas or any heavily western, pseudo-theistic concept of “natural law”. Thus, they aren’t particularly useful in critique of atheist’s views on morality. So please stop using them as though they were.

The GR isn’t unique to Christ. Culturally, it’s present pretty much everywhere. If one thinks the mightiest should rule, they are completely consistent with the GR if they’re philosophically fine with being undone by the mightier.

The GR is only about consistency to your views. Virtually all of the western imperialism of the past 400 years was justified with the GR. “They’re simply better off under our more-civilized governance. If we were them, we’d be grateful”.

The point concerning atheistic morality being this: the GR doesn’t provide anything in-and-of itself. It only reinforces the morality it is nested in. It makes Christians reciprocate their Christianity more. It makes war-cultures reciprocate their war-culture more. This is one practical reason why Christ and His Church have taught other things in addition to the GR.

When an atheist uses it, they’re reinforcing (???) I genuinely don’t know. Best guess is some undefined, subjective concept of “good”.

Catholicism or any other “ism” doesn’t matter here besides “atheism”. Your posts to the contrary have been distracting and fruitless. I think you continue here specifically out of a spirit of pride and one-upmanship; as your “contributions” have missed the point of the whole discussion with dazzling consistency.

 

[Peter_J]

“We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform PresbyLutheranism.” - Reverend Lovejoy

*The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism is a Protestant denomination adhered to by most of Springfield’s inhabitants. The First Church of Springfield is the primary church in town which holds services of this form of Christianity. The only known clergy of the denomination are Reverend Lovejoy, The Parson, and Elijah Hooper.

The Church was apparently founded by Martin Presbyluther, who stuck three suggestions on how to change the church on the Pope’s windshield, one of which was evidently that people should be allowed to attend church with wet hair, a right which has since been abolished in Presbylutheranism. - simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Western_Branch_of_American_Reform_Presbylutheranism*

Very tangential but .

 

[minkymurph]

Just had a thought in terms of ‘common sense.’

To state my position, even ‘common sense’ has to have an objective benchmark. It has been suggested there is no such thing as objective morality. I would concede it can be said an objective benchmark of morality could be said to be a hypothetical objective, but there still has to be one.

The reason I take this position is all law has an objective benchmark or standard. There of course in the appropriate circumstances subjective interpretations that are applied, but there is always an actual or hypothetical objective benchmark due to the fact that in their absence all is completely subjective, and subjective interpretations of events and circumstances alone frequently produce bizarre and in fact unjust results. Objectives standards can of course produce the same result. As such they are tempered with equity.

Religion gives us objective benchmarks. It can be argued these objective benchmarks are set unrealistically high, and as with law they can produce unjust or bizarre results when strictly applied under a ‘black letter’ approach. However, where this is the case they can be tempered with mercy. Perhaps a comparison discussion would be valuable in terms of whether or not objective benchmarks serve any purpose, what benchmarks could be set through utilization of ‘common sense’ alone and in the absence of God or religion, and why the objective benchmarks set by religion fail even were tempered with mercy.

 

[inocente]

Yes, and I’ve been critiquing the atheistic argument for their own perspective. The whole time. Because this has been about atheistic morality. Not mine.

Why you can’t grasp that is anyone’s guess. The atheist simply has no obligation to Christ, Aquinas or any heavily western, pseudo-theistic concept of “natural law”. Thus, they aren’t particularly useful in critique of atheist’s views on morality. So please stop using them as though they were.

The GR isn’t unique to Christ. Culturally, it’s present pretty much everywhere. If one thinks the mightiest should rule, they are completely consistent with the GR if they’re philosophically fine with being undone by the mightier.

The GR is only about consistency to your views. Virtually all of the western imperialism of the past 400 years was justified with the GR. “They’re simply better off under our more-civilized governance. If we were them, we’d be grateful”.

The point concerning atheistic morality being this: the GR doesn’t provide anything in-and-of itself. It only reinforces the morality it is nested in. It makes Christians reciprocate their Christianity more. It makes war-cultures reciprocate their war-culture more. This is one practical reason why Christ and His Church have taught other things in addition to the GR.

When an atheist uses it, they’re reinforcing (???) I genuinely don’t know. Best guess is some undefined, subjective concept of “good”.

Catholicism or any other “ism” doesn’t matter here besides “atheism”. Your posts to the contrary have been distracting and fruitless. I think you continue here specifically out of a spirit of pride and one-upmanship; as your “contributions” have missed the point of the whole discussion with dazzling consistency.

You said “‘Do unto others’ allows for any number of horrors”.

“Do unto others” is a formula from the Catholic Catechism in English 1567 (to do unto others as we would be done to ourselves), and a common version of Matt 7:12 (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).

I quoted earlier wordings of the golden rule from other cultures to you in post #383, and know of none which use that formula. So there can be no doubt that you were referring to Jesus’ command when you said “‘Do unto others’ allows for any number of horrors”.

You appear to be claiming you were pretending to be an atheist saying that. But an atheist didn’t say it, and I don’t know any atheist who would say it, and the fact is, you said it.

Now you make the further strange claim that the golden rule “only reinforces the morality it is nested in”. Clearly this is nonsense. Look at the many wordings in post #383, including Jesus’. Not one of them allow that ambiguity.

The Wikipedia article on the golden rule says: “The concept occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition. It can also be explained from the perspectives of psychology, philosophy, sociology, human evolution, and economics. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as “I” or “self”. Sociologically, ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In evolution, “reciprocal altruism”, is seen as a distinctive advance in the capacity of human groups to survive and reproduce, as their exceptional brains demanded exceptionally long childhoods and on-going provision and protection even beyond that of the immediate family.”

Most of us, atheist and theist, know the concept from school. Maybe you were off that day.

Now by all means continue insulting me. In the spirit of the golden rule though:

The First Law Of Holes

When in one, stop digging.

 

[Vonsalza]

You said “‘Do unto others’ allows for any number of horrors”.

“Do unto others” is a formula from the Catholic Catechism…

The Catechism is irrelevant to an atheist, so a presentation from it is irrelevant. Any understanding of the GR from the atheist perspective would not be based upon it. Using a Catholic presentation of the GR would be invalid.

You appear to be claiming you were pretending to be an atheist saying that.

I was making the point that even when nested in some definable moral scheme, then the GR is no more than a call for consistency - a la western imperialism and the conquests of the Khans. What is that basis for atheism on the whole?

The Wikipedia article…

Is trash because it’s Wikipedia. Remember when I told you that you could cite yourself on a Wiki that isn’t review-locked?

Most of us, atheist and theist, know the concept from school. Maybe you were off that day.

Now by all means continue insulting me.

Saith the pot to the kettle…

You seem to at least agree that the GR is found everywhere. This “everywhere” also includes human colonial/imperial culture of the last 250,000 years. Take a while and internalize that. Also internalize the fact that ideas (like atheistic morality) should and must be reviewed on their own merits; not juxtaposed against your guesses about someone else’s understanding of Catholicism that hasn’t been offered.

 

[Bradski]

Atheism usually implies that spiritual reality is an illusion but it is possible to believe (rather inconsistently) that even in a Godless universe there are objective moral values and principles. Yet the problem of reconciling differences of opinion remains unsolved in the absence of a final authority. Who is to decide what is common sense - and why?

We do, Tony.

The obvious answers to the simple moral problems (don’t steal, don’t kill etc) were decided waaaay before Chritianity was ever on the scene. As has been continuously poonted out, it stems from the GR. You guys claim some sort of ownership. Scabies of Matthew 12, but it’s universal.

For more difficult problems where there is no one size fits all, then we personally use all the available evidence and listen to argument from those we think we could trust and then we make up our own minds.

An example I used in another thread yesterday was the definition if torture. Yôu won’t find it in scripture or the catechism or any other church teaching, so when we discuss it, you use your own personal definition.

And it’s pretty much the same with any specific church teaching. You follow it because, in your personal opinion, it’s correct.

 

[minkymurph]

We do, Tony.

The obvious answers to the simple moral problems (don’t steal, don’t kill etc) were decided waaaay before Chritianity was ever on the scene. As has been continuously poonted out, it stems from the GR. You guys claim some sort of ownership. Scabies of Matthew 12, but it’s universal.

For more difficult problems where there is no one size fits all, then we personally use all the available evidence and listen to argument from those we think we could trust and then we make up our own minds.

An example I used in another thread yesterday was the definition if torture. Yôu won’t find it in scripture or the catechism or any other church teaching, so when we discuss it, you use your own personal definition.

And it’s pretty much the same with any specific church teaching. You follow it because, in your personal opinion, it’s correct.

I don’t think anyone can claim ‘ownership’ of the 10 commandments - except possibly Jews.

It is an established fact the foundation of many laws in western democracies is the 10 commandments. That said they are not unique to western democracies. The reason they have stood the test of time throughout history and are recognized and established across in various forms across many religions and cultures is purely and simply - good law.

 

[fhansen]

We do, Tony.

The obvious answers to the simple moral problems (don’t steal, don’t kill etc) were decided waaaay before Chritianity was ever on the scene. As has been continuously poonted out, it stems from the GR. You guys claim some sort of ownership. Scabies of Matthew 12, but it’s universal.

For more difficult problems where there is no one size fits all, then we personally use all the available evidence and listen to argument from those we think we could trust and then we make up our own minds.

An example I used in another thread yesterday was the definition if torture. Yôu won’t find it in scripture or the catechism or any other church teaching, so when we discuss it, you use your own personal definition.

And it’s pretty much the same with any specific church teaching. You follow it because, in your personal opinion, it’s correct.

I don’t know if this is true. We base our standards on whether or not something is consistent with love-and I think anyone can at least identify something as unloving when they see it, so that an external standard of some sorts is set by that fact. And I don’t know that any non-religious society or individual would ever feel at all* compelled *to love. But without it morality becomes highly subjective and relative; child sacrifice, torture, genocide, etc can easily be justified if viewed to be beneficial for one reason or another, by one group or individual over another.

 

[Bradski]

To state my position, even ‘common sense’ has to have an objective benchmark. It has been suggested there is no such thing as objective morality. I would concede it can be said an objective benchmark of morality could be said to be a hypothetical objective, but there still has to be one.

I’d agree that there IS an objective. In that a beneficial result is the objective for any moral statement. That’s stating the obvious. But as to a benchmark, then unless that benchmark is some specific definition of what that beneficial result might be, then we have to, by definition, quantify and qualify the result and we are back using relative terms.

The reason I take this position is all law has an objective benchmark or standard. There of course in the appropriate circumstances subjective interpretations that are applied, but there is always an actual or hypothetical objective benchmark due to the fact that in their absence all is completely subjective, and subjective interpretations of events and circumstances alone frequently produce bizarre and in fact unjust results.

This is where there is a confusion about what constitutes an objective statement and a relative one. Law consists of very definite statements about what is allowed and what isn’t. It doesn’t say: ‘Killing someone is unlawful’ which is an objective statement. The law says: ‘Killing someone is unlawful IF it is premeditated and IF there is malice OR if it is done with recklessness for the life of the victim AND…etc’ which is a relative one. It is only unlawful relative to the conditions.

And even then there are degrees of culpability that are soley dependent upon the situations regarding the actual act. So there is first degree murder, second degree murder etc.

Religion gives us objective benchmarks. It can be argued these objective benchmarks are set unrealistically high, and as with law they can produce unjust or bizarre results when strictly applied under a ‘black letter’ approach. However, where this is the case they can be tempered with mercy.

Indeed they do. And you are quite correct in that they produce unjust and bizarre results. And if they were laws they would then be adjusted to suit. So for example, there is a moral benchmark: ‘It is a sin to have sex with someone until you are actually married to that person’. If it were a law, it would be changed to something like: ‘It is a sin to have sex with someone UNLESS a, b and c OR x, y and z’. Because the moral benchmark as it stands cannot and does not cover all eventualities, then it must allow for exceptions.

As you know, that doesn’t happen. And people treat bad moral commandments exactly as they treat bad laws. They ignore them.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t know if this is true. We base our standards on whether or not something is consistent with love-and I think anyone can at least identify something as unloving when they see it, so that an external standard of some sorts is set by that fact. And I don’t know that any non-religious society or individual would ever feel at all* compelled *to love. But without it morality becomes highly subjective and relative; child sacrifice, torture, genocide, etc can easily be justified if viewed to be beneficial for one reason or another, by one group or individual over another.

I think we’re back to the Golden Rule (which is not ‘Do unto others what you think they might do to you, only do it first with extreme prejudice’) and empathy.

Scabies of Matthew 12, but it’s universal.

Curse predictive text. I’ve honestly no idea what I was trying to say there. But it was on a crowded train and via an iPhone, so…

 

[minkymurph]

I’d agree that there IS an objective. In that a beneficial result is the objective for any moral statement. That’s stating the obvious. But as to a benchmark, then unless that benchmark is some specific definition of what that beneficial result might be, then we have to, by definition, quantify and qualify the result and we are back using relative terms.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. What is the most beneficial for a society of people or a nation based on a two thirds consensus of opinion based on rational reasoned arguments and that the majority of pluralistic religious views can subscribe to is a pretty good benchmark.

This is where there is a confusion about what constitutes an objective statement and a relative one. Law consists of very definite statements about what is allowed and what isn’t. It doesn’t say: ‘Killing someone is unlawful’ which is an objective statement. The law says: ‘Killing someone is unlawful IF it is premeditated and IF there is malice OR if it is done with recklessness for the life of the victim AND…etc’ which is a relative one. It is only unlawful relative to the conditions.

Can’t say I totally agree with you here. I see where you are coming from, but the application of the law is more complicated. It is true the law is clear (at least in the UK) premeditated killing of an innocent victim is murder and there is no defense to murder. Malice is not unlawful relative to the conditions at law - demonstrated by the doctrine of transferred malice. What constitutes recklessness is defined objectively at law though subject to foreseeablilty that also has an objective benchmark.

Indeed they do. And you are quite correct in that they produce unjust and bizarre results. And if they were laws they would then be adjusted to suit. So for example, there is a moral benchmark: ‘It is a sin to have sex with someone until you are actually married to that person’. If it were a law, it would be changed to something like: ‘It is a sin to have sex with someone UNLESS a, b and c OR x, y and z’. Because the moral benchmark as it stands cannot and does not cover all eventualities, then it must allow for exceptions.

As you know, that doesn’t happen. And people treat bad moral commandments exactly as they treat bad laws. They ignore them.

I would have to say people also ignore good laws.

No one wants to live in a society where the state punishes people for having sex outside marriage. No one wants to live in society where the state imposes custodial sentences or fines on people who do not comply with the teachings of a specific religion. No law and no moral benchmark can cover all eventualities irrespective of how sound. That said, the eventuality does not necessarily make the benchmark unsound. Having sex only within marriage does no harm. It can be argued such a benchmark is unrealistic and possibly undesirable, but I doubt anyone would advocate sex before marriage should be a ‘must do’ enshrined in law. In which case it can at least be categorized as a ‘not wrong.’

To embrace any law or moral objective one must not just truly believe it but embrace it. When we look at sex outside marriage in a historical and cultural context there were good reasons as to why it would have been in the best interests of nations of people to adhere to the principle. Those principles may have little application in a contemporary democracy, but it cannot legitimately be argued those who choose not to have sex outside marriage are in some way harming society. Deeming those who engage in sex before marriage ‘sinners’? They may be not living the benchmark ideal but do any of us? Let us not say the ‘sin’ of the other is greater than our ‘sin.’ Who are we to be so arrogant and self righteous? None of us live the ideal. So you did not have sex outside marriage? Great - have you done nothing else God said you should not do? Like judging others? Our Lord was very clear we should not judge others. Am I making my point?

 

[inocente]

The Catechism is irrelevant to an atheist, so a presentation from it is irrelevant. Any understanding of the GR from the atheist perspective would not be based upon it. Using a Catholic presentation of the GR would be invalid.

It wasn’t the Catechism, it was one from the 16th century, quoting Jesus and probably the origin of the phrase ‘Do unto others’, which you said allows for any number of horrors.

I was making the point that even when nested in some definable moral scheme, then the GR is no more than a call for consistency - a la western imperialism and the conquests of the Khans.

*"In 1452, the papal bull Dum Diversas instructed the Portuguese crown “to invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ, to put them into perpetual slavery, and to take away all their possessions and property.”

“It may seem like papal statements from 500 years ago are ancient history. But Native American activists and scholars insist that Catholicism’s past continues to affect the present. Papal bulls from the 1400s condoned the conquest of the Americas and other lands inhabited by indigenous people. The papal documents led to an international norm called the Doctrine of Discovery, which dehumanized non-Christians and legitimized their suppression by nations around the world, including by the United States.” - ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/disastrous-doctrine-had-papal-roots*

You can quickly and easily find Catholic and Protestant sources which show that Western imperialism was nothing to do with atheists but of Christians actively working against the golden rule. The world is as it is, stuff happened, no point trying to deny history.

Is trash because it’s Wikipedia. Remember when I told you that you could cite yourself on a Wiki that isn’t review-locked?

:ehh: Everything in the quote was and is factually correct. Are you going to claim everything in this article is trash because it’s Wikipedia?

How do I confirm the truth of “common sense” in a way that is more independently and materially reproducible than the way I confirm religious truth that atheists eschew?

That’s from your OP. As you’ve progressively had to throw out Aristotle on common sense, and thus the foundation of Aquinas’ natural law, the entire Western ethical tradition, and you’ve said the golden rule ‘allows for any number of horrors’, so throwing out love your neighbor as yourself to boot, I’m thinking you got your confirmation.