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

[Vonsalza]

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.

No, the core of the argument is that if atheism can’t identify any non-arbitrary morals, then there is limited incentive to voluntarily adhere to “group morality” aside from personal benefit or the group leadership’s ability to force you.

Soviet Russia, Communist China and Castro’s Cuba come to mind…

Religion has the ability to “hack” that continual “self-benefit vs cost” evaluation of group membership with the appeal to punishment in an afterlife through things like hell or reincarnation in a less-ideal state - directly making the cost of selfish behavior seem higher, if only through imaginary means.
Atheism has no such mechanism for it’s, so far, unidentifiable moral schema. Ergo, the dogmatically moral atheist seems to be far more free to consider traditionally nefarious behavior as a means to their end than a religious person.

I also assert that atheism, like theism, will inevitably lead to a group-centered set of moral truths…

You’ve yet to identify a single example of those natural, non-arbitrary moral truths. :doh2:

So we agree that there must be a metric against which to measure the validity of a given position. I’ve offered one…Catholicism, because I assume that we’re both familiar with it. If you would like to offer another, then please do.

Sure! As Catholicism is a purely arbitrary selection, how about any other purely arbitrary choice? Jainism? Islam? Taoism? Paganism? Zoroastrianism? Hindu? Buddhism? Shinto? Sikhism? Judaism?

This illustrates the underlying problem of your arbitrary selection. Why is your choice better than any other? Because it’s one you know something about? Irrelevant, so all must be considered.

How does atheism yield the same morals as religion without the benefit of divine punishment? And where are those morals to be found? “Common sense”, as we’ve established, is out.

…this may be a good start for a separate thread.

 

[Bradski]

Religion has the ability to “hack” that continual “self-benefit vs cost” evaluation of group membership with the appeal to punishment in an afterlife through things like hell or reincarnation in a less-ideal state - directly making the cost of selfish behavior seem higher, if only through imaginary means.

That about sums it up. I would rather trust someone who did the right thing because they had personally come to that decision rather than having done it because of the fear of punishment.

 

[Vonsalza]

That about sums it up. I would rather trust someone who did the right thing because they had personally come to that decision rather than having done it because of the fear of punishment.

But in your view there can’t be a “right thing”. There is no demonstrably absolute “right”. There is only the “optimal thing” for survival - which why we group up to the limited extent we do.

But in all honesty, forgive me.

I presented only “the stick” of religion. It also has a “carrot”. I’d argue most that adhered to a particular religion did so out of desire for the carrots of common-moral code, community and a pleasant after-life.
A “carrot” for being “good” is yet another thing atheism lacks.

Mea culpa.

 

[Bradski]

I’d argue most that adhered to a particular religion did so out of desire for the carrots of common-moral code, community and a pleasant after-life.

That about sums it up. I would rather trust someone who did the right thing because they had personally come to that decision rather than having done it because they thought they’d gain a pleasant after-life.

Which testifies to the absence of objective “atheistic morals”…

On the contrary. A secular morality is one that disregards personal feelings. It makes disinterested decisions based on…what was it I keep mentioning? Ah yes. Evidence.

Whereas you make decisions based on…? What exactly? There are people who decide on moral matters with no evidence whatsoever. Do you include yourself in that group? In any matter at all?

 

[Bradski]

So far, no atheist moral absolutes have been identified…

And that’s because moral absolutes do not exist. All moral decisions are relative.

Do X because…

Do not do X if…

They are all conditional statements. And to head off your next argument at the pass, statements which appear to be absolute are simply relative statements using an agreed term for what are relative acts.

So ‘Torturing is wrong’ is shorthand for ‘Causing discomfort to someone IF that person does not agree to it and IF it is done to such an extent that they would object and IF there is no reason for it other than personal satisfaction…etc etc…is wrong’.

 

[Vonsalza]

That about sums it up. I would rather trust someone who did the right thing because they had personally come to that decision rather than having done it because they thought they’d gain a pleasant after-life.

So you’d prefer they came to that decision because it benefited them rather than because they were adhering to their moral code? Odd.

At least religion explains instances of genuine altruism in a better way. Sacrificing with no gained benefit, by rule, completely lacks an evolutionary drive. It does, however, have several religious drives. I suppose this could be evidenced by the enormous per capita differences in charitable giving between the religious and atheists.

On the contrary. A secular morality is one that disregards personal feelings. It makes disinterested decisions based on…what was it I keep mentioning? Ah yes. Evidence.

Whereas you make decisions based on…? What exactly? There are people who decide on moral matters with no evidence whatsoever. Do you include yourself in that group? In any matter at all?

A “secular morality” is just one that doesn’t use religion.

You base your morality on evidence? By Jove, man! Where is it??? How many pages in are we now without any so far offered? It seems once they have the fallacious “spoon” of “common sense” slapped from their mouths, atheists have very little to serve their morality up with…

And that’s because moral absolutes do not exist. All moral decisions are relative.

…It makes disinterested decisions based on [evidence].

So which one is it? You really should make up your mind…
A relativist construct is not absolute, by rule. So how is it “subjectively evidenced” (an absolutely dazzling word your views apparently require)?

“Subjective evidence refers to evidence that one cannot evaluate. One must simply accept what the person says or reject it.” definitions.uslegal.com/s/subjective-evidence/

So ‘Torturing is wrong’ is shorthand for ‘Causing discomfort to someone IF that person does not agree to it and IF it is done to such an extent that they would object and IF there is no reason for it other than personal satisfaction…etc etc…is wrong’.

Absolutely. Anyone can be tortured if the perceived benefits of it out-weight the costs. I think atheists need to be more honest and open about that.

The only absolute horrors that are “verboten” are those that lack justification. Unfortunately, justification can always be found, no matter how flimsy it may be. The only one requiring it is the actor.

This is probably the quintessential failure of atheistic morality - it’s rules apply dominantly to self while “morality” on the whole is focused on the greater “us”. That disconnect will always hinder any gains the atheist view may make. This is to the direct benefit of humanity.

 

[fhansen]

When confronted with “for-instances” concerning right and wrong, atheists will often appeal to “common sense” as a metric for providing a solution for resolve.

However, how does an atheist explain when my “common sense” yields a different answer from their “common sense” for the same problem? And when that exists, how can it possibly be a valid metric by which we determine what’s morally “right”?

Is an appeal to “common sense” merely a more authoritative-looking version of “well, I think…”? After all, it was “common sense” to the Aztecs that human-sacrifice was the solution for a poor harvest.

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?

It’s possible that if everyone truly adhered to common sense (a term which might be translatable to “natural law”), then the world would be much better off. Common sense in that case could serve as a sort of objective morality. But what’s missing in that is something we might easily dismiss and object to: man must feel consciously morally bound, like it or not, to an external superior authority in order to consistently remain oriented towards moral rectitude for the long-term. Otherwise we begin to drift or stray as individuals and societies, even as we might not see and believe this from our own relatively myopic perspective.

And whether one claims to be religious or not this relationship to this authority must be authentic and strong enough to truly affect and influence us. And this relationship will not be very strong in the long run unless it’s built on trust and, for optimum results, on love, rather than merely on fear. IOW, to achieve a truly lasting peace in our world, with each other, we must at least have a level of peace within ourselves that comes as we perceive the foundations of this world to be based around and grounded in goodness, order, and love, before and apart from ourselves, in order for there to be sound, eternal relevance to it all. We may not wish to be compelled to do even this, to believe and to love, but unless our “common sense” is connected to and based on it, no lasting peace should be expected.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s possible that if everyone truly adhered to common sense (a term which might be translatable to “natural law”), then the world would be much better off. Common sense in that case could serve as a sort of objective morality. But what’s missing in that is something we might easily dismiss and object to: man must feel consciously morally bound, like it or not, to an external superior authority in order to consistently remain oriented towards moral rectitude for the long-term…

If you’re arguing that “common sense” is a spinning compass when it lacks some objective thing with which to orient itself, I do fully agree. But at that point, “common sense” is just a shorthand for the objective authority.

 

[fhansen]

If you’re arguing that “common sense” is a spinning compass when it lacks some objective thing with which to orient itself, I do fully agree. But at that point, “common sense” is just a shorthand for the objective authority.

Yes, I mean to say that if the idea of common sense reflects an authentic trait, a shared “law” written in the hearts of men, then we’ll tend to follow that sense the more we believe it to be based on a broader and more superior foundation than just ourselves. What we consciously believe about the universe we live in and how we value it directly influences our own way of acting in it.

 

[EnosJadon]

For the sake of those who haven’t been closely following this discussion, let me summarize.

The original premise of this thread was simply that lacking any absolute moral truths atheists are motivated to act only in their own self-interest. Any actions that serve the common good are justified only in-so-far as they align with the interests of the self. Therefore to the atheist, genocide, murder, rape and theft are acceptable behaviors so long as they ultimately serve the self.

Unfortunately, at some point Vonsalza realized that theism offers no absolute moral truths either, so the argument subtly shifted to Pascal’s Wager. I.E that it’s better to act according to theism’s “absolute” moral truths, because those truths come with both the promise of future rewards, and the threat of future punishment. However this is still just a case of people acting in their own self-interest. Theism would simply obfuscate the motivation, and call it morality.

What Vonsalza fails to recognize is that morality is simply the product of genes and memes. We’re genetically predisposed to be social creatures. We’re not born with the ability to survive on our own. We need years of nurturing under the care of others. We’re not born knowing how to survive. We have to be taught. And among the things that we have to be taught is how to get along within a social group. We learn what behavior is acceptable, and what behavior isn’t. We learn from our parents, and our grandparents, and our siblings, and our teachers, and our peers. We learn through reward and we learn through punishment. We learn right from wrong. Just as our parents did, and their parents did, and their parents did. Each group, and each generation teaching a slightly different set of truths. But some of these truths persisted for generation after generation and became what we now refer to as “moral” truths. These are the truths which we perceive to be absolute and self-evident.

Morality is learned behavior that serves the common good. It’s ingrained within the fabric of society that certain behavior is acceptable and certain behavior isn’t, and each will be rewarded accordingly here and now whenever possible. To step outside of these boundaries is to risk the judgment of the group. And to sacrifice the interests of the self for the interests of others is to enhance one’s stature within the group. Morality serves to sustain the group, and the group serves to sustain the individual. it’s a symbiotic relationship.

Now if you think that it’s necessary to believe in God in order to sufficiently reinforce this behavior, then so be it. But at some point intellectually honest people can realize that such artificial crutches aren’t necessary. They realize that serving the interests of the group, and serving the interests of the self are one and the same thing. These are the truly noble group. These are the truly “Christian” group.

But as I stated in an earlier post, that given free will, people will believe what they choose to believe, and that’s one thing that neither you, me, nor God can change.

 

[fhansen]

Unfortunately, at some point Vonsalza realized that theism offers no absolute moral truths either, so the argument subtly shifted to Pascal’s Wager. I.E that it’s better to act according to theism’s “absolute” moral truths, because those truths come with both the promise of future rewards, and the threat of future punishment. However this is still just a case of people acting in their own self-interest. Theism would simply obfuscate the motivation, and call it morality.

Actually what theism posits, in the form of Christianity at least, is that purpose and goodness and love, with intrinsically related goods such as continued existence, are foundational to this universe in some manner-and tend to exclude immorality by their nature.

So then, yes, what we should be compelled to do or to follow also just happens to be good for us and the world we live in even if that may take some convincing as we also tend to prefer being uncompelled to do much of anything, thinking we might have a better way. *And *, this theism says, we can know this goodness for ourselves, and so begin to align ourselves with it such that our behavior *doesn’t * come from compulsion but rather from our own desire.

The bottom-line message of Christianity: self-interest is good once we recognize that our best interest lies in love, which helps rather than harms our neighbor as it also places his interest on a high level.

 

[EnosJadon]

Actually what theism posits, in the form of Christianity at least, is that purpose and goodness and love, with intrinsically related goods such as continued existence, are foundational to this universe in some manner-and tend to exclude immorality by their nature.

This may indeed be the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine, but that wasn’t Vonsalza’s original premise for this thread. Your interpretation would be almost impossible to disprove. Similarly of course, it would be impossible to confirm as well.

So then, yes, what we should be compelled to do or to follow also just happens to be good for us and the world we live in even if that may take some convincing as we also tend to prefer being uncompelled to do much of anything, thinking we might have a better way. *And *, this theism says, we can know this goodness for ourselves, and so begin to align ourselves with it such that our behavior *doesn’t * come from compulsion but rather from our own desire.

The bottom-line message of Christianity: self-interest is good once we recognize that our best interest lies in love, which helps rather than harms our neighbor as it also places his interest on a high level.

But what then is the need for God? If something is ultimately good for us, then this is true regardless of whether or not there’s a God to make it so. The atheist then correctly argues that there’s neither overwhelming need, nor overwhelming evidence for God.

 

[inocente]

Religion has the ability to “hack” that continual “self-benefit vs cost” evaluation of group membership with the appeal to punishment in an afterlife through things like hell or reincarnation in a less-ideal state - directly making the cost of selfish behavior seem higher, if only through imaginary means.

I presented only “the stick” of religion. It also has a “carrot”. I’d argue most that adhered to a particular religion did so out of desire for the carrots of common-moral code, community and a pleasant after-life.
A “carrot” for being “good” is yet another thing atheism lacks.

I just caught up on the thread. An atheist in my team used a similar argument. Religion fools the masses with imaginary punishments and rewards. She saw through the ruse herself of course, but as long as religion keeps the masses in order, she was happy for others to be suckered.

But even with real punishments and rewards, the argument is wrong, because it appeals only to selfishness, and we didn’t evolve being that selfish.

Social species evolve social behaviors. Dogs probably don’t have morals, let alone moral absolutes. They’re not legalists, they don’t seem bothered about rules. They’re not utilitarians, as they’re not much good at weighing up consequences. If they have any ethics, they have virtue ethics, they have character. dogguide.net/25-hero-dogs.php

 

[Vonsalza]

For the sake of those who haven’t been closely following this discussion, let me summarize.

This should be good…

The original premise of this thread was simply that lacking any absolute moral truths atheists are motivated to act only in their own self-interest.

Predictably, wrong right out the gate. The OP is whether “common sense” is a valid source for atheist moral norms. This OP has a rare quality that many do not - it has a rational answer. It is this: “Common sense” is an ad populum fallacy. My “common sense” is different from yours. In that way, they are worthless as premises in an argument.

Unfortunately, at some point Vonsalza realized that theism offers no absolute moral truths either, so the argument subtly shifted to Pascal’s Wager.

And wrong again. I do think religion offers moral absolutes. And “Pascal’s Wager” has never been offered as a reason why the atheist should be religious. I’ve only offered that objective morality dies when you reject the existence of some supreme being.
This is an attempt by EnosJadon to resort to arguments he/she is familiar with in an emotional need to re-affirm their atheistic morality that has been shown to be virtually undefinable and, ergo, useless as a common moral schema.

What Vonsalza fails to recognize is that morality is simply the product of genes and memes…

What EnosJadon has failed to recognize is that even if that’s true, people still require a non-arbitrary reason to follow any particular moral truth. Atheism utterly lacks such a source of incentive. Religion generally offers both a carrot and a stick as incentives for moral behavior.
When pressed, the atheist must admit moral truth is purely relative. As a result, out-right murder is perfectly acceptable if it results in the increased fitness of the human species. Enos and Bradsky don’t like this. Too bad.

Morality serves to sustain the group, and the group serves to sustain the individual. it’s a symbiotic relationship.

Exactly! And when the individual cost of any group activity is greater than the individual’s benefit, they will defect from the group and it’s morals. In naturalism, personal-benefit is always the underlying telos, even in group membership. The only exceptions are colony super-organisms like termites and ants.

And when that group is threatened by another group, “war” and “genocide” are thus perfectly acceptable go-tos for resolve, as our prehistoric (and pre-religious) ancestors prove. This is completely consistent with the atheistic view.

But as I stated in an earlier post, that given free will, people will believe what they choose to believe, and that’s one thing that neither you, me, nor God can change.

Exactly. The social benefit of morality collapses when we declare that morality a purely individual construct. “What is right” becomes a test of wills (right of might).

Atheism lacks objective moral behavior because it declares that such doesn’t exist.
Thus atheists lack a seemingly objective code with which to judge the actions of others in wider society - which is the greatest functional purpose of morality.
Finally, atheists lack an engine to even drive what they arbitrarily consider as moral behaviors beyond mere natural selection - even as they have consistently displayed a stunning inability to identify what one of those behaviors might be.

Enos makes the error of false dichotomy when continually comparing hollow atheism to Christianity. The categorical opponent of the atheist isn’t the Christian. It’s anyone with a belief in a god or gods. It’s theism in general.

 

[Vonsalza]

Social species evolve social behaviors…

Undoubtedly, you’re right. I’m not arguing against it. Current and prehistoric human tribalism testifies loudly on your behalf.

What also right is that when the eusocial behavior costs more to the individual than the individual benefit derived, the evolutionary mechanism for that behavior evaporates - per Dr. E.O. Wilson in his “The Social Conquest of Earth”

 

[EnosJadon]

Atheism lacks objective moral behavior because it declares that such doesn’t exist.

Well this response, and I presume all of my subsequent responses to Vonsalza, are going to be exceedingly easy.

All I need do is to direct any interested parties back to post #130

.

 

[fhansen]

I just caught up on the thread. An atheist in my team used a similar argument. Religion fools the masses with imaginary punishments and rewards. She saw through the ruse herself of course, but as long as religion keeps the masses in order, she was happy for others to be suckered.

But even with real punishments and rewards, the argument is wrong, because it appeals only to selfishness, and we didn’t evolve being that selfish.

Social species evolve social behaviors. Dogs probably don’t have morals, let alone moral absolutes. They’re not legalists, they don’t seem bothered about rules. They’re not utilitarians, as they’re not much good at weighing up consequences. If they have any ethics, they have virtue ethics, they have character. dogguide.net/25-hero-dogs.php

All that this really translates to in the end is that man doesn’t want to be morally obligated, while a dog *can’t *be. We may or may not want to be moral, while self-motivated either way, but not obligated, so, like your friend, we can wallow in our own imagined superiority, never being naive or gullible enough to be suckered and subjugated while acknowledging the benefits arising for society from those *other *fools, who are. That’s the safe cowardly approach IMO. Anyway, the obligation represents the stick which acknowledges that to the extent that humans aren’t moral they can do some really awful stuff to each other, stuff so ugly that it would never even occur to a dog-or even a lion or tiger or bear.

But to the extent that humans come to value love for themselves they then choose to “fulfill” the obligation, without needing to even be conscious of it. What Christianity tells us, however, is that, as a whole, we’ll fail at that endeavor in any large and consistent enough way to truly overcome and defeat the selfishness and pride that opposes it-unless for help, unless for grace. The cross is the pure demonstration of that grace, the proof of God’s willingness to do whatever it takes to show us the depth of His love-as that was Him hanging on it. Love undergirds creation-and it’s truly appropriate that it be the one thing demanded of us. And we can know this-and come to align ourselves with it, with God. Again, the obligation only ends up being what’s truly best for us anyway; we’re just in need of coming to know that for ourselves. But then we have to acknowledge a higher authority and all that…messy stuff that won’t win us any accolades from the world.

Anyway, without communion with God man remains lost. She or he may retain the semblance of Him, and even strong traces of His love but without the “knowingness” of His reality and the need to orient ourselves towards the demands of love, of His image, we also easily slip further and further away from it, as individuals and as a whole, as a people, as a world.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well this response, and I presume all of my subsequent responses to Vonsalza, are going to be exceedingly easy.

All I need do is to direct any interested parties back to post #130

Don’t forget the complete rebuttal in 131…

Vonsalza:
Vonsalza: “Common sense” is an ad populum fallacy.

Enos: That’s ok. There is no objective morality in atheism, it’s determined individually and it’s via group evolution.

Vonsalza: Then you don’t have a functioning moral schema.

Enos: Catholicism is awful1!!1

 

[fhansen]

Undoubtedly, you’re right. I’m not arguing against it. Current and prehistoric human tribalism testifies loudly on your behalf.

What also right is that when the eusocial behavior costs more to the individual than the individual benefit derived, the evolutionary mechanism for that behavior evaporates - per Dr. E.O. Wilson in his “The Social Conquest of Earth”

The problem is that we’re as free to “disobey” evolution as we are to disobey God. The difference is that we still really end up the gods in the case of evolution, since 1) we determine by speculation which morals have actually evolved for us, and 2) there’s absolutely no compelling motivation for us to obey anyway. Evolution can simply never serve as one’s God, or even serve as a sound compelling argument for behaving one way vs another. Did child sacrifice really evolve as a good and beneficial behavior for some ancient tribes?

 

[EnosJadon]

Vonsalza: “Common sense” is an ad populum fallacy.

Enos: That’s ok. There is no objective morality in atheism, it’s determined individually and it’s via group evolution.

Vonsalza: Then you don’t have a functioning moral schema.

Enos: Catholicism is awful1!!1

Here’s what I think, every time that people go back and read post #130, you lose.

.