Sade vs Rand: thoughts on atheism and morality

[StudentMI]

I was just thinking about the possibility of morality under atheism, how it would be derived and such. The two authors in the title of the thread are not supposed to be the only representatives of atheistic thought but only to represent two opposite extremes: Sade in supreme amorality and Rand in a natural law approach.

Is moral philosophy possible under atheism? Or is it doomed to a moral relativism with it’s only standard being the natural world?

In Pierre Klossowski’s book Sade my Neighbor he puts forward a sort of comprehensive portrait of nature as something to be imitated but at the same time despised in Sade’s system. At least that is my understanding of what he writes. Indeed, in one of Sade’s novels, as Klossowski explains, a character posits the existence of a malevolent god who cares nothing for humanity and is purely evil. It’s quite frightening stuff. The portrait of nature as something wonderful always seems to be undermined by a hatred of nature itself, always without a reference to any supernatural being (despite the evil god put forward by one character), in a manner that kind of reminds me of the Black Iron Prison in Philip K. Dick’s novels.

Rand, aping Aristotle and Aquinas, instead derives moral absolutes from nature itself. She once said she could recommend only three philosophers, “Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn.” But I’ve never understood how she overcame Hume’s is-ought problem. Perhaps that’s my fault.

Anyway, I was just wondering what others think. Hopefully this post isn’t too badly written.

 

[Ender]

I was just thinking about the possibility of morality under atheism, how it would be derived and such.

If morality does not exist extrinsically to man’s opinions it cannot be said to exist as anything more than personal taste. There would be no way to show that one moral framework was more or less moral than any other. Choosing de Sade over Mother Theresa would be like choosing chocolate over vanilla; neither could be said to be wrong because there would exist no real meaning of the term.

 

[StudentMI]

I think that’s true. That’s why I think Sade got atheism more ‘right’ than others. While I’ve seen some rational sounding atheistic appeals to natural law from the likes of Rand, it ultimately comes down to a set of beliefs as opposed to strict fact.

 

[christismylord]

Is moral philosophy possible under atheism? Or is it doomed to a moral relativism with it’s only standard being the natural world?

The definition of “moral” is exactly “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.“

Without God, there is no right or wrong, because all would be subject to human opinion. The goodness or badness of human character, in reality, comes from submitting to God’s power vs submitting to evil powers. Without God there is not an objective truth.

So the study of philosophy is possible, but will end up being biased because it is not based on Truth, but on human opinion. And understanding the truths of morality is, by definition, impossible for the atheist. Atheists may do many good deeds and can be compassionate and kind. But they don’t understand that this is a reflection of the goodness of God who created them (because God created everyone, not just believers) and everything that God creates is good. It becomes bad when we submit to temptations and the ways of evil. So any good in an atheist is of God, whether they acknowledge it or not. And any bad is from straying from the perfect Will of God. This is true for every human, regardless of beliefs. Atheism can not grasp morality in the deepest levels.

 

[StudentMI]

That’s what I believe as well. It’s an interesting topic to be sure.

It reminds me a bit of Max Stirner who was also amoral but without the pornographic content of Sade. There were a group of individualist anarchists out of Boston in the late 19th century who were influenced by him. They built up a whole system of thought devoid of morality. It’s disturbing to read how far they went in their beliefs but at the same time interesting to see such clear thinking about such matters.

 

[christismylord]

Wow that is scary…the human mind can become so utterly lost without God that it is possible to mentally convince oneself intellectually that the lies of the devil are true. But I wonder if deep down these people knew they were missing something, spiritually they must have been desperate for something more? Which is why we see all of these “spiritualistic beliefs” today, like the common “I don’t believe in a certain God but I believe that there’s something more out there” or “every road leads to Heaven but I believe there is something after death.” Whether they admit it or not, the human souls naturally yearns for God.

As I have heard, when all is said and done, “Atheism is a temporary condition…”

 

[StudentMI]

Yes I believe the soul years for God. I agree with that for sure.

What amazed me when converting, I believe I read it in the Catechism, was that humans act for what they believe is good. That would mean even if someone commits an evil deed they did it because they thought it was good.

 

[christismylord]

humans act for what they believe is good

Interesting, suppose a non-Christian has a choice to steal money for themselves when an elderly person drops a $100 bill on the ground. And they choose to be selfish and steal it. Clearly they would know that it is wrong?

But maybe, because they are idolizing themselves by thinking that they are more important or worthy to have that money than the original owner, their thoughts are so twisted that they can convince themselves that is is right and good?

 

[StudentMI]

I believe they would convince themselves it was good.

I might be remembering this wrong, to be honest. I think I read it but it’s possible I misunderstood something I read. That happens often.

 

[christismylord]

Yes it makes sense, that the human mind would convince itself that even though it knows that the action has inherently bad qualities, that there is some good in it, and more benefit to do the wrong thing, so doing it is ok.

 

[Pattylt]

Yes it makes sense, that the human mind would convince itself that even though it knows that the action has inherently bad qualities, that there is some good in it, and more benefit to do the wrong thing, so doing it is ok.

I thought we called those types of people sociopaths, not atheists?

Atheists usually begin with the golden rule and empathy.

 

[StudentMI]

I thought we called those types of people sociopaths, not atheists?

Atheists usually begin with the golden rule and empathy.

But upon what are those based? If you say simply nature then one must also contend with the brutality of nature itself. Is the golden rule anything other than a self interested notion upon which to base action? Is it morally true or simply tactical?

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not one to worry much about where morality ultimately lies. It seems that all normally developed people have an innate sense of morality. You can claim it comes from God and I can claim it is an evolutionary trait…but excluding those that have pathologies, we all posses it. The golden rule is a good starting point. Almost all ancient societies had a version of it. Add in empathy…another trait given by God or evolution and we can come to logical reasons why societies should behave in certain ways to be happy healthy societies. I’m ok with you giving God all the credit. The fact is that we all seem to have it (barring the mentally ill).

 

[StudentMI]

That’s what I believe as well.

Perhaps I should qualify this. I wasn’t agreeing with everything the poster said but parts of it.

I think with God’s law written into our hearts that some sort of natural morality is a given. Perhaps derived from natural law in a secular version. But the apocalyptic (for lack of a better word) world envisioned by Sade, Stirner, and the individualist anarchists does interest me. But are they based on a philosophical error? We’ve already seen that Sade contradicts himself.

 

[StudentMI]

It seems that all normally developed people have an innate sense of morality. You can claim it comes from God and I can claim it is an evolutionary trait…

That is definitely an interesting way to look at it. If you haven’t yet I would recommend looking into the book Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin. Agree or not with his political views he put forward a very convincing case against the social darwinists (not evolution as such) that life and society is based upon social relationships and reciprocity, that such was instilled us as evolutionary traits.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The golden rule is a good starting point. Almost all ancient societies had a version of it. Add in empathy…another trait given by God or evolution and we can come to logical reasons why societies should behave in certain ways to be happy healthy societies.

There are a lot of societies without the golden rule and empathy is easy enough to ignore.

 

[StudentMI]

Having read Sade’s works, that is a point that comes up again and again, the necessity of ignoring the urgings of conscience as some remnant of man made morality.

 

[Pattylt]

Many societies didn’t have it written but I’d be interested in any society that didn’t have some form of it in their traditions? Yes, empathy can be ignored. It can often be stressed as well. Regardless, it’s a trait we all seem to have in varying degrees. I tend to prefer people that have a well developed sense of empathy…perhaps that’s just me?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Yes, empathy can be ignored. It can often be stressed as well. Regardless, it’s a trait we all seem to have in varying degrees. I tend to prefer people that have a well developed sense of empathy…perhaps that’s just me?

Yes, because it is all arbitrary.

Many societies didn’t have it written but I’d be interested in any society that didn’t have some form of it in their traditions?

The Aztecs had human sacrifices all the time so even if they had the golden rule it would be pretty meaningless.

 

[StudentMI]

That’s true. That is especially where I think Sade contradicts himself in his nature as good or evil view.

Let’s take spontaneous order, a concept introduced I believe by Friedrich von Hayek. He viewed the market as a spontaneous order built up of tons of human preferences with a juridical undertone respecting private property and exchange. These orders build up despite their limitations into a self sustaining organism so to speak.

Who’s to say empathy and indeed societies based on empathy aren’t spontaneous orders themselves, instilled by evolution?