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

[Vonsalza]

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?

 

[Bradski]

Evidence.

 

[LexDivina]

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

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

— Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism

 

[adamhovey1988]

I find it that maybe atheists can have common since, what I find difficult to believe is that atheists do. Morality HAS to come from a source, that source cannot simply be a randomly generated universe.

 

[Perplexity]

I’d recommend reading Ethical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer. He’s the best defender of Intuitionism today, and he’s an atheist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, how does an atheist explain when my “common sense” yields a different answer from their “common sense” for the same problem?

That could be the results of different understandings of a situation or a scenario. Ex: If there’s a small uncontrolled fire and a bucket of water near by someone might think that it’s common sense to throw the water on the fire. Someone else that believes it is an oil fire might think that it’s common sense not to throw water on it. While there is overlap in the knowledge that people have there are also differences in knowledge along with differences in values

Is an appeal to “common sense” merely a more authoritative-looking version of “well, I think…”?

You’ll have to consider case by case how someone is using the word. The person could me appealing to popularity. A person could use it to refer to a premise and some reasoning on which it is thought that you agree. In either case I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking for a more detailed explanation. One might think it’s common sense to not walk off a cliff if one wants to live, but an explanation can still be given for why this is thought to be the case.

 

[seagal]

Using common sense to solve an everyday problem is something we all do (hopefully, although some say common sense isn’t common at all ) But if the atheist is trying to say that our idea of morality is based on common sense, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on, IMO. If 2 tribes are competing for the same food source, it may seem like common sense to one of them to eliminate the other in order to have the whole thing. But is that morally acceptable? In our own society, it makes perfect sense to some people to shoot at those they perceive as dangerous. In fact, if your aim is the protection of yourself or your tribe, “get them before they get me” is absolutely sensible. Yet our society frowns on this attitude. Not because it isn’t sensible but because it isn’t moral.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

You don’t need to be religious to know the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong.

Knowing the difference between right and wrong is subjective to the atheist.

An abused woman who murders her abusive husband could be seen as the right thing to do for an atheist adherrant. An atheist could also side with not murdering that abusive husband. Atheists follow their own moral compass. They don’t follow any one standard.

 

[inocente]

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?

Because it is basic to human dignity that a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

 

[Vonsalza]

Evidence.

How does evidence provide a moral norm?

“It is wrong to steal.” How is that concept proofed by evidence in the atheist worldview?

 

[Vonsalza]

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

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

— Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism

Very, very respectfully, the “Golden Rule” (GR) doesn’t provide a moral framework unto itself. It only reinforces another that it’s nested in with it’s “call to consistency”. I’ll give an example:

A man is in a coma with no apparent means of revival. Dr. Alpha wouldn’t want to go on like that, so he’d advocate stoppage of life-support. Br. Beta would want to go on like that indefinitely in hopes of a restorative treatment being found. Ergo, we have a breakdown.

Another: A curmudgeon thinks poor folks ought to starve to death. As long as he would be willing to refuse food if he were in the same “deplorable” state (as he “knows” all poor people are so because of their own failings), he can use the GR to refuse aid to other people.

The GR is a call to consistency in respect to your moral code - regardless of what that is.

 

[Vonsalza]

Because it is basic to human dignity that a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

I personally agree, but the belief in basic human dignity is something that cannot be proofed, thus it’s problematic for the atheist in the same way religious belief is.

 

[Vonsalza]

That could be the results of different understandings of a situation or a scenario. Ex: If there’s a small uncontrolled fire and a bucket of water near by someone might think that it’s common sense to throw the water on the fire. Someone else that believes it is an oil fire might think that it’s common sense not to throw water on it. While there is overlap in the knowledge that people have there are also differences in knowledge along with differences in values

You’ll have to consider case by case how someone is using the word. The person could me appealing to popularity. A person could use it to refer to a premise and some reasoning on which it is thought that you agree. In either case I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking for a more detailed explanation. One might think it’s common sense to not walk off a cliff if one wants to live, but an explanation can still be given for why this is thought to be the case.

Excellent application of common sense to general problem solving!

But as a source of moral norms (per the op) how does common sense provide that “it’s wrong to steal from someone”, just as an example? Feel free to use another if you wish, but it would be more applicable to the op if you stuck with moral concepts as the direct objects. Thanks!

 

[Vonsalza]

Knowing the difference between right and wrong is subjective to the atheist.

An abused woman who murders her abusive husband could be seen as the right thing to do for an atheist adherrant. An atheist could also side with not murdering that abusive husband. Atheists follow their own moral compass. They don’t follow any one standard.

So then, a purely atheistic society would be unable to generate common moral tenants that bore any measure of objective truth?

 

[NM505StKate]

I find it that maybe atheists can have common since, what I find difficult to believe is that atheists do. Morality HAS to come from a source, that source cannot simply be a randomly generated universe.

It comes from years of social norms being established as well as seeing what benefits the group as a whole. As we evolved humans found that it is far more beneficial to not kill each other. Yes we developed a tribal mentality but for the good of the tribe we saw things like stealing to not benefit. Those that did these things usually were pushed out and left to fend on their own.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But as a source of moral norms (per the op) how does common sense provide that “it’s wrong to steal from someone”,!

By itself I don’t think it does. If you and the person speaking have some shared values then based on those shared values then there may be some argument on which you both agree that concludes that stealing is generally wrong (I say “generally” because there still may be scenarios in which one might see stealing as not crossing a moral boundary, such as stealing drugs being transported with the intention of destroying them).

Without shared values then the discussion may be like any other discussion for which two people do not agree on the premise.

 

[inocente]

I personally agree, but the belief in basic human dignity is something that cannot be proofed, thus it’s problematic for the atheist in the same way religious belief is.

I’d say human dignity is an axiom, that most people agree is self-evidently true. In other words ( ) it’s …

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

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

Common sense concerns a universal or dominantly shared truth or value. But the “common sense” does not confer the validity of the truth or value. For example, the view that the sun rises and sets, though once universal and regarded as common sense, is now established as not true.

Therefore atheism must reach for another criteria, which would be reason and evidence. But since reason is often baffled or obstructed (either by the difficulty of acquiring proof, or by willful evasion of evidence of the truth) this too may not be a criteria for common sense.

Atheism therefore is driven, by its denial of absolutes (and by denying the Absolute that is the source of all absolutes), to conclude that common sense also in not an absolute.

 

[Vonsalza]

It comes from years of social norms being established as well as seeing what benefits the group as a whole. As we evolved humans found that it is far more beneficial to not kill each other. Yes we developed a tribal mentality but for the good of the tribe we saw things like stealing to not benefit. Those that did these things usually were pushed out and left to fend on their own.

I appreciate your view, but tribalism only promotes that good within the tribe. If a rival tribe is moving in on your turf, it is often conveyed as “righteousness” to perform any number of wrongs to those rivals that would be verboten among members of the same tribe. If you succeed in killing them or running them off, your tribe is more ecologically secure as a result.

In short, tribes may not kill within the tribe (aside from occasional leadership disputes and deliberate tribal culling when over-large) but they have displayed unquestioned willingness to kill members of other tribes for the same reason you provide - common benefit. This isn’t even limited to people. Dolphins and chimps have been documented displaying the same behavior.

“This guy is my kinsman. We will help provide for each other. That guy over there is stealing food from our land! Get him!” said in a tone of righteous indignation

Tribalism, verily, is blood-soaked.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ha. A colleague of mine just showed me that the “appeal to common sense” is listed as a logical fallacy in contemporary text. I was unaware as I studied the classic fallacies, mostly.

That kind of settles it, doesn’t it? The answer is “no”.

Welp, good enough. Lock thread!