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

[inocente]

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.

I can’t really see that. The average person has a conscience and feels guilt, and perhaps a warm glow when good. We all get angry when we see injustice. These feelings indicate emotion, and so are evolved, natural. We may differ on what is the right thing to do, but we’re motivated to do it and we feel bad when we don’t. Other species may feel similar emotions.

• 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.

Trouble is, obligate means to require or compel someone, so it’s a two-way street. The truly awful stuff is when a suicide bomber feels obligated to his god, or a mob feels obligated to their ideology, etc.

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.

I see where you’re coming from but as Baptists generally go with original innocence rather than original sin, beg to differ.

 

[inocente]

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.

No, I think this isn’t driven at an individual level. Suppose a trait develops in a group to kill everyone else. Unchecked, the group doesn’t survive, so trait dies out. Or suppose a trait develops in a group to do no work and steal from everyone else. Unchecked, no one produces food, group doesn’t survive, so trait dies out.

Compassion aids group survival, the cost/benefit is for the group not the individual.

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

Your case is undermined by real world evidence. For instance, when the Pope talked of scandal last week, he may have been including the 7% of Australian priests who allegedly abused children between 1950 and 2010. Don’t know if the numbers are contested, but $213m compensation claims have been paid. That’s not to say there are no failings elsewhere, just last night I heard a report of systemic child abuse by UN peace forces, but it does question whether objective moral authority is any better in practice than common sense.

Or on a more positive note, equal marriage in America is linked to a 7% drop in US teen suicide attempts, which includes straight teens. So the common sense notion that a fairer and more inclusive society avoids senseless suffering paid off.

 

[Vonsalza]

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.

Objective evidence requires that someone else (presumably a non-atheist) can take same data and reasonably draw the same conclusions with it.

Neither you nor Bradski have presented anything that remotely approaches this. You’ve only offered subjective, nigh-religious interpretations of concepts and theorems that can be validly used to draw a bevy of different conclusions as well. :doh2:

An example you’ve given - “Experience tells us that war is awful, so war is awful”.

However, the experience of others is that war is often very beneficial if you win. It’s still often beneficial to your working-class economy if you lose, but not in a grievous way. So sometimes war is good. Thus you haven’t objectively proven that war is awful. It would be factually incorrect to state that it is in an axiomatic way.

Ergo the questions persist. You have been unable to answer them.

I really don’t think atheism can. Which is an ontological problem on the establishment of common moral ethos between people…

But there isn’t any objective source of theistic morality either.

The religious would disagree and then present you their faith structure and transcendent god.

Either way, what some other group does is irrelevant to the “rightness” of what your group does.

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

Then please answer it. Objective proof. Now please.

 

[EnosJadon]

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,

Are you now appealing to popular opinion?

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?

Children naturally accept the lessons of those whom they perceive to be in authority. Until such time as their own experiences lead them to question that authority. Lead them and children will follow, but only to a point. In religion that authority is twofold, god, and those who claim to speak in his name. But neither of them are beyond questioning. We all choose which authority we want to follow, or we become our own authority, or we redefine god to our own liking and make him our de facto authority. As I’ve said many times, everybody gets to choose.

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…

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?

The atheist, like the theist, either learns first hand that war is bad, or he’s taught that it’s bad by some authority. In which case, at some point we have to decide for ourselves if that authority was correct. We have to decide for ourselves, subjectively, whether what we’ve been taught about a “just war” is right. And it doesn’t matter where that teaching came from, even from the supposed hand of god. The atheist takes what they’ve been taught, weighs it against their our own experiences, and then decides for themselves what’s true. It’s called free will, and it’s common to everybody, not just atheists.

We’re taught right from wrong. We weigh that teaching against our own experiences, we decide what’s true, and then we teach that to our children, and they repeat the process over and over again.

The winners may get the impression that war is good, but as was stated in an earlier post, life has a way of reteaching the lessons that we forget.

 

[Vonsalza]

…but as Baptists generally go with original innocence rather than original sin, beg to differ.

The Baptist denomination, while hugely vague these days, holds very, very firmly to original sin in the Baptist church I grew up in. The position was not unique, as I discovered at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Either way, not super related to the question currently debated: How does an atheist derive their moral code and how can it function on a societal level?

No, I think this isn’t driven at an individual level.

Dr. E.O. Wilson and many others strongly disagree. When there is no personal benefit (even if the personal benefit is not consciously known), there is no evolutionary drive. -full stop-

Your case is undermined by real world evidence. For instance, when the Pope talked of scandal last week… …but it does question whether objective moral authority is any better in practice than common sense.

First, there is no “universal common sense”. Many Chinese know that boiled rhino horn will cure their woes. Their own fingernails won’t have the same effect (even though they’re literally the same material).

Second, the idea and the adherent always bear disparity. A Baptist pastor in Lexington, KY was arrested on embezzlement from his church just a bit ago. It also came out he was cheating on his wife with a member of the youth group. The fact that people morally fail points to the relevant standard’s ability to identify this moral failure.

I’m trying to see what that standard is for atheism that serves the same function beyond “whatever you justify to yourself”.

 

[Vonsalza]

Are you now appealing to popular opinion?

No, I’m asserting that moral law can’t be arbitrary. People disdain arbitrary rules as they lack the needed “why”.

As I’ve said many times, everybody gets to choose.

So then we conclude, rape is only wrong insofar as the atheist will conclude it. When they don’t, it isn’t wrong.
Right?

The atheist takes what they’ve been taught, weighs it against their our own experiences, and then decides for themselves what’s true. It’s called free will, and it’s common to everybody, not just atheists.

Very good. Then there is no universally prohibited behavior. All is permitted if the atheist weighs it as such.

The winners may get the impression that war is good, but as was stated in an earlier post, life has a way of reteaching the lessons that we forget.

Certainly. To the atheist, there must be some good to war or we wouldn’t keep waging it.

So there is no real atheist moral norm beyond absolute relativism as perceived by the ego. That’s “right of might” on the individual level.

This has been productive. Thanks.

 

[EnosJadon]

An example you’ve given - “Experience tells us that war is awful, so war is awful”.

We’ve answered this question a thousand times. (Hyperbole) There are no objective moral truths. How often do we have to repeat that. If you wish to argue otherwise then please do, but don’t just repeat the objection ad nauseam. Or, like Bradski. I’ll stop responding.

Then please answer it. Objective proof. Now please.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE PROOF!!!

 

[EnosJadon]

Very good. Then there is no universally prohibited behavior. All is permitted if the atheist weighs it as such.

But what you’re failing to realize is that there’s no objective theistic morality either. War is good if my interpretation of theology says that it’s good. Rape is good if my interpretation of theology says that it’s good.

Any argument that’s made against atheistic morality can be made against theistic morality as well.

 

[fhansen]

But what you’re failing to realize is that there’s no objective theistic morality either. War is good if my interpretation of theology says that it’s good. Rape is good if my interpretation of theology says that it’s good.

Any argument that’s made against atheistic morality can be made against theistic morality as well.

Using love as the standard, rape could never be considered a morally good act-and war would only be as a means of defending the innocent.

 

[fhansen]

We’ve answered this question a thousand times. (Hyperbole) There are no objective moral truths. How often do we have to repeat that. If you wish to argue otherwise then please do, but don’t just repeat the objection ad nauseam. Or, like Bradski. I’ll stop responding.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE PROOF!!!

The problem IMO is that if morality is sort of neutral and relative-and created for practical purposes- that doesn’t explain the sense of justice that we innately have which gives rise to inner revulsion at such things as incest, pedophilia, torture, murder, etc, along with the sense of moral outrage or righteous indignation we experience at injustice witnessed. Generally speaking we* know* injustice when we see it, whether we care or not. Similarly we can know evil at times when it comes near us in one manner or another.

And even if we don’t always know why we refrain from such behavior ourselves, the vast majority of people simply don’t kill, rape, etc. If nothing else there are objectively observable patterns of human behavior that suggest that humans universally consider some behavior as wrong, other behavior as right, consciously or not, even as we have the freedom to override any of those values, which some do at times.

 

[Vonsalza]

But what you’re failing to realize is that there’s no objective theistic morality either. War is good if my interpretation of theology says that it’s good. Rape is good if my interpretation of theology says that it’s good.

Any argument that’s made against atheistic morality can be made against theistic morality as well.

Very good. Then for the atheist there is no universally prohibited behavior. All is permitted if the atheist weighs it as such, including rape.

Thanks again. It’s been enlightening.

 

[EnosJadon]

Using love as the standard, rape could never be considered a morally good act-and war would only be as a means of defending the innocent.

This is absolutely true, but the atheist can apply this standard just as logically as the theist can.

Atheists… I think…don’t argue so much about the value of this standard, but only the source.

 

[EnosJadon]

The problem IMO is that if morality is sort of neutral and relative-and created for practical purposes- that doesn’t explain the sense of justice that we innately have which gives rise to inner revulsion at such things as incest, pedophilia, torture, murder, etc, along with the sense of moral outrage or righteous indignation we experience at injustice witnessed. Generally speaking we* know* injustice when we see it, whether we care or not. Similarly we can know evil at times when it comes near us in one manner or another.

While this appears to be true, the question is…is it as universally true as we think that it is? And if so, why? Is it because it’s innately embedded in us by some transcendent morality, or is it simply the product of nature and nurture?

Sometimes we see what we want to see, and that’s not always a bad thing. But sometimes we judge others by what we want to see, and that’s not always a good thing.

And even if we don’t always know why we refrain from such behavior ourselves, the vast majority of people simply don’t kill, rape, etc. If nothing else there are objectively observable patterns of human behavior that suggest that humans universally consider some behavior as wrong, other behavior as right, consciously or not, even as we have the freedom to override any of those values, which some do at times.

This I agree with, there are perceptible patterns. But that’s the way nature is, there are perceptible patterns in everything. Are we simply mistaking naturally occurring patterns for supernaturally inspired ones? Observation suggests that people are want to do that, to see things that aren’t there. And so we have to ask ourselves, is that what we’re doing when it comes to God, seeing something that isn’t there?

 

[Vonsalza]

This is absolutely true, but the atheist can apply this standard just as logically as the theist can.

Atheists… I think…don’t argue so much about the value of this standard, but only the source.

Unfortunately, the value of the source has a direct relationship with the value of the standard. Without a valuable source, the standard is meaninglessly arbitrary. It’s binding in no way.

Is it because it’s innately embedded in us by some transcendent morality, or is it simply the product of nature and nurture?

It’s a pertinent question. Nature has no mechanism for generating altruism that costs more than the material benefit. Nature also allows for war and rape.

A level of altruism that sacrifices more than the material benefit received simply cannot be produced by nature.

 

[Aloysium]

Unfortunately, the value of the source has a direct relationship with the value of the standard. Without a valuable source, the standard is meaninglessly arbitrary. It’s binding in no way.
It’s a pertinent question. Nature has no mechanism for generating altruism that costs more than the material benefit. Nature also allows for war and rape.
A level of altruism that sacrifices more than the material benefit received simply cannot be produced by nature.

Regarding nature and altruism, it may be a matter of perspective. Consider that we may project onto the natural world, our own selfishness. If nature is dedicated to the flourishing of all life in its diverse forms, what we understand to be individual beings motivated by self-interest, might in reality be the sacrificing of one life form to the growth and continuity of all life. Each plant and animal has its place and all will in their time die to perpetuate the circle of life. It may be said that nature, in its entirety is altruistic, dedicated to life. Our vision is clouded by sin.

It is not sinful for animals, gorillas for example, to physically harm competitors and rape to procreate. For human beings, who are called to love, doing so, behaving like animals, is demonic. Such behaviour in animals, I understand to be morally neutral.

So, the issue is us. Self-interest has no place for altruism in its scope. To will the good of the other for its own sake frequently becomes tangible only in despair, when all hope for earthly happiness is lost as the truth of its ends is seen for its transience and illusoriness. What is left when one can never find any true or lasting happiness in the taking, but to give.

Giving oneself to love, becoming Christ-like, one sees others as they are known by God, compassionately. We pray that God’s will be done on earth, which is thereby transformed into heaven. The moral codes are practical applications, described in common terms, of how we are to go about doing God’s will.

 

[Bradski]

…that selective pressures will inevitably lead to a similar set of morals, whether the mechanism involved is theistic or atheistic in nature.

My apologies, I meant to reply to this but kept putting it off.

I broadly agree with what you say. A lot of what we do (or not do) is governed by how we feel about it and that is inbuilt to a great extent by the evolutionary process.

A good example is incest. No-one is taught that it is wrong. It simply doesn’t feel right. And that is because it is an evolved reaction to the thought of sex with a sibling. The lineages of those in the distant past who thought it was OK simply died out.

If having children with a close relative was a good thing in evolutionary terms, then we would think it was morally good. So in that sense, you are perfectly correct.

However, there are also social constructs, as opposed to evolutionary ones, that developed in order to enhance tribal cohesion. Memes as opposed to genes (with a nod to Dawkins, who coined the term). That would inlude religion.

 

[Vonsalza]

A good example is incest. No-one is taught that it is wrong. It simply doesn’t feel right.

Still sadly tinged by the absolute relativism that IS atheistic morality…

“Curiously, while 56 of Durham’s 60 [studied] societies had incest motifs in one or more of their myths, only five contained accounts of evil effects. A somewhat larger number ascribed beneficial results to transgressions, in particular the creation of giants and heroes. But even here, incest was viewed as something special, if not abnormal.”
-Dr. E.O. Wilson (an atheist), “The Social Conquest of Earth”

We also have a legion of examples of cultures that practiced it in specific situations involving people of high status who are very much still extant today. Hawaiians, Egyptians, several African tribes, so on…

Not even incest appears to be universally, objectively taboo. For the atheist, absolute relativism is the only morality they can cogently defended. Thus, even incest can occasionally be justified.

 

[EnosJadon]

My apologies, I meant to reply to this but kept putting it off.

I broadly agree with what you say. A lot of what we do (or not do) is governed by how we feel about it and that is inbuilt to a great extent by the evolutionary process.

A good example is incest. No-one is taught that it is wrong. It simply doesn’t feel right. And that is because it is an evolved reaction to the thought of sex with a sibling. The lineages of those in the distant past who thought it was OK simply died out.

If having children with a close relative was a good thing in evolutionary terms, then we would think it was morally good. So in that sense, you are perfectly correct.

However, there are also social constructs, as opposed to evolutionary ones, that developed in order to enhance tribal cohesion. Memes as opposed to genes (with a nod to Dawkins, who coined the term). That would inlude religion.

I’m very glad that you brought this up, because I had wanted to clarify what I was talking about in that series of posts, but like you I just didn’t get around to it. It used to be thought among evolutionists that a lot of how a system evolved depended upon the initial conditions. But lately it’s been shown through convergent evolution among other evolutionary processes that the initial conditions aren’t really all that important. Under selective pressure the same set of survival traits and strategies will emerge regardless of the initial conditions. Organisms in similar ecological niches will tend to evolve similar traits.

Each step in the evolution of humans from cooperative family groups through tribal and inter-tribal groups necessitates the evolution of a supportive social structure. A structure with rules, and expectations, and responsibilities. Social structures are complex things, but like other complex biological structures they should evolve along a fairly predictable path. Cooperation and a shared set of values for example, are probably good things. Anarchy probably isn’t. As such we should expect groups, whether they’re secular or theistic in nature to evolve similar traits and strategies. Condoning things that promote allegiance within the group, and discouraging things that don’t. This isn’t to say that all groups will evolve the same set of rules and values, only that they will by necessity evolve them.

To make a long story short, and relative to this thread, all human social groups will by necessity evolve a sense of right and wrong, of what’s moral and what isn’t. Not all of them will be the same, but they’ll almost certainly contain similarities. Regardless of the initial conditions, if social groups arise, morality will arise with them.

It’s not surprising that morality often comes cloaked in the guise of religion, because it offers a source of authority that transcends all others. And it can hold sway where other forms of authority can’t. It may be that the evolution of religion, was itself inevitable.

 

[po18guy]

Stalin. Hitler. Mao Tse dong. Deng Xiaoping. Pol Pot. Idi Amin. Ad nauseam. All had that good old atheist “common sense.” Rather, what we in the west may think of as atheist common sense was inculcated in them by the surrounding theistic culture.

 

[Bradski]

Does God decree that which is moral or is it moral because God decrees it?

I think we know the answer, Enos. Some things we feel are morally correct for the same reason that we feel that rotten food is not for consumption. Or that sweet foods taste good.

Some people thought it might be a good idea to codify these feelings and treat them as supernaturally ordained. It is written! When it is precisely the opposite. They are nothing but natural.

Of course, those who accept the supernatural explanation feel that they act in a particular way because that is the way to earn the benefits that must accrue if you accept those beliefs (there is no religion that offers no benefits - everlasting life seems like a popular option). Without realising that they are bound to act in that way.

But (goes the cry) we have free will! We can choose to disobey that which is written! It is our choice and those who make the wrong decision will be punished!

Yeah, like that wasn’t always the case.

We are the descendants of those who did not buck the system. We are descendants of those who toed the evolutionary line. Every single one of us. So every single one of us has the genetic code to avoid incest. To avoid rotten food. To enjoy sweetness.

Of course, now we live in a time when evolutionary pressures are next to non existent for the vast majority, we can choose, if we so desire, to ignore these internal dictates. We can use our ‘God given’ free will and cheat the system. Now we can get away with it. Whereas when these instincts were being hard wired, we could not.

Maybe we were better off then. Now…I don’t know. Now we can make the decisions ourselves rather than have them made for us…

Maybe we’ll make the wrong ones. But, ever the optomist, I’m hopeful that we will be OK. Anyway, looking at my kids, they seem to have a better idea of where we should be going than I ever did at their age.

What they will have to go through to get where they want to go is another matter.