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

[inocente]

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.

My take is there are objective measures such as attempted suicide rates, numbers of violent crimes, teenage pregnancy rates, etc. And there is a technique called benchmarking which compares these measures across different countries, often including more subjective measures such as people’s self-assessment of their happiness, social inclusion, self worth, etc.

I think the issue is about which measures should take priority. For example, a hedonist might rate well-being above human dignity, whereas the average German might do the opposite (they seem to be big on Kant).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is an established fact the foundation of many laws in western democracies is the 10 commandments.

I don’t think that’s been established. I think we can consider where the commandments and the law coincide (for now I’m ignoring whether areas where they coincided indicate inspiration).

Depending on which version of counting that you are using enforcement of the first four commandments is contrary to our first ammendment or other laws on free exercise/free speech. There had been laws made to try to enforce them (see Blue laws) but I think most of those have been dissolved with the exception of a prohibition against selling cars in some regions on Sundays. Being respectful to ones parents is encouraged, but it’s not a law. There’s also no laws against coveting the possessions of a neighbor (seems to be part of capitalism). The ones that we are left with for which we can find similar laws are

1. 
   *]don’t steal
   *]don’t give false testimony against neighbors
   *]don’t murder
   *]don’t commit adultery

 

[Vonsalza]

…quoting Jesus and probably the origin of the phrase ‘Do unto others’, which you said allows for any number of horrors.

It easily predates Christ. And when an atheist uses it, it certainly isn’t in a Christian context.

And when Christ presented it, it was also in context to everything else he taught.

So to an atheist - the GR in an exclusively Christian context is completely irrelevant. Completely.

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.

I suggest you read up on “The White Man’s Burden”. Many colonials thought they were doing exactly God’s work. And in a way completely consistent with the GR.

: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?

If you want to learn about Catholicism, then go to Catholic sources.

Wikipedia isn’t “peer reviewed”. It’s “everyone reviewed”. That doesn’t mean it can’t contain facts. But it can - and does - contain conjecture and falsehood. Find another source.

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.

Colonials and the Khans were absolutely doing unto others as they thought they would have done to themselves. Dissonance is difficult to get over. I don’t blame your resistance.

My take is there are objective measures such as attempted suicide rates, numbers of violent crimes, teenage pregnancy rates, etc.

The prevalence of any particular phenomenon has no bearing on whether it’s “moral” or not. Separate issue entirely.

(for now I’m ignoring whether areas where they coincided indicate inspiration).

Then you’re ignoring the very point minky made. Inspiration does not equal replication. The notion that “western legal society isn’t largely based on ‘Christianity (particularly Augustine’s perspective of it), in turn derived from Judaism, which contains the 10 Commandments’” is an idea that enjoys very little credible support.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is an established fact the foundation of many laws in western democracies is the 10 commandments.
Vonsalza;14543717:

The notion that “western legal society isn’t largely based on ‘Christianity (particularly Augustine’s perspective of it), in turn derived from Judaism, which contains the 10 Commandments’” is an idea that enjoys very little credible support.

You seem to be addressing a broader claim than what minky presented. In my response I’m trying to only identify which of the ten commandments have connection with modern western law and it appears that a significant portion of them don’t have connection to it. If I’ve overlooked how the ten commandments are the foundation of many western laws I welcome being further informed of the connection the commandments such as not coveting one’s neighbor’s belongings or keeping a day holy for worship.

 

[Vonsalza]

You seem to be addressing a broader claim than what minky presented. In my response I’m trying to only identify which of the ten commandments have connection with modern western law and it appears that a significant portion of them don’t have connection to it. If I’ve overlooked how the ten commandments are the foundation of many western laws I welcome being further informed of the connection the commandments such as not coveting one’s neighbor’s belongings or keeping a day holy for worship.

Fair enough. Check out “Blue Laws” on Google whenever you get the chance.

"It is legislation that prohibits or restricts certain activities in order to support religious standards. In rare instances, blue laws affect activities on days other than Sunday, but the most common use is in reference to Sunday, in which case they are also known as “Sunday laws.” Quote Source

 

[fhansen]

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.

Well, yes, the GR is a great thing of course, at least to us here in this discussion. But the question comes up regarding what necessarily *makes *it better -to us and for us-than the less-than-golden-rule, do for myself and hell with the rest. What makes us necessarily value empathy-or love or mercy- over prejudice, hatred, selfishness, unforgiveness?

I’d submit that we have the possibility for all of those, as more than products of mere reason or practicality/utility. Our empathy and love constitute an innate objective morality, but one that can also be easily overridden, dismissed, and mocked as weak and worthless, especially as it might get in the way of other interests. Christianity tells us that at one and the same time those virtues are inherently right, that they’re innate in us even as we can ignore and override them, that they’re even mandated by some foundational truth of the universe, and that they’re far and away the very best thing for us; our own integrity and happiness are directly related to them, to our embracing *of *them.

Anyway, we can speculate about where love and empathy and mercy come from, but the fact that they exist and cause us to act in ways that are not always the most beneficial for us in the short term, or guide us in ways that may not always seem to be the most practical, tells me that they amount to a kind of internal law.

 

[minkymurph]

You seem to be addressing a broader claim than what minky presented. In my response I’m trying to only identify which of the ten commandments have connection with modern western law and it appears that a significant portion of them don’t have connection to it. If I’ve overlooked how the ten commandments are the foundation of many western laws I welcome being further informed of the connection the commandments such as not coveting one’s neighbor’s belongings or keeping a day holy for worship.

I can see your difficulty with the first commandment, and perhaps the two and three.

It can argued the first three commandments no longer has a contemporary interpretation other than a tenuous one. However, elements of ‘one God’ remain. ‘In God we trust’ remains an official motto of the US. ‘For God and Ulster’ was the official motto of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Several contemporary democracies continue to have an established christian church, and a Royal family that belong to that church. Holy Days continue to be official state holidays. Christianity continues to the religion taught in state schools. Courts continue the practice of taking an oath on the Bible.

Many images of Christianity remain in contemporary democracies in an official sense - France is a good example. Certain images considered offensive to Christianity deemed unacceptable. To illustrate - a statue of the Devil in a public place is unlikely to be deemed appropriate.

Many contemporary democracies retain blasphemy laws - though perhaps not rigidly applied. We do however have laws concerning Hate speech, and ‘taking God’s name in vain’ would not be considered appropriate in public speaking of an official nature.

Sunday continues to be recognized as ‘a day of rest’ in many employment sectors - for example; schools, government offices, and banks. Many employers pay double time for Sunday working.

Children continue to come under their parents authority in a legal sense, and we have laws whereby children must provide for elderly parents.

Commandments 6-9 are fairly self explanatory.

Tort law (compensation and damages) is rooted in the manner in which the tenth commandment was applied.

 

[Bradski]

Well, yes, the GR is a great thing of course, at least to us here in this discussion. But the question comes up regarding what necessarily *makes *it better -to us and for us-than the less-than-golden-rule, do for myself and hell with the rest. What makes us necessarily value empathy-or love or mercy- over prejudice, hatred, selfishness, unforgiveness?

I’d submit that we have the possibility for all of those, as more than products of mere reason or practicality/utility. Our empathy and love constitute an innate objective morality, but one that can also be easily overridden, dismissed, and mocked as weak and worthless, especially as it might get in the way of other interests. Christianity tells us that at one and the same time those virtues are inherently right, that they’re innate in us even as we can ignore and override them, that they’re even mandated by some foundational truth of the universe, and that they’re far and away the very best thing for us; our own integrity and happiness are directly related to them, to our embracing *of *them.

Anyway, we can speculate about where love and empathy and mercy come from, but the fact that they exist and cause us to act in ways that are not always the most beneficial for us in the short term, or guide us in ways that may not always seem to be the most practical, tells me that they amount to a kind of internal law.

I pretty much agree with what you have said. Especially the fact that empathy and what we could sum up as being the GR is inate. The only differene between you and I would be that you would claim that it is God given and I would say that it is entirely natural (although those two views are not mutually exclusive).

 

[Bradski]

I can see your difficulty with the first commandment, and perhaps the two and three.

It can argued the first three commandments no longer has a contemporary interpretation other than a tenuous one. However, elements of ‘one God’ remain. ‘In God we trust’ remains an official motto of the US. ‘For God and Ulster’ was the official motto of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Several contemporary democracies continue to have an established christian church, and a Royal family that belong to that church. Holy Days continue to be official state holidays. Christianity continues to the religion taught in state schools. Courts continue the practice of taking an oath on the Bible.

Many images of Christianity remain in contemporary democracies in an official sense - France is a good example. Certain images considered offensive to Christianity deemed unacceptable. To illustrate - a statue of the Devil in a public place is unlikely to be deemed appropriate.

Many contemporary democracies retain blasphemy laws - though perhaps not rigidly applied. We do however have laws concerning Hate speech, and ‘taking God’s name in vain’ would not be considered appropriate in public speaking of an official nature.

Sunday continues to be recognized as ‘a day of rest’ in many employment sectors - for example; schools, government offices, and banks. Many employers pay double time for Sunday working.

Children continue to come under their parents authority in a legal sense, and we have laws whereby children must provide for elderly parents.

Commandments 6-9 are fairly self explanatory.

Tort law (compensation and damages) is rooted in the manner in which the tenth commandment was applied.

I’d say that the examples you have given are more cultural remnants rather than examples of laws being based on Christian morality. In fact, I would be quite prepared to use almost all of them to show that Christianity is less of an influence today than at any other time.

Notwithstanding that the UK has a common law system which is based on precedent. But I guess that you could argue that Christian morality served to guide these precedents.

 

[minkymurph]

I’d say that the examples you have given are more cultural remnants rather than examples of laws being based on Christian morality. In fact, I would be quite prepared to use almost all of them to show that Christianity is less of an influence today than at any other time.

This should be an interesting exchange.

First, the 10 commandments in my view are not examples of Christian morality. They were laws that governed the nation of Israel reputed to be of Divine origin.

I would say that in contemporary society there are precedents and practices that are cultural remnants rather than examples of laws. Legal precedents and practices are a different matter. The law is clear on murder, theft, and bearing false witness. You can go to prison for any of these things. In the case of civil matters you can be sued for conversion (civil theft), libel and slander. It can be argued this has nothing to do with Christianity, but the fact remains the construction and interpretation of these laws are rooted in the 10 commandments. Adultery remains grounds for divorce and by and large frowned upon and considered ‘wrong’ - with the exception of ‘swingers.’

I don’t agree Christianity is less of influence today than at any other time. I am a great believer history repeats itself and there are few phenomenons we observe today that are not a repeat of history. There are numerous points in history where the church had little influence in terms of the everyday lives of the common people. There are several points in UK history were religion only applied to the wealthy. For example the poor did not marry in church - they could not afford to - hence the term 'common law wife/husband.

In first century Rome people were not religious and had by and large lost belief in the gods. Christianity was a minority sect within Judaism. In the 7th century the Holy Roman Empire a similar phenomenon existed that we see in Ireland today in that people were ‘ethnically Catholic’ more than they were religious. The Catholic Church filled a vacuum on the collapse of the Roman Empire and provided stability and Catholicism was the state religion, but the common people were not particularly religious. They called themselves Catholic, baptized their children, received sacraments at least once a year as their ‘Easter duty’ and that was pretty much it. The ‘ranters’ are also an interesting group. They appeared when Calvinism came on the scene and their interpretation of ‘predestination’ was no matter what they did or how they lived their lives they could not loose their place in heaven. As such they led pretty wild lives.

In short, what I am saying is what we are experiencing today in terms of the influence of Christianity is not a new phenomenon. It is a repeated phenomenon - just under a different label.

 

[minkymurph]

Notwithstanding that the UK has a common law system which is based on precedent. But I guess that you could argue that Christian morality served to guide these precedents.

Christianity did serve to guide legal precedents in the UK. I could provide examples but as we have agreed there isn’t really any need to.

The Scandinavian countries are often held up as shining examples of stable secular states were the majority of citizens are atheists, yet Christianity continues to play a major role at state level. The Scandinavian countries continue to have a constitutional monarchy (with the exception of Norway) who belong to an established church. The Evangelical Lutheran Church continues to enjoy constitutional protection including Norway. When Norway disestablished the EL Church a church office remained in government, the Royal family continues to belong to the established church, and it was publicly stated the constitution of Norway will continue to founded on Christian and humanistic values.

As a Civic Republican I would say a state that has a constitutional monarch and an established church is not a secular state, and contemporary western democracies are in fact hybrid states in terms of secularism and Christianity. France is secular state in that it does not have a constitutional monarch and a state religion, but in practice is it not a pure secular state. For example the state continues to fund teaching posts in Catholic schools.

My position is west Europe today is synonymous with 7th century western Europe in that Christianity continues to have considerable influence at state level, though not among the common people.

 

[inocente]

You seem to be addressing a broader claim than what minky presented. In my response I’m trying to only identify which of the ten commandments have connection with modern western law and it appears that a significant portion of them don’t have connection to it. If I’ve overlooked how the ten commandments are the foundation of many western laws I welcome being further informed of the connection the commandments such as not coveting one’s neighbor’s belongings or keeping a day holy for worship.

I can see your difficulty with the first commandment, and perhaps the two and three.

It can argued the first three commandments no longer has a contemporary interpretation other than a tenuous one. However, elements of ‘one God’ remain. ‘In God we trust’ remains an official motto of the US. ’

There have been American cases in which claims that the ten commandments influenced law were argued in court.

A (Christian) law professor argues that Thomas Jefferson was against attempts to incorporate the ten commandments, and the framers of the constitution instead used secular Grecian and Roman ideas. - supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-ten-commandments-and-american-law.html

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There have been American cases in which claims that the ten commandments influenced law were argued in court.

A (Christian) law professor argues that Thomas Jefferson was against attempts to incorporate the ten commandments, and the framers of the constitution instead used secular Grecian and Roman ideas. - supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-ten-commandments-and-american-law.html

Thanks for the reply. The link was a good read and informative.

 

[Peter_J]

There have been American cases in which claims that the ten commandments influenced law were argued in court.

A (Christian) law professor argues that Thomas Jefferson was against attempts to incorporate the ten commandments, and the framers of the constitution instead used secular Grecian and Roman ideas. - supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-ten-commandments-and-american-law.html

Interesting.

 

[minkymurph]

Interesting.

It’s also interesting a lot of Christian concepts and principles can be traced to Greek and Roman law and philosophy.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s also interesting a lot of Christian concepts and principles can be traced to Greek and Roman law and philosophy.

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by MacCulloch is an excellent book (read: tome). It’s not without flaw, as it’s written by a man with a very interesting perspective - but it is researched rather well.

Point being: The enormous influence of Greek philosophy is probably the biggest reason Christianity was no longer a mere sub-sect of Judaism.

 

[JTCarrieres]

Morality is based on choices between right and wrong. How could God be the source of morality when he cannot make such a choice?–He can never choose “wrong.” He only makes perfect, moral choices, but that makes no sense. Who judges God and who would tell him his choices are either right or wrong? Apparently, whatever he decrees is “right” and whatever he forbids is “wrong.” Yet in the Old Testament, he directly orders the slaughter of women and children. Did his command make it right or just?

The most rational basis for human morality is the value of life itself. Whatever promotes, protects and improves human life is moral, while whatever degrades or harms it is immoral. No gods are needed for such a view, it is rooted in our very natures as human beings.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky famously claimed that “If there is no God, anything is permissible.” Yet the very opposite is true as well–“If there is a God, anything is permissible.” God does not intervene to stop Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. Humans can commit any horrid acts they desire, and God does not step in to prevent it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Morality is based on choices between right and wrong. How could God be the source of morality when he cannot make such a choice?–He can never choose “wrong.” He only makes perfect, moral choices, but that makes no sense. Who judges God and who would tell him his choices are either right or wrong? Apparently, whatever he decrees is “right” and whatever he forbids is “wrong.” Yet in the Old Testament, he directly orders the slaughter of women and children. Did his command make it right or just?

The most rational basis for human morality is the value of life itself. Whatever promotes, protects and improves human life is moral, while whatever degrades or harms it is immoral. No gods are needed for such a view, it is rooted in our very natures as human beings.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky famously claimed that “If there is no God, anything is permissible.” Yet the very opposite is true as well–“If there is a God, anything is permissible.” God does not intervene to stop Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. Humans can commit any horrid acts they desire, and God does not step in to prevent it.

Interesting post. But on Dostoyevsky, another interpretation of his word for “permitted” is “lawful”. online-literature.com/dostoevsky/brothers_karamazov/73/

Moreover, it isn’t true or untrue on his particular authority. He was likely referring to the idea that sans-God, we exist in a state of moral nihilism. It’s an idea with merits.

 

[o_mlly]

Morality is based on choices between right and wrong. How could God be the source of morality when he cannot make such a choice?–He can never choose “wrong.”

God can choose “wrong” because He has free will. God may not choose “wrong” because He is Goodness.

He only makes perfect, moral choices, but that makes no sense. Who judges God and who would tell him his choices are either right or wrong? Apparently, whatever he decrees is “right” and whatever he forbids is “wrong.”

A judge of another must be a superior being. Since God has no superior being, no other being can judge Him.

Yet in the Old Testament, he directly orders the slaughter of women and children. Did his command make it right or just?

His commands are always right, just and charitable. All creatures belong to God. All living creatures will die save those made in His image at the Perousia. When people die is the only question. The elderly and those suffering a painful existence often pray for death. God seeing all things at once can and may decide that the timing of the death of His creatures be ordered to increase goodness or mitigate evil.

The most rational basis for human morality is the value of life itself. Whatever promotes, protects and improves human life is moral, while whatever degrades or harms it is immoral. No gods are needed for such a view, it is rooted in our very natures as human beings.

What is more important: a long and pleasurable temporal life and eternal damnation or a short and suffering temporal life followed by eternal bliss?
While our nature desires a long and pleasurable temporal life and eternal bliss such an outcome is not probable as we are all sinners. As sinners we must make a choice.
“In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel.” St. Teresa of Calcutta

Fyodor Dostoyevsky famously claimed that “If there is no God, anything is permissible.” Yet the very opposite is true as well–“If there is a God, anything is permissible.” God does not intervene to stop Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. Humans can commit any horrid acts they desire, and God does not step in to prevent it.

If God prevented moral evils then He necessarily reneges on His promise of free will. Instead God drives goodness out of the evil he tolerates from those who abuse His gift of free will.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s also interesting a lot of Christian concepts and principles can be traced to Greek and Roman law and philosophy.

Yep.