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

[ANV]

Yes it is. You don’t need to be religious to know the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong. There are many religious people who are morally bankrupt, and many saintly atheist’s. There’s also what’s known as ‘the golden rule’.

Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – “do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself” – more pragmatic.

— Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism

Yes for real, compassion and conscience are natural.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Honestly, no. They’re the same idea, perhaps used in different technical contexts.

Something that can’t be altered would probably be “fixed”.

Aging can’t be altered, but it seems irrelevant to argue whether it is innate or fixed.

In any case, it is not natural since aging cannot be learned whereas morality is natural because it can be learned.

Not sure why any of this is relevant to the thread topic.

My last word on the matter is that common sense can be a valid source for atheist morality, but only if the common sense is itself valid. If it is not valid, it is not a source for atheist morality. The advantage of Christian morality is that it is allied to true common sense as opposed to false common sense because it is God’s confirmation of the truth that we commonly sense.

The atheist is not obliged to consent to the truth that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. He might regard that as only a kindly truism that is useful at times and useless at other times. But when the common sense of the truism is buttressed by divine authority, it gains extra and grand potency in human affairs.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ever since the concept of altruism was proposed in the 19th century, psychologists have debated whether or not people are born into the world preprogrammed to be nice to others. Now, a pair of Stanford psychologists has conducted experiments that indicate altruism has environmental triggers, and is not something we are simply born with. - Bjorn Carey

news.stanford.edu/news/2014/december/altruism-triggers-innate-121814.html

Maybe not.

 

[Vonsalza]

Aging can’t be altered, but it seems irrelevant to argue whether it is innate or fixed.

In any case, it is not natural since aging cannot be learned whereas morality is natural because it can be learned.

Not sure why any of this is relevant to the thread topic.

People scramble for anything when you crack their bubble. Dissonance.

My last word on the matter is that common sense can be a valid source for atheist morality, but only if the common sense is itself valid.

An therein lies the only point about the fallacious “appeal to common sense”. What they really need to provide is the reasoning behind the label.

Thanks for your time and “ink”.

 

[inocente]

As they are all providing the roughly the same definition - minor wording differences notwithstanding - your request has been provided. They’re all from organizations or colleges, so they’re a bit more “legit” than a “Youtube” link (which is held in similar academic regard as “wikis” - dubious).

You ask again because you don’t like the answer, I presume? If that’s the case, “trying again” would be a waste of time. The problem isn’t one of “fact”, it’s of “acceptance”. I can’t help you with that.

You’re mightily reluctant to answer me! Never had to ask anyone four times before. Which definition in which of those links do you claim applies here, and please say how you think it applies to what anyone has claimed?

btw one of those links is a free Wordpress blog site for a skeptics club in a town in Ireland, the second is course notes, and I can’t spot a definition in either. The third is a blurb for a book, which does have a definition: “Asserting a conclusion without evidence or premises, through a statement that makes the conclusion appear certain when, in fact, it is not.”

Is that what you claim makes all common sense fallacious? How you do think it applies to what anyone has claimed on this thread?

*I’ll concede that my wording could have been better. So let’s be “pedantic”, to use a word others may prefer.

I’ve seen no proof for the existence of “innate altruism”. None.

There are, however, veritable oceans* of examples where we will willingly help others for either direct, material benefit or in accordance with our learned behavior (religious or otherwise).

While I have ZERO logical obligation to prove you wrong, here’s an article rebuking innate altruism from Stanford I found in seconds:
news.stanford.edu/news/2014/december/altruism-triggers-innate-121814.html

Kids have a social dominance hierarchy just like everything else. They provide one example of the “micro” that matches the “macro” of tribal behavior that dominated prehistoric humanity and is still observable in humanity to this very day - as we can see every autumn when Michigan and Ohio State play each other on the football field.

I think your obligation isn’t to prove me wrong, but to demonstrate your claim. The lone Stanford study doesn’t support your claim. The study concludes “that reciprocal interactions trigger the enactment and expectation of altruism in young children. That is, after an experience with reciprocity, children seem to construct a community characterized by care and commitment. Thus, the notion that socialization has little or no part to play in early occurring altruism becomes less plausible. Experimenters, parents, teachers, and others who regularly interact reciprocally with children may be implicitly communicating to children that in these contexts people help one another”.

So young children respond to cues, and social cues trigger social behavior.

 

[Bradski]

You obviously didn’t read the study. I found an exception suggested by credible academy on the first page of a Google search.

“All the evidence points to it being innate.” - Factually incorrect and demonstrably so with almost no effort.

I was aware of the study prior to you linking to it.

And yes, there are studies that suggest that if a child actually has a connection with the stranger, however tenuous, it increases altruistic behaviour.

Which shows, as I’ve already mentioned, that familiarity with a person increases the frequency of altruistic behaviour. In other words, we are more likely to help those that are close to is rather than a complete stranger. This, I thought, was common knowledge.

But we are not talking about the frequency of a particular behaviour, we are talking about whether it is learned or not. And the evidence points to it being innate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This discussion reeks of people talking past each other, not to each other. :sad_bye:

 

[Vonsalza]

Man, tell people that the appeal to common sense is a fallacy and that altruism isn’t innate and they flip.

I was aware of the study prior to you linking to it.

Then you have your blinders on if you don’t want to include it in your consideration of the evidence.

If I found the Stanford study with zero effort, I’m not going to spend time doing the diligence that you obviously won’t to find more. “Spin” it all you want. Somehow, Stanford doesn’t “count”?

What you’re experiencing is dissonance.

 

[Vonsalza]

This discussion reeks of people talking past each other, not to each other. :sad_bye:

The thread was done as far as I was concerned when “common sense” was revealed as just another bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Bradski]

If I found the Stanford study with zero effort, I’m not going to spend time doing the diligence that you obviously won’t to find more. “Spin” it all you want. Somehow, Stanford doesn’t “count”?

As evidence that altruism is learned? No, it doesn’t. Nowhere does it say that. It doesn’t even imply that. In fact, it implies that it’s innate and triggered more easily by personal interaction. That was the point of the survey itself. As has been pointed out to you:

The study concludes “that reciprocal interactions trigger the enactment and expectation of altruism in young children.”

It doesn’t say that reciprocal interactions cause altruism, but that they trigger it. You can’t trigger something that doesn’t already exist.

Yet one more time, can you point to anything that says that altruism is a learned reaction?

 

[Vonsalza]

It doesn’t say that reciprocal interactions cause altruism, but that they trigger it… …You can’t trigger something that doesn’t already exist.

sigh

The results suggest that altruistic behavior may be governed more by relationships, even brief ones, than instincts.

“I think the findings will stir up some controversy, but in a good way,” Dweck said. “People often call something ‘innate’ because they don’t understand the kinds of subtle experiences that can make something, like altruism, flourish. Rodolfo has discovered a really subtle experience that has a powerful influence.”

Suggestion - Learned.

I can’t help you see what you don’t want to see and I’m not going to mine more “gold” for you to prove gold exists when I so easily pulled a piece from the topsoil. Go to Google Scholar if you don’t have access to a better research database and do it yourself, please. I will not.

Yet another atheist whose standard for proof isn’t even satisfied by being figuratively hit in the head with it.

 

[Bradski]

sigh

Suggestion - Learned.

I can’t help you see what you don’t want to see and I’m not going to mine more “gold” for you to prove gold exists when I so easily pulled a piece from the topsoil. Go to Google Scholar if you don’t have access to a better research database and do it yourself, please. I will not.

Yet another atheist whose standard for proof isn’t even satisfied by being figuratively hit in the head with it.

I’ll take that as a ‘no’.

 

[Vonsalza]

Take it as you like.

At this point, you’ve been offered one. Your response is that everyone - including one of the creators of the study - is interpreting the findings incorrectly. There simply isn’t a better example of cognitive dissonance.

I’m quite certain I can expect the same irrational behavior to be applied to anything else offered.

Facts and scientific laws are only so if they’re free of contrary evidence. “Innate altruism” obviously fails to meet that lofty standard.

It’s also obvious that you don’t like that. Tough.

 

[inocente]

hand-waving, noun

1. insubstantial words, arguments, gestures, or actions used in an attempt to explain or persuade.

 

[Vonsalza]

Cognitive Dissonance, noun

The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

 

[Vonsalza]

For Inocente,

“Common sense” is another “bandwagon” fallacy, which is a commonly used handle for the classic “ad populum”. I’m embarrassed I didn’t see it before.

From my colleague, I hope you find it beneficial:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

1. The fallacy ad populum is similar to the ad verecundiam, the difference being that the source appealed to is popular opinion, or common knowledge, rather than a specified authority. So, for example:
   
   These days everyone (except you) has a car and knows how to drive;
   So, you too should have a car and know how to drive.

Often in arguments like this the premises aren’t true, but even if they are generally true they may provide only scant support for their conclusions because that something is widely practiced or believed is not compelling evidence that it is true or that it should be done. There are few subjects on which the general public can be said to hold authoritative opinions. Another version of the ad populum fallacy is known as “playing to the gallery” in which a speaker seeks acceptance for his view by arousing relevant prejudices and emotions in his audience in lieu of presenting it with good evidence.

(Emphasis mine)

For the original purpose of the thread, this should be both authoritative and concluding.

 

[inocente]

For Inocente,

“Common sense” is another “bandwagon” fallacy, which is a commonly used handle for the classic “ad populum”. I’m embarrassed I didn’t see it before.

From my colleague, I hope you find it beneficial:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

1. The fallacy ad populum is similar to the ad verecundiam, the difference being that the source appealed to is popular opinion, or common knowledge, rather than a specified authority. So, for example:
   
   These days everyone (except you) has a car and knows how to drive;
   So, you too should have a car and know how to drive.

Often in arguments like this the premises aren’t true, but even if they are generally true they may provide only scant support for their conclusions because that something is widely practiced or believed is not compelling evidence that it is true or that it should be done. There are few subjects on which the general public can be said to hold authoritative opinions. Another version of the ad populum fallacy is known as “playing to the gallery” in which a speaker seeks acceptance for his view by arousing relevant prejudices and emotions in his audience in lieu of presenting it with good evidence.

(Emphasis mine)

For the original purpose of the thread, this should be both authoritative and concluding.

Perhaps the issue is you’re confusing common knowledge with common sense. They are not at all equivalent. The OED has:

*Common knowledge : Something known by most people.
‘it’s common knowledge that no one has yet found a cure for cancer’

Common sense : Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
‘it is all a matter of common sense’
[as modifier] ‘a common-sense approach’*

Wikipedia has:

*Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things that are shared by (“common to”) nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without need for debate.

The everyday understanding of common sense derives from philosophical discussion involving several European languages. …] “Common sense” has at least two specifically philosophical meanings. One is a capability of the animal soul (Greek psukhē) proposed by Aristotle, which enables different individual senses to collectively perceive the characteristics of physical things such as movement and size, which all physical things have in different combinations, allowing people and other animals to distinguish and identify physical things. This common sense is distinct from basic sensory perception and from human rational thinking, but cooperates with both. The second special use of the term is Roman-influenced and is used for the natural human sensitivity for other humans and the community. Just like the everyday meaning, both of these refer to a type of basic awareness and ability to judge that most people are expected to share naturally, even if they can not explain why. Avatar*

 

[Vonsalza]

Perhaps the issue is you’re confusing common knowledge with common sense. They are not at all equivalent.

Respectfully, your appeal to semantic is not convincing. It still dies the same death because it’s still an appeal to common “anything”.

I’ll re-cite:

…because that something is widely practiced or believed is not compelling evidence that it is true…

That’s the end, I’m afraid.

 

[EnosJadon]

Upon reflection, there would seem to be three identifiable sources of human morals. For the sake of this thread I’ll define them as follows.

1. Common sense.
2. Authoritative edict.
3. Survival of the fittest.

The first one is often expressed as simply “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The second one attempts to use a position of authority to codify the first one. And the third one ultimately decides which of these codified sets of morals, is the “correct” set of morals.

But in the end, any set of morals that doesn’t encompass all three is almost certainly doomed to fail.

 

[Bradski]

Upon reflection, there would seem to be three identifiable sources of human morals. For the sake of this thread I’ll define them as follows.

1. Common sense.
2. Authoritative edict.
3. Survival of the fittest.

The first one is often expressed as simply “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The second one attempts to use a position of authority to codify the first one. And the third one ultimately decides which of these codified sets of morals, is the “correct” set of morals.

But in the end, any set of morals that doesn’t encompass all three is almost certainly doomed to fail.

As you describe 1, it’s the only one that’s valid. Not that I necessarily agree with your definition. But the golden rule is one of the requirements for the development of morality.

Forget authoratitive edict. I don’t mind occasionally acceptaning expert opinion in some matters, but not as it pertains to morality.

And Darwinian morality? I don’t think someone should be granted an insight into the validity of moral decision simply because he’s a lot bigger than me.