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

[Vonsalza]

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?

Sure, I think you’re right. I just wasn’t being clear. The hazard of doing this while also being in my office, I’m afraid.

I was presenting that in the context of it being the prime atheist source for moral belief. While I personally do hold to natural selection as being another one of God’s methods to implement His divine will, they don’t since “there is no god”. As such, they lack any objective moral source that is remotely similar to what we mutually claim to have as theists and as Catholics.

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

Sure. And the fact that the discussion continues means that you must not have done as well as you hope.

If you say that there is no objective morality and that everyone determines morality on their own, then you don’t have a functioning moral schema that meets the needs of society. What anyone else believes, Catholic or Taoist, isn’t a defense for the weakness of your claims.

I think people will also see that when they read your “Magnum Opus”, too.

You simply do not have a non-arbitrary moral scheme. As any individual gets to determine it, it is purely capricious by definition.

 

[EnosJadon]

You simply do not have a non-arbitrary moral scheme. As any individual gets to determine it, it is purely capricious by definition.

I’m perfectly content with letting people decide that for themselves. I think the post speaks for itself.

Anyone who wants to, just take the time to read post #130.

.

Sure. And the fact that the discussion continues means that you must not have done as well as you hope

I have no desire to end the discussion. The goal is simply to sway it.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m perfectly content with letting people decide that for themselves. I think the post speaks for itself.

Your post and the morality it proposes allows that genocide and rape are perfectly “good” as long as those actions promote the fitness of the group…

 

[EnosJadon]

Your post and the morality it proposes allows that genocide and rape are perfectly “good” as long as those actions promote the fitness of the group…

Again, I’m perfectly content with allowing people to read the post, and decide for themselves.

If it implies what you think it implies, then you should be more than happy to have them read it also.

.

 

[Vonsalza]

If it implies what you think it implies, then you should be more than happy to have them read it also.

You are also the product of inter-tribal rape and genocide - especially if you live in North America. This means that the evolutionary viewpoint is fine with it as those activities are, in part, what has produced you as a current representative of the species.

 

[EnosJadon]

You are also the product of inter-tribal rape and genocide - especially if you live in North America. This means that the evolutionary viewpoint is fine with it as those activities are, in part, what has produced you as a current representative of the species.

Morality is born not only out of that which our forefathers have done justly, but probably more-so out of that which they have done unjustly. Because we are creatures that learn. We may learn slowly, but we learn. We learn through hardships, and struggles, and disappointments, and mistakes. We persevere. We grow. And we go on. We do what we must, and we leave our descendants to judge us for it. Hoping only that they temper their disdain with compassion. Recognizing that where there was evil, there was good also. And accepting that the greatest testimony to their works, is us. As will be those who come after us.

Evolution isn’t the most sympathetic of artists, but it is a relentless one, and it’s not yet finished.

 

[Vonsalza]

Morality is born not only out of that which our forefathers have done justly, but probably more-so out of that which they have done unjustly.

By what metric does an atheist define “just” and “unjust”, as both actions contributed to their present existence? (which is the supreme metric of natural selection)

…Hoping only that they temper their disdain with compassion…

On an evolutionary basis, “compassion” can only be practiced up to the tipping point where it costs me as much as it benefits me. When compassion costs more, the evolutionary drive for it is gone. Sorry.

So how does an atheist codify these “disdains and compassions” into a non-arbitrary, recognizable moral scheme that can be useful for both society and solving immediate moral dilemmas, again?

 

[Bradski]

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

Did I say that? Hang on – I’ll check.

Nope. Just because someone decides to do what’s right does not mean it must benefit that person. In fact, it is most often the case that it will not benefit that person.

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.

But didn’t you say that those who are religious do what they do because of the perceived benefits? The ‘carrots’? Hang on, I’ll check again.

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.

So yes you did. You seem to have some difficulty with the term ‘altruism’. It seems that your definition of ‘ genuine altruism’ is when where you do good because of the desire for potential benefits.

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

I use secular because there is no such thing as an atheist morality. You can’t base morality on not believing something.

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…

The evidence is relative to whatever moral problem is under discussion. You can’t supply evidence unless you know to what it relates. So for example, if you say ‘sex outside marriage is wrong’, then I will expect some evidence to back that up (I assume that you’d have some rather than simply repeating what you’d been told). Similarly, if I make a statement about morality, then you would expect evidence from me to back it up.

So you make decisions on matters exactly the same way as I do. Although I sincerely hope so. Maybe you could confirm this. I have asked you a couple of times with no reply, so how about an answer this time?

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)?

Objective in the sense that decisions are unbiased, disinterested (whether I agree with sex before marriage or not, the evidence must be looked at objectively). Relative in the sense that any moral statement is relative to the conditions that apply (who is having sex, their commitment to each other, the chances of pregnancy etc).

Now if you want to say that your opinion on, for example, sex outside of marriage is biased and not open minded and you aren’t interested in the particular situation as it pertains, then please declare that so we know where we stand.

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.

What gives you that idea? I certainly haven’t said anything that could remotely be interpreted that way. Maybe you need to back that up.

 

[Bradski]

On an evolutionary basis, “compassion” can only be practiced up to the tipping point where it costs me as much as it benefits me. When compassion costs more, the evolutionary drive for it is gone.

You need to read up on game theory. It will help you understand.

 

[Vonsalza]

…Just because someone decides to do what’s right does not mean it must benefit that person. In fact, it is most often the case that it will not benefit that person.

But didn’t you say that those who are religious do what they do because of the perceived benefits? The ‘carrots’?

Exactly to my point. How does an atheist determine what is “right” without an objective moral authority? “subjective proof”? Bandwagon?

And on the carrots, quite right! What, exactly, are the carrots for a “good” atheist that a “poorly behaving” atheist would miss-out on through their poor behavior?

It seems that your definition of ‘ genuine altruism’ is when where you do good because of the desire for potential benefits.

No sir. I define altruism along the lines of Oxford - a la no personal benefit. The reciprocal altruism evolution provides for the atheist isn’t the same thing as it bears an obvious element of reciprocation. Atheists only insist it is as a matter of deceptive conflation.

I use secular because there is no such thing as an atheist morality. You can’t base morality on not believing something.

I think you’re getting somewhere with this…

The evidence is relative to whatever moral problem is under discussion. You can’t supply evidence unless you know to what it relates.

Then I’m sure you see the hilarity in the definition of “subjective evidence” and the attempts to convince people with it. It is authoritatively defeated with a “no thanks”. Such is the fate of the subjective atheist moral norm.

You need to read up on game theory. It will help you understand.

I literally could not have finished my degrees without it. Maybe you need to do a substantially better job of identifying where “game theory” (particularly, which one?) blasts me as saying “game theory” is about as specific as saying “calculus” or “science”.

 

[Bradski]

Exactly to my point. How does an atheist determine what is “right” without an objective moral authority? “subjective proof”? Bandwagon?

You have already been told how someone without a religious belief determines what is right. Why on earth do you keep asking? I’m really not sure I could make it clearer. Perhaps if I summarise it will help you:

Firstly, there is no objective moral authority (i.e. God) to whom I might appeal. There may be authorities whose opinions are worth listening to, but they would have to provide exactly the same arguments and evidence as would you. They would be used simply because of their expertise in any given matter. That is, I would prefer an opinion regarding evolution from Richard Dawkins rather than one from you.

Secondly, there is no subjective proof. Proof is not dependent upon one’s personal feelings or beliefs. Proof is determined by objective evidence. It stands alone, irrespective of what anyone’s preferences. It is, as I said, unbiased and disinterested.

Thirdly, there are no morally absolute statements. It is nonsensical to say ‘Lying is wrong’. You need a context. You need a description of the particular scenario. You need conditional clauses. You need an ‘IF’ or a ‘BECAUSE’. So the statement becomes ‘Lying is wrong if X’. The moral validity of the statement is dependent upon, is relative to X, whatever that might be.

Fourthly, there are no personal benefits (or loss of benefits) to be considered when making a moral decision. No carrots. No stick. As I said in the last post: ‘Just because someone decides to do what’s right does not mean it must benefit that person. In fact, it is most often the case that it will not benefit that person.’

Obviously, that will depend on the person making the call and we all are tempted, and sometimes give in to the temptation to make calls that do have personal benefits. That applies to anyone, whether they have religious beliefs or not. And it would be obvious from the first three conditions if someone is bending the rules.

And as to altruism (yet again), you really should re-read what you have written before you post it. You say this in one line about your comment that those who are religious do what they do because of perceived benefits (the carrots):

And on the carrots, quite right!

And then in the very next line, after it is pointed out that that means one does good because of the desire for potential benefits, you say:

No sir. I define altruism along the lines of Oxford - a la no personal benefit.

Those two sentences are the exact opposite of each other. One says that religious people do things for personal benefit and then you deny what they do as being altruistic behaviour – not for personal benefit. I wouldn’t have credited it if those two comments were used in different threads. In different posts, it would be inexplicable. In two concurrent sentences…I’m at a loss.

Then I’m sure you see the hilarity in the definition of “subjective evidence” and the attempts to convince people with it. It is authoritatively defeated with a “no thanks”. Such is the fate of the subjective atheist moral norm.

Yet again…evidence is objective. Subjective evidence is nothing more than personal opinion. Who on earth is trying to convince anyone using such a term?

Maybe you need to do a substantially better job of identifying where “game theory” (particularly, which one?) blasts me as saying “game theory” is about as specific as saying “calculus” or “science”.

I find it hard to imagine that you did any game theory whatsoever without discussing either The Prisoner’s Dilemma or something very similar to it. And that having done so you can’t identify how it relates to evolved altruistic behaviour.

‘Reciprocal altruism is often discussed in the context of game theory, particularly the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. This Prisoner’s Dilemma provides an elegant way to test cooperative behavior in the simplified context of a game.’ psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/prosocial-behavior/reciprocal-altruism/

The reciprocal altruism evolution provides for the atheist isn’t the same thing as it bears an obvious element of reciprocation. Atheists only insist it is as a matter of deceptive conflation.

And from the same link:

‘It is often remarked that reciprocal altruism is not genuine altruism because it has the seemingly selfish goals of repayment, whereas true altruism is usually defined as self-sacrifice for the sole sake of benefiting others.

(Note: the last sentence represents what you claim)

The fact that altruistic behaviors could emerge through natural selection via the mechanism of reciprocal altruism, however, says nothing about the motives of the organism engaged in the altruistic act. It is important to recognize that reciprocal altruism is a theory of how cooperation could have evolved, not a theory of the psychological states of the altruist.’ (my emphasis)

(Note: the last sentence represents what is actually the case).

How many times do I have to point this out…

 

[Vonsalza]

You have already been told how someone without a religious belief determines what is right.

No sir, no I have not.
I’ve been given the buzzwords of “common sense” and “evidence”. “Common sense” is fallacious and I keep asking what an example of objective evidence of “moral behavior” to an atheist would be; thus far to absolutely no avail. I receive only more buzzwords like (reciprocal)“altruism” and “game theory” as though that provided anything remotely concrete.

Firstly, there is no objective moral authority (i.e. God) to whom I might appeal.

I know. Apropos, I know murder is wrong because my religion has been telling people that for millennia. How does an atheist know murder is wrong? Evolution has certainly allowed for it… I really would like an answer to this question.

Secondly, there is no subjective proof.

There may be a few publications that you’ll need to write letters to explaining that… But aside, if morality is a subjective concept to an atheist, how does an atheist form morals with objective proof? There seems to be a category error here.

Thirdly, there are no morally absolute statements.

That seems to restate the first, but very well.
So when is it permissible for an atheist to commit rape, as it is not absolutely prohibited?
Honestly asked.

Fourthly, there are no personal benefits (or loss of benefits) to be considered when making a moral decision. No carrots. No stick.

So then why be “good”? This assumes the atheist has managed to objectively proof the subjective concept of “good” in a subjective situation while abstaining from the use of subjective evidence Just trying to go by your rules.

And it would be obvious from the first three conditions if someone is bending the rules.

Uh? Your 1st three conditions don’t identify any moral behaviors. Lemme check again… Nope.
Please don’t let the fact that you’ve yet to define any actual moral norms stop you.

And as to altruism (yet again), you really should re-read what you have written before you post it.

I’m sure you’d agree that the “carrot” of pleasing a deity is non-material at-best as it is “enjoyed” in the “hereafter”. Conversely, the altruism allowed by evolution unquestionably demands a material benefit. There simply isn’t an evolutionary drive for altruism without it.

If you would like to forward the notion that reward expected in a life other than this one separates religious altruism from “pure altruism”, then I might concede that point. But that would mean “pure altruism” simply doesn’t exist. Again, evolution has no mechanism for it either.

I would still posit that religious altruism does not require material benefit in the same way an atheist’s reciprocal altruism does. I would also assert that the religious practice their altruism more - at least as measured by the quantifiables related to charity world wide.

Yet again…evidence is objective. Subjective evidence is nothing more than personal opinion. Who on earth is trying to convince anyone using such a term?

There’s a problem with your belief that one can “objectively evidence” the proper moral behavior in a “subjective” situation. Do you honestly require explanation as to why that is? Honestly asked.

I find it hard to imagine that you did any game theory whatsoever without discussing either The Prisoner’s Dilemma or something very similar to it. And that having done so you can’t identify how it relates to evolved altruistic behaviour.

“Prisoner’s Dilemma” is rather entry-level game theory. We played it in high school.
You must have forgotten that the consistent altruists get ceaselessly and utterly dominated by the egoists. Another thing you’ve forgotten is that alliances are harder to maintain the longer the game goes on. In fact, when the game’s continuous, reciprocal altruism can all but vanish. Why is reciprocity so rare in social animals?

Is Dawkins’ book is the closest you’ve actually gotten to game theory?

The fact that altruistic behaviors could emerge through natural selection via the mechanism of reciprocal altruism, however, says nothing about the motives of the organism engaged in the altruistic act.

The motive is immaterial. The personal benefit, however, obviously isn’t. When it is lacking, the group-member will defect or die.

How many times do you need to be told that?

 

[EnosJadon]

I know murder is wrong because my religion has been telling people that for millennia. How does an atheist know murder is wrong?

How an atheist comes to know that murder is wrong is exactly the same as how a theist comes to know that murder is wrong. Somebody teaches them that it is. But you may ask, how does an atheistic society determine what’s good and what’s bad? The answer is simple, by experience. One learns that war is bad, by experiencing war. One learns that anarchy is bad, by experiencing anarchy. An atheist’s understanding of good and bad isn’t simply the product of one persons reasoning, it’s the sum total of all the experiences of those who have come before them, refined, moralized, set down as law, and taught to their children.

Each generation of atheists doesn’t need to relive the experiences of the past in order to learn from them. But as the saying goes, “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” Life will inevitably reteach us the lessons that we forget.

 

[Bradski]

No sir, no I have not.
I’ve been given the buzzwords of “common sense” and “evidence”. “Common sense” is fallacious and I keep asking what an example of objective evidence of “moral behavior” to an atheist would be; thus far to absolutely no avail. I receive only more buzzwords like (reciprocal)“altruism” and “game theory” as though that provided anything remotely concrete.

I know. Apropos, I know murder is wrong because my religion has been telling people that for millennia. How does an atheist know murder is wrong? Evolution has certainly allowed for it… I really would like an answer to this question.

There may be a few publications that you’ll need to write letters to explaining that… But aside, if morality is a subjective concept to an atheist, how does an atheist form morals with objective proof? There seems to be a category error here.

That seems to restate the first, but very well.
So when is it permissible for an atheist to commit rape, as it is not absolutely prohibited?
Honestly asked.

So then why be “good”? This assumes the atheist has managed to objectively proof the subjective concept of “good” in a subjective situation while abstaining from the use of subjective evidence Just trying to go by your rules.

Uh? Your 1st three conditions don’t identify any moral behaviors. Lemme check again… Nope.
Please don’t let the fact that you’ve yet to define any actual moral norms stop you.

I’m sure you’d agree that the “carrot” of pleasing a deity is non-material at-best as it is “enjoyed” in the “hereafter”. Conversely, the altruism allowed by evolution unquestionably demands a material benefit. There simply isn’t an evolutionary drive for altruism without it.

If you would like to forward the notion that reward expected in a life other than this one separates religious altruism from “pure altruism”, then I might concede that point. But that would mean “pure altruism” simply doesn’t exist. Again, evolution has no mechanism for it either.

I would still posit that religious altruism does not require material benefit in the same way an atheist’s reciprocal altruism does. I would also assert that the religious practice their altruism more - at least as measured by the quantifiables related to charity world wide.

There’s a problem with your belief that one can “objectively evidence” the proper moral behavior in a “subjective” situation. Do you honestly require explanation as to why that is? Honestly asked.

“Prisoner’s Dilemma” is rather entry-level game theory. We played it in high school.
You must have forgotten that the consistent altruists get ceaselessly and utterly dominated by the egoists. Another thing you’ve forgotten is that alliances are harder to maintain the longer the game goes on. In fact, when the game’s continuous, reciprocal altruism can all but vanish. Why is reciprocity so rare in social animals?

Is Dawkins’ book is the closest you’ve actually gotten to game theory?

The motive is immaterial. The personal benefit, however, obviously isn’t. When it is lacking, the group-member will defect or die.

How many times do you need to be told that?

I can’t be bothered reducing this to a sentence or two to indicate that this post is directed at you. Nevertheless…

I was hoping for an honest discussion but you are being purposely obtuse. And I am not here to play patsy to your self righteous and querulous posts.

You have the floor.

 

[o_mlly]

…
Yet again…evidence is objective. Subjective evidence is nothing more than personal opinion. Who on earth is trying to convince anyone using such a term?
…

Morality or ethics as a science is a social science; not a natural or empirical one. All social sciences rely on subjective evidence. Many try to convince other that subjective evidence really matters: economists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. The application of high powered mathematics in the form of statistical analysis of subjective evidence does not elevate that evidence to an objective order. As the polsters in our last presidential election discovered.

 

[Vonsalza]

I can’t be bothered reducing this to a sentence or two to indicate that this post is directed at you. Nevertheless…

You also can’t be bothered to provide objective evidence of atheistic morality…

I was hoping for an honest discussion but you are being purposely obtuse. And I am not here to play patsy to your self righteous and querulous posts.

Self righteous and querulous?

How many times do I have to point this out…

As the pot calls the kettle “black”.

You have the floor.

Please do come back when you can provide this objective evidence. Your nigh-religious interpretations of “reciprocal altruism” and “game theory” aren’t getting it done.

 

[Vonsalza]

How an atheist comes to know that murder is wrong is exactly the same as how a theist comes to know that murder is wrong. Somebody teaches them that it is.

There may be some truth there. But the religious explanation has the benefit of being non-arbitrary because it appeals to a divine authority. Granted, it requires you believe in such things. Luckily, the human race overwhelmingly does,

How does an atheist solve the problem of arbitrary appearance? What provable concept can provide moral transcendence (and with it the ability to believably teach others your norms) in a way god does for the religious?

One learns that war is bad, by experiencing war. One learns that anarchy is bad, by experiencing anarchy.

I’m with you 100%. So how does an atheist show that the war is bad? Especially as it has demonstrable evolutionary benefit for the victors? The winners don’t uniformly argue it’s bad…

“those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” Life will inevitably reteach us the lessons that we forget.

One of them being “history is written by the victors”. So war sometimes isn’t wrong. How does an atheist objectively decide when it is? Just when they may be on the losing end of it? That reasoning wouldn’t translate to those on the winning end of it.

We’ve pretty clearly established that there are no moral absolutes for an atheist. In keeping with that, when is rape ok? It must occasionally be, as there are no moral absolutes and rape is certainly part of all our lineages somewhere between the present and the dawn of homo sapiens - thus it contributed to our existence.

Any answer on that?

 

[Vonsalza]

Morality or ethics as a science is a social science; not a natural or empirical one. All social sciences rely on subjective evidence. Many try to convince other that subjective evidence really matters: economists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. The application of high powered mathematics in the form of statistical analysis of subjective evidence does not elevate that evidence to an objective order. As the polsters in our last presidential election discovered.

Excellent observation. Thanks.

 

[EnosJadon]

You also can’t be bothered to provide objective evidence of atheistic morality…

Bradski’s right, your arguments are extremely frivolous and repetitive. You continue to raise the same objections even after they’ve been addressed. This can be very frustrating.

But just to humor you, let’s address the question of objective evidence of atheistic morality. It’s exactly the same as the objective evidence for theistic morality. Although the above question is a bit unclear, I assume that you’re asking what the objective source of atheistic morality is, if so, then the answer is simple, there isn’t any. But there isn’t any objective source of theistic morality either. You’ve been told this many times and have yet to question the validity of that claim. Therefore your continuing to ask this question is frivolous.

Accept the answer and move on, or rebut it, but don’t just simply repeat the question ad nauseam.

 

[fhansen]

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.

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.

The need is that we can’t and/or won’t necessarily value and place love on that level-a level that guarantees no harm will be done to each other, that we’ll do to others as we’d want done to ourselves-and then maintain that value in place without 1) first hearing of the reality of and critical need for this kind of love, 2) receiving the help of God to achieve it. As long as man is effectively the god of his life and world, evil will rear its head in one form or another. And this is why it will always be naive to think that we’re naturally evolving into a morally superior species, BTW.