V
- Status
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Earlier in this thread I posted what I referred to as the three sources of morality:
Number one, common sense, seems to be a bit problematic for some people as well. But it’s really just representative of whatever process gave rise to the very first inklings of morality. It may simply have been one early human suggesting to another early human that perhaps if they worked together they might be able to kill a wildebeest. And if they could do that they’d be rich. They’d have all the food and animal skins that they’d ever need. All that they have to do, is cooperate. Or perhaps it was some frustrated early human parent telling their eight year old son to stop touching his sister, or stop looking at his sister, or to generally just be nice to his sister. But however it happened, those first inklings of morality, and of cooperation, began to creep into human behavior. And that’s what Number One on my list represents. Those aspects of human cooperation that just naturally arose.
This I think is fairly understandable. As is number three on the list, survival of the fittest. Those groups that were more cooperative, were more successful at providing for the group, and defending the group. Thus they were more likely to survive, and with them the principles that underpinned that cooperation also survived. Now some might argue that morality isn’t determined simply by who survives, because that’s nothing more than “might makes right”. But when we’re talking about “might” in this instance, we’re talking about those things that produce harmony and stability within the group. Things like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The “might” that we’re talking about in this case is morality.
Which brings us to number two, authoritative edict. Which is simply some authority within the group, be it an individual, or some subset of the group, that says that these are the rules, and this is what happens if you don’t obey them. It’s good to have rules, which is what number one gives you. But it’s also necessary to have some means of codifying and enforcing those rules. Which is what number two gives you.
It’s these three steps, from conception, to application, to survival that gave us morality. It’s not simply happenstance, any intellectually advanced group will come to these exact same morals. Through the exact same process. It’s inevitable.
- Common sense
- Authoritative edict
- Survival of the fittest
Number one, common sense, seems to be a bit problematic for some people as well. But it’s really just representative of whatever process gave rise to the very first inklings of morality. It may simply have been one early human suggesting to another early human that perhaps if they worked together they might be able to kill a wildebeest. And if they could do that they’d be rich. They’d have all the food and animal skins that they’d ever need. All that they have to do, is cooperate. Or perhaps it was some frustrated early human parent telling their eight year old son to stop touching his sister, or stop looking at his sister, or to generally just be nice to his sister. But however it happened, those first inklings of morality, and of cooperation, began to creep into human behavior. And that’s what Number One on my list represents. Those aspects of human cooperation that just naturally arose.
This I think is fairly understandable. As is number three on the list, survival of the fittest. Those groups that were more cooperative, were more successful at providing for the group, and defending the group. Thus they were more likely to survive, and with them the principles that underpinned that cooperation also survived. Now some might argue that morality isn’t determined simply by who survives, because that’s nothing more than “might makes right”. But when we’re talking about “might” in this instance, we’re talking about those things that produce harmony and stability within the group. Things like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The “might” that we’re talking about in this case is morality.
Which brings us to number two, authoritative edict. Which is simply some authority within the group, be it an individual, or some subset of the group, that says that these are the rules, and this is what happens if you don’t obey them. It’s good to have rules, which is what number one gives you. But it’s also necessary to have some means of codifying and enforcing those rules. Which is what number two gives you.
It’s these three steps, from conception, to application, to survival that gave us morality. It’s not simply happenstance, any intellectually advanced group will come to these exact same morals. Through the exact same process. It’s inevitable.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Keep in mind, this is in the context of an atheist moral view. So where do we find these morals codified so we know them and how are they enforced? Like when is rape “ok” and when is it not and why (so as to be non-arbitrary)?
Absolutely right. What’s also right is when cooperation costs more than the benefit, the tribe breaks down. How does an atheist identify these breaking points so they know it’s “moral” to act selfishly?
When personal cost is greater than the personal gain from group membership, we universally defect. The exceptions generally involve enslavement.
So how does an atheist determine that critical point in a way that is identifiable and sharable with other people as to create a common norm?
So how does an atheist explain prehistoric (and pre-religious) tribal warfare over limited resources? There were obvious exceptions to the GR. Obviously, the GR wasn’t applied to wider-humanity; just the immediate tribe. For an atheist, who is in the tribe and who isn’t? It can’t be everyone because there is no “us” without a “them” - a basic component of tribalism. So who’s in?
Which is “right of might”.
In bold for emphasis… **For an atheist, what are these specific morals, where do I find them and how are they enforced? **
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Earlier in this thread you expressed a concern for those who might be coming to this discussion at some later point. With that in mind, if you have any objections to what I post, might I suggest that we address them one at a time, not all at once. I’ve personally found that having too many lines of discussion going at once becomes difficult for new arrivals to follow.
For example, if you would like to discuss why there’s evil in the world when survival of the fittest should have eliminated it long ago, I’d be happy to discuss it. But I’ll leave it up to you.
But generally speaking, if you raise too many objections at once, I simply won’t reply, I’ll just go on stating my case.
For example, if you would like to discuss why there’s evil in the world when survival of the fittest should have eliminated it long ago, I’d be happy to discuss it. But I’ll leave it up to you.
But generally speaking, if you raise too many objections at once, I simply won’t reply, I’ll just go on stating my case.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Fair enough, but you might make progress if you address obvious objections.
When personal cost is greater than the personal gain from group membership, we almost always defect and act selfishly.
So how does an atheist determine that critical defection point in a way that is 1. identifiable and 2. sharable with other people as to create a common norm (i.e. “Moral”)?
Also, as tribal warfare is pre-historic, we know The Golden Rule only applied to tribal members, not people outside the tribe. So how does an atheist know when to follow to golden rule and when to abandon it? And who is in an atheist’s tribe?
Sufficiently limited?
G
goout
Guest
What do you mean by evidence?
Are you talking about scientific evidence? Evidence from philosophical proofs? Human witness?
It seems to be a fairly common sense among peoples of all times that something created them from nothing. Does that sense count as evidence?
G
goout
Guest
Morality is the evaluation of human acts.
Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with evaluation. Neither do edicts, except as they express the underlying truth.
What they are is “force” or “coercion”.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
The atheist doesn’t need to identify that point, natural selection will do it for them. If the rules aren’t conducive to maintaining the group, then the group will either splinter from within, or be conquered from without. If it splinters from within then each resulting group will form their own set of rules and the process will repeat until we get a set of rules that is conducive to maintaining the group. If the group is conquered from without, then the conquering group can be assumed to have a better set of rules, because it’s set of rules was better at maintaining the group.
This process continues, and is still continuing. There’s a balance that exists between those sets of rules that are too liberal, and those that are too conservative. (I picked those terms arbitrarily, you may prefer others) Which is why we see a core set of morals that work across almost all groups, yet in their implementation we see a diversity as to how and to whom they’re applied. And it’s within this diversity that conflicts arise. Some members within each particular group will be more disenfranchised than others. You simply can’t make everyone equally happy. It’s the ability of the group and its rules to deal with these disenfranchised members which determines the success or failure of the group. Religion has historically been one of the most effective means of applying a given set of rules across a diverse set of members, and that’s why religion held sway over so many for so long
This is an ongoing process, the pendulum continuously swings toward one extreme or the other. And elements of each is always present in the other. Natural selection never stops. If atheism can’t construct an effective set of rules then it will be supplanted by something else, and the process will continue. Just as predators and prey are constantly evolving, so are we.
G
goout
Guest
There’s a basic disconnect here.
Christian moral evaluation is based on freedom and is inclined towards it.
Natural selection expresses constraints on freedom in a deterministic way.
Christian moral evaluation is based on freedom and is inclined towards it.
Natural selection expresses constraints on freedom in a deterministic way.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
There simply isn’t a better presentation of “right of might” than this.
And that sway is getting worse, if Pew is to be believed. It’s almost as if religion provides people with macrosocial rules and microsocial meaning in one package that thus self-reinforces with a concept of community (or “tribe”) in a way that atheism does not.
Which testifies to the absence of objective “atheistic morals” aside from fallacious appeals to relativistic “common sense” and deceptive claims of being naturally good - we’re also naturally selfish and are thus only “good” to suit our own ends.
When faced with whether any particular action is wrong, it appears that “we’ll see how it ‘shakes out’ on an evolutionary basis” is the very best answer that can be provided by atheism. Which isn’t an answer to any immediate moral dilemma.
We are thus forced to conclude that there’s no such thing as “right” or “wrong” in the dogmatically atheist worldview. All things are permitted, nothing is forbidden as long as you can get away with it and it promotes your continued survival both as an individual and as a collection of individuals.
Absolute genocide is “ok” as long as the species is more “selectively fit” after the slaughter than it was before. The only valid judge ISN’T history or other people (and obviously not any kind of god). The only valid judge is the resultant state of competitive viability in the present. If instances of murder and rape make it so, (just like the murder and rape found with prehistoric humans) then those actions are “good” in the instance.
Veritably, atheists can only be so if they’ve naively failed to consider the societal ramifications of their view. They can only persist under the auspices of a nominally religious society that supplies the morals they mistakenly view as “common sense”.
Again, the irony is not lost on me.
I have no other questions. On it’s own, “atheistic morality” stands poorly, if at all.
If there isn’t a god, you’d still be better off pretending that there was.
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m not sure why we’ve got to the point where common sense needs to be defined, but to confirm: It’s a well-accepted term that everyone uses and it’s used in the same way all the time. It simply means a position is held that would seem to the holder to be bleedin’ obvious. A position that any reasonable person would adopt in similar circumstances (driving when drunk increases your chance of having an accident – that is common sense and no sane person would argue against that fact).
However, it is NOT, in itself, the basis for making moral decisions. You cannot decide if something is moral or not based on what appears to be correct. Even if it appears obvious to all. You need, as was said in the very first post after the OP, evidence. Overwhelming personal opinion, which common sense often is, is simply not good enough.
So what comprises evidence? Scientific evidence? Yes, definitely. Philosophical proofs? Well, if we’re talking logical proofs, then yes. And human witnesses? Almost certainly not. At least for the important questions. If you tell me you have a cat, then I’ll believe you. If you tell me that you have had personal interactions with demons, then I’m not.
Agreed. There are aspects of evolution that have determined certain ways in which we interact with others. Empathy and reciprocal altruism to name two. They form the basis of moral acts. It’s too much a broad brush approach to simply say that evolution equates to the survival of the fittest, therefore morality. It’s aspects of that fitness (which doesn’t relate to physical fitness so it’s not ‘right of might’) which we need to consider.
In passing, there is way too much being talked about the evolutionary aspects of this that are simply wrong and people are making wrong conclusions based on that. One needs to tie it in with culture as well. It’s a lot more complex than some posts may be implying. Maybe I’ll have time in a few hours to address that.
And declarations from the chair must be treated the same way as common sense. They may be right. They may seem like common sense. They may have unanimous agreement. But they still need to be evidentiary based.
Which leads on to this: Surely everyone else does this as well. Surely everyone else needs a reasonable argument based on evidence before they agree with, or disagree with any given moral statement. The statement may be common sense, unanimously believed and a declaration from a trustworthy authority, but surely there must be some evidence that supports it. It cannot exist in isolation.
Every moral statement must follow this form: X is wrong because Y.
And we need evidence for Y. You can’t just pull it out of a hat (or a book).
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Just so everyone’s clear on what you’re saying here.
You’re saying that:
- “Common sense” is a perfectly legitimate source of moral norms, so long as that common sense says that there’s a god.
(Which is all that Catholicism is, popular opinion deified) - “Might makes right” is a legitimate source of moral norms, so long as that might assumes to act in the name of god.
(Which is all that Catholicism is, “*might makes right” deified)
- Genocide, murder, rape, and theft are all perfectly acceptable, so long as they’re done in the name of your god.
(Which Catholicism acknowledges to be true)
V
Vonsalza
Guest
A bold and correct assertion most atheists are unwilling to admit. :tiphat:
I’ve never suggested that “right of might” was purely physical fitness. “Intelligence” is given as another source of “might”. “Might” is anything that increases fitness for survival. I cry “straw-man”.
I re-read E.O. Wilson’s 2012 “Social Conquest of Earth” last night. As someone who has dedicated their life to the topic and has received emeritus status at such institutions as Harvard, he’s a reasonably credible source on the matter.
He postulates that we only engage in eusocial group behavior as long as the individual reward for doing so exceeds the cost of doing so. When that individual reward falls below the cost, the evolutionary drive for that particular group behavior ceases to exist. -Full Stop-
The only exceptions he lists would be hive-mind organisms like ants and termites that could be classified as “super-organisms” on the colony level. He also identifies that humans are explicitly not of this classification.
Would you like page numbers?
Respectfully, you are not the gate-keeper of social biology. If you are, what a surprise to find you on these forums.
The question is atheistic morality on it’s own merit. Not as juxtaposed with anything else.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Not at all. On it’s own merit, it shouldn’t be used by anyone. And keep in mind, just because atheism utterly stinks as a moral authority doesn’t mean it gets to default as “correct” because some other moral schema (like Catholicism or Islam) is also awful.
No again. “Right of might” is merely what is observed in the world of natural selection. It’s what an atheist has to use in part of their moral code. I’d argue that the majority of religious morality is a rejection of “right of might”.
In the Catholic view, genocide is never “right”, even if a few unambiguously mortally sinful “Catholics” have participated in it through history.
Genocide is simply a reality in an evolutionary worldview because we have arrived at who we are with the practice of genocide being observed at the prehistoric, tribal level. Those Denisovians and Neanderthals didn’t kill themselves.
As another reminder, what Catholicism or any other religion thinks is irrelevant to the question. It seems that an atheist cannot rationally deny the occasional use of genocide if it benefits the species.
Uh? So far, no atheist moral absolutes have been identified and the engine that drives them has also not been identified - beyond “evolution”. The “engine” being “why should I be ‘moral’?”
E
EnosJadon
Guest
So we agree, neither Catholicism nor atheism holds any moralistic superiority. Good or bad, they’re equally legitimate.
Might makes right is also what Catholicism is dependent upon, it simply refuses to acknowledge it. But refusal to accept a fact doesn’t negate a fact. So again I’m correct, theism and atheism are both examples of might makes right.
On this point you’re simply wrong. Check your Old Testament. If God orders the genocide of a whole group of people, or the murder of your own son, then those acts are perfectly moral. And Catholicism assents to this fact.
It’s relevant, in that you’re arguing that atheism is a poor source of moral norms, although it leads to the same set of moral norms as theism does. So by what measure is it inferior?
Or are you willing to agree that it’s not?
Catholicism has no moral absolutes either. If it does, please present them.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
We do not; as the source of Catholic moral view hasn’t been the thread’s focus. Atheism has - and it’s found wanting.
If you’d like to argue that Catholicism is dependent on “right of might” in the same way atheism reluctantly appears to be, fire up a thread! Many would argue that it’s built on “might of love”.
If you’d like to discuss God’s actions in any Old Testament text - click that “new thread” button. But again, Enos, atheism doesn’t get to be “right” if Christianity appears “wrong”. Per the rationalism that atheism is founded on: Nothing is true without evidence - including the existence of atheist moral norms.
What moral absolutes are provided by atheism and how are they enforced? This question has come up repeatedly to your objections and you’ve consistently failed to provide.
I would argue that it may. But this isn’t “Atheism Versus Catholicism”. That’s another thread.
This is atheistic morals on their own merit. Your perceived need to turn the focus elsewhere supports the theory that such merit may be sorely lacking upon any real examination.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Christianity is also wanting. Need I point out World Wars I and II, and the fact that Hitler was raised a Catholic. As a means of instilling morality Catholicism has proven to be very ineffective.
This is the only absolute, given free will, people will believe what they choose to believe. You can’t possibly enforce anything else. You can force them to act in a certain way, but you can’t force them to believe in a certain way.
It’s only possible to argue the merits of something as opposed to something else. Otherwise I could simply argue that atheistic morals, whatever they are, are the best possible set of morals, and you can’t use any other basis as a counterargument. Not even common sense, or your own personal opinion. All arguments as to the merits of something must be in comparison to something else.
What would you like to use…common sense?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I zealously agree that there is often a disparity between the actions of a particular person and the ideal actions as prescribed by their religion. The idea, whatever it may be, is unassailably perfect. The adherent virtually never is. This reality is as old as the concept of “ideal”. This reality does not, however, necessarily nullify the purpose and legitimacy of any ideal.
Atheism then solves this problem by asserting that there is no ideal? Thus the underlying problem of “how should I act” remains unsolved in any specific way.
Enter unfettered moral egoism and the “right of might” it births
Excellent presentation of the anarchy of absolute relativism. Yet more “right of might”…
No such thing as universal “common sense”; at least not in a way that is proven as fact by objective proof.
To argue something on it’s own merit is to evaluate it’s own qualities independent of alternatives. True, we must establish a common metric, but that need not be determined exclusively by only one of many rival claimants.
Even so, the logical categorical mate (and counter-claimant) to atheism isn’t Catholicism, or even Christianity. It’s theism; of which Christianity is a mere subset. If the atheist succeeds in “killing” Christianity, there are still many, many other expressions of theism it has yet to “explain away”.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Bradski, I have great respect for your point of view. I also agree that I may have placed too much emphasis on the evolution of morality. Although I do believe that my explanation was broadly accurate, I recognize that evolution is an immensely complex phenomenon. Far exceeding what can be elucidated in a forum such as this one.
My point, however poorly framed, was this… that selective pressures will inevitably lead to a similar set of morals, whether the mechanism involved is theistic or atheistic in nature.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
Ah, and there’s the core of your argument. That absent moral absolutism people will behave in a manner that’s self-centered as opposed to group-centered. Neglecting the fact these two things are generally one and the same. My position is that atheism will lead to the same self/group centered morals that any other ideology will lead to. And also that any source of morals will lead to outliers such as Hitler.Enter unfettered moral egoism and the “right of might” it births
While I assert that there’s no transcendent moral truths, I also assert that atheism, like theism, will inevitably lead to a group-centered set of moral truths. And that under a given set of conditions it will produce the same results.
True said:
- Status