Sade vs Rand: thoughts on atheism and morality

[Hume]

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.

The reason we were incentivized to practice monogamy long before any religion told us to do it is because we want to reproduce and ensure the survival of our genes,
-but-
It takes a long time for human babies to reach semi independence relative to the young of other species. Ladies of our species started favoring fellas that stick around, providing a pathway for the genes that promote monogamy to become much more common in our species.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Use the golden rule. Jesus strongly recommended it. See what you can come up with.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The reason we were incentivized to practice monogamy long before any religion told us to do it is because we want to reproduce and ensure the survival of our genes,
-but-
It takes a long time for human babies to reach semi independence relative to the young of other species. Ladies of our species started favoring fellas that stick around, providing a pathway for the genes that promote monogamy to become much more common in our species.

But if people want to spread their genes then having more wives would be efficient than just one.

 

[StudentMI]

Couldn’t that be the origin of polygamy? I’m familiar with what Hume is saying from a book on sexuality called The Man Who Would Be Queen.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Use the golden rule. Jesus strongly recommended it. See what you can come up with.

The golden rule is arbitrary and there are many reasons to not use it when the oppurtunity arises.

 

[Hume]

Lots of guys in the Old Testament did that very thing, but there is an enormous cost of that for the male.

You can only hunt down so much meat, find so many roots, make so much money.

 

[Hume]

Couldn’t that be the origin of polygamy? I’m familiar with what Hume is saying from a book on sexuality called The Man Who Would Be Queen.

Absolutely. But not everyone had that kind of power.

Your lowly males like me could only provide for one.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Lots of guys in the Old Testament did that very thing, but there is an enormous cost of that for the male.

You can only hunt down so much meat, find so many roots, make so much money.

Then all that is needed is resources and the children can also help after a certain period.

 

[Freddy]

Dan_Defender:

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.

The reason we were incentivized to practice monogamy long before any religion told us to do it is because we want to reproduce and ensure the survival of our genes,
-but-
It takes a long time for human babies to reach semi independence relative to the young of other species. Ladies of our species started favoring fellas that stick around, providing a pathway for the genes that promote monogamy to become much more common in our species.

I missed the bit about monogamy, Hume. Nice repsonse. But why would multiple partners be immoral anyway? Seems there was a lot of it going on in biblical times. Maybe we need a definition of immoral And please don’t anyone say ‘whatever God says’. We’d need the reason why He said it.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Lots of guys in the Old Testament did that very thing, but there is an enormous cost of that for the male.

You can only hunt down so much meat, find so many roots, make so much money.

Then all that is needed is resources and the children can also help after a certain period.

Sure. For tribal leaders, the resources were there.

You and I were out in the cold, “6” guys stuck with “6” girls.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Use the golden rule. Jesus strongly recommended it. See what you can come up with.

The golden rule is arbitrary and there are many reasons to not use it when the oppurtunity arises.

It’s about as far from arbitrary as you can possibly get: ‘Treat others as you would wish to be treated’. I don’t see a lot of wiggle room there, Vanitas. And of course, you are quite correct in saying that there may well be many reasons not to use it. Just as there’d be many reasons not to follow any moral rule.

But apply it, throw in a touch of empathy and see where it takes you.

 

[StudentMI]

I missed the bit about monogamy, Hume. Nice repsonse. But why would multiple partners be immoral anyway? Seems there was a lot of it going on in biblical times. Maybe we need a definition of immoral And please don’t anyone say ‘whatever God says’. We’d need the reason why He said it.

From my understanding, marriage was always supposed to be between a man and a woman. That was its proper form. But the Israelites were so hard hearted that God permitted divorce and polygamy among them. With the coming of Christ he reiterated what marriage was supposed to be and ‘outlawed’ polygamy and divorce.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s about as far from arbitrary as you can possibly get: ‘Treat others as you would wish to be treated’. I don’t see a lot of wiggle room there, Vanitas. And of course, you are quite correct in saying that there may well be many reasons not to use it. Just as there’d be many reasons not to follow any moral rule.

But apply it, throw in a touch of empathy and see where it takes you.

There’s no reason to use it in the first place though, if it comes easily that would probably be from preconceptions.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I missed the bit about monogamy, Hume. Nice repsonse. But why would multiple partners be immoral anyway? Seems there was a lot of it going on in biblical times. Maybe we need a definition of immoral And please don’t anyone say ‘whatever God says’. We’d need the reason why He said it.

From my understanding, marriage was always supposed to be between a man and a woman. That was its proper form. But the Israelites were so hard hearted that God permitted divorce and polygamy among them. With the coming of Christ he reiterated what marriage was supposed to be and ‘outlawed’ polygamy and divorce.

I think you’re right. But what makes it immoral? Why is it ‘supposed’ to be between one man and one woman? There may be practical reasons, but why would it not be moral?

 

[Magnanimity]

Is moral philosophy possible under atheism?

The possible follows from the actual. If there are atheists who espouse a moral philosophy (and there are more than a few), then it must be possible. But this shouldn’t be surprising for anyone who adheres to something like natural law.

But I’ve never understood how she overcame Hume’s is-ought problem.

I always want to ask an individual who believes that an ought cannot be derived from an is—then just where exactly do you think oughts come from?

 

[StudentMI]

It’s because marriage is a giving of one’s self to another to become one flesh and to live in for lack of a better word a society.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s about as far from arbitrary as you can possibly get: ‘Treat others as you would wish to be treated’. I don’t see a lot of wiggle room there, Vanitas. And of course, you are quite correct in saying that there may well be many reasons not to use it. Just as there’d be many reasons not to follow any moral rule.

But apply it, throw in a touch of empathy and see where it takes you.

There’s no reason to use it in the first place though, if it comes easily that would probably be from preconceptions.

The reason we should use it is because Jesus recommended it as a basis for a moral code. I agree with him. Are you saying you don’t? And there are no preconceptions involved. If you think that there are, could you tell me what you think they are?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Are you saying you don’t? And there are no preconceptions involved. If you think that there are, could you tell me what you think they are?

Doing something Jesus says only makes sense if He had some sort of authority otherwise it would be based on a personal preference.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The possible follows from the actual. If there are atheists who espouse a moral philosophy (and there are more than a few), then it must be possible.

Morality is possible just not sustainable through philosphy.

 

[Freddy]

It’s because marriage is a giving of one’s self to another to become one flesh and to live in for lack of a better word a society.

That doesn’t explain why it’s immoral. If a society expected more than one partner (as many societies did) and considered it entirely normal then why would it be considered immoral?