Sade vs Rand: thoughts on atheism and morality

[StudentMI]

Yes, because it is all arbitrary.

I don’t know if I’d call it arbitrary. Kropotkin’s analysis would seem to indicate it’s part of our very nature. And indeed I believe we can view it even in the animal kingdom, and throughout the history of evolution. Look at how dolphin mothers will stay with their dead children.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I don’t know if I’d call it arbitrary. Kropotkin’s analysis would seem to indicate it’s part of our very nature. And indeed I believe we can view it even in the animal kingdom, and throughout the history of evolution. Look at how dolphin mothers will stay with their dead children.

Instinct is arbitrary and there are times where that aspect is supressed in favor of other ideals.

 

[StudentMI]

That’s very true. I hate to be the one to bring it up but look at the Holocaust, or the Japanese occupation of China.

As I stated I read somewhere that humans always act for what they believe is good. I can’t remember where I read that but I believe it generally. Even the villains in Sade’s pieces believe generally in the good of their own self interest.

 

[Ender]

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.

I suspect this all depends on how you define pathology. If it is simply abnormal behavior, then walking around with your body dyed green would be no more pathological than committing murder. If you mean it to signify moral misbehavior then you would have to explain why your moral system is right and the murderer’s system is wrong, and that can only be done by reference to a moral system that is objectively true.

 

[StudentMI]

Interesting point.

 

[christismylord]

that can only be done by reference to a moral system that is objectively true.

Right, and without God, how is anything objectively true if it is based on human opinion?

 

[StudentMI]

But what does that say about reality that there must be some objective reference point outside of our minds? Isn’t that almost platonist? Like there is some ultimate form outside of ourselves that must be referenced?

 

[christismylord]

Like there is some ultimate form outside of ourselves that must be referenced?

Well, if we think Jesus’s judgement is a good reference point to base our actions upon, then yes this is something ultimate and outside of ourselves that must be referenced.

 

[StudentMI]

Oh definitely. I’m Catholic so no problem there. I was just wondering as far as a purely natural philosophy of morality goes.

 

[christismylord]

purely natural philosophy of morality goes.

There really is no such thing! It would all be subjective, so it would vary from person to person’s opinion, so it can’t be completely true. It may be interesting to learn how other people think, but theirs is ultimately a pointless circle of thought that can’t lead to the ultimate truth (Truth) because they deny its (His) existence.

“Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” (2 Corinthians 3:18-20)

 

[StudentMI]

There really is no such thing! It would all be subjective, so it would vary from person to person’s opinion, so it can’t be completely true. It may be interesting to learn how other people think, but theirs is ultimately a pointless circle of thought that can’t lead to the ultimate truth (Truth) because they deny its (His) existence.

I’m not sure if I entirely subscribe to that view but it definitely is interesting.

 

[christismylord]

Interesting, I am

John 17:17 “ Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”

John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears (from God) he will speak…”

Romans 12:2 “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

Some “interesting” bible verses pleading my case above. Haha! There is no Truth outside of God. (John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”)

 

[Freddy]

StudentMI:

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.

So if someone said give a couple of arguments why helping the poor is better than torturing them then you wouldn’t be able to do it.

It’s a position I find endlessly fascinating.

 

[Freddy]

Ender:

that can only be done by reference to a moral system that is objectively true.

Right, and without God, how is anything objectively true if it is based on human opinion?

Some things are objectively true (there’s a cup of tea on the table in front of me). Morality isn’t.

In your opinion, is what the church teaches correct?

 

[Freddy]

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.

I suspect this all depends on how you define pathology. If it is simply abnormal behavior, then walking around with your body dyed green would be no more pathological than committing murder. If you mean it to signify moral misbehavior then you would have to explain why your moral system is right and the murderer’s system is wrong, and that can only be done by reference to a moral system that is objectively true.

Why would you think that the outcomes of a pathology are equivalent?

If someone literally didn’t care what other people thought about them then they might paint themselves green. But if someone literally didn’t care about the feelings of others they may kill them with no thought.

The golden rule is built in. Either you think that God put it there or it’s an evolutionary trait (which actually could be the means by which He gave it to us). Whether we listen to it or not is partly dependent on our level of empathy. Again, unless you are a psycopath, it’s built in.

If you want to be a morally good person then obey the golden rule and develop your empathy. No more need be done.

 

[Hume]

A good article covering this very topic:

How a Huguenot Philosopher Realized That Atheists Could Be Virtuous

As for my own personal views, morality is indeed a subjective construct. But as the chief purpose is to govern human interactions, we can agree on a meta-relative morality. In this, murder isn’t intrinsically wrong (and we know it’s not - we all know examples of a “righteous kill” in addition to the question of “time machine + baby Hitler”). Muder is wrong in a defined way because we commonly agree it’s wrong and codify it as such.

We create power structures to enforce our tribal murder rule and anyone who doesn’t want to follow it must leave our turf or face the music.

A key to understanding real morality is the dance between personal gain and tribal gain. We want to maximize our gains, but we also must exist as a tribe because we’re a social species - our personal survival depends on it. Ergo at times we sacrifice our personal gains for the sake of tribal gain.

This means as it pertains to murder, it’s verboten to murder other members of our tribe but murdering members of other tribes is a sometimes necessary and sometimes encouraged activity (war, executions, ect).

 

[Dan_Defender]

Is moral philosophy possible under atheism?

Not possible. In the atheistic view there are no consequences in the long term. It all comes down to cosmic dust, so there is no basis to require anyone to be monogamist for example. Check Nietzsche.

 

[Freddy]

StudentMI:

Is moral philosophy possible under atheism?

Not possible. In the atheistic view there are no consequences in the long term. It all comes down to cosmic dust, so there is no basis to require anyone to be monogamist for example. Check Nietzsche.

Then if there’s no possibility of redemption and everlasting life then this is all we’ve got. Consequences such as a lifetime in jail would seem to be that much more terrible a punishment.

And you don’t really want to suggest that something is wrong because there are ‘long term consequences’, do you? I know you just did but I thought I’d give you the opportunity to correct that.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So if someone said give a couple of arguments why helping the poor is better than torturing them then you wouldn’t be able to do it.

It’s a position I find endlessly fascinating.

You can make arguments, but they would be based on arbitrary ideals.

 

[StudentMI]

Thanks for weighing in.