Sade vs Rand: thoughts on atheism and morality

[RogueSemicolon]

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

You look to De Sade and Rand for answers from an atheistic perspective, but have you also considered Thomas Hobbes? He may have been raised a Christian, but he was haunted throughout his life as a philosopher with charges of atheism, which he vehemently denied. (It’s not unreasonable to conclude, however, given his life and writings, that he was a Deist.) Hobbes understood man’s state of nature as one where his sole moral right was to preserve his life through his own power by whatever means he deems necessary. Essentially, man is at war with all other men, in which every man struggles for his own survival. Whatever was believed to be necessary toward this end was good and just.

Naturally, moral disputes would occur between men who had only their self-interest at heart, perpetuating an endless cycle of violence and strife. Since the “Rules of Good and Evil” cannot be found in nature, but only in man, the answer Hobbes gave to resolve moral disagreements came through politics. Men would reason that they would be better off seeking peace and security together than to be in constant conflict, but the only means to do so while still equally preserving their own lives would be to divest some of their liberty and form a covenant under a sovereign power, who will represent all men and establish what is right and just in society.

Put another way, you can perhaps say that Hobbes attempts to justify the Golden Rule by arguing that, through reason, man arrives at the “Law of Nature” which forbids man from any action that works against his own nature, and, thereby, concludes through endeavor that his own self-preservation is best guaranteed when men come together under one. (As Richard Tuck says in Hobbes: a Very Short Introduction, “it is absurd–a logical error–to suppose that you could better preserve yourself in a situation of war than one of peace.”) If I’m not mistaken, for Hobbes, “Do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thyself” can only be fully realized when there’s an authority with the power to enforce law, or else no one would be obliged to follow it when in a state of war.

 

[StudentMI]

Thanks for posting. I admit Hobbes is someone I haven’t read or studied that much besides some summaries of his thought that I’ve read, mostly in The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet. I’ll have to read more of him. Is the Very Short Introduction a good book about him? I’ve read a few of their books before and enjoyed them.

 

[Ender]

It’s pretty much a universal maxim. Why would it not be applicable to everyone?

Again, the question is not whether it is a right way to live, but whether it is morally true, and what proof is there that it is objectively true, and not merely a widely held belief? That is, why should an individual believe it applied to him if he didn’t see it to his benefit to do so? If he didn’t believe it was true, and (to him) seemed harmful, why should he act in accord with it?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s pretty much a universal maxim. Why would it not be applicable to everyone?

Again, the question is not whether it is a right way to live, but whether it is morally true, and what proof is there that it is objectively true, and not merely a widely held belief? That is, why should an individual believe it applied to him if he didn’t see it to his benefit to do so? If he didn’t believe it was true, and (to him) seemed harmful, why should he act in accord with it?

It’s a means to an end. Not an end in itself. So to ask if it’s morally true makes no sense. And quite often it gives answers that are personally detrimental to those who ask the question. Should I take someone’s food and save myself the trouble of finding my own? Yes, if you want to benefit yourself. But no if you think the golden rule is worth following.

And if you answer yes, then you have to accept that someone else is therefore justified in taking your food. Is that a world in which you want to live? Well, if you want to live in a world where it’s every man for himself then go for it. But you won’t last long in a society where most don’t think like that. And societies work on that principle. Because they don’t hold together unless there is some mutually agreed standard by which everyone should live.

So the golden rule isn’t the right rule to follow simply because Jesus said so. He had a reason for promoting it. He told us to follow it because it works. Why else would he teach it?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I understand how it would work but that’s not wuat I was interested in talking about.

 

[Freddy]

I understand how it would work but that’s not wuat I was interested in talking about.

This is a two way street. Unless you have a specific disagreement then I think that we can agree that using the golden rule will help people reach separately reach consensus on moral matters.

 

[RogueSemicolon]

Is the Very Short Introduction a good book about him? I’ve read a few of their books before and enjoyed them.

It’s as good and concise an introduction on Hobbes as I’d expect you’ll find anywhere. Its brevity and affordability give it much to recommend for those new and interested in the life of Hobbes and his philosophical thought. It seems hard to believe, but, for a philosopher, Hobbes led an interesting life amid tumultuous times in England. (Did you know Descartes sent out manuscripts of his Meditations prior to its publication to fellow thinkers of his time, and one of them was Hobbes, whose critiques were included in the first edition and responded to by Descartes? The two philosophers later corresponded by letter through Mersenne.) Richard Tuck does well to place Hobbes in both historical and philosophical context and explain some of his motivations and influences. The book is sure to satisfy a curiosity of Hobbes or aid a student in need of a reliable summary of his main arguments for consultation. My one complaint is the chapter on interpretations of Hobbes is not nearly as interesting as the other chapters; though, the fault here doesn’t lie with Tuck but the common interpretations of Hobbes’ philosophy.

 

[Hume]

So what? You’re advocating an “accident” theory like @Hume did above regarding the success of Christianity? So, it’s just accidental that Victoria’s Secret models have shared the same body type for years and years?

They haven’t, though. Female beauty standards have evolved substantially in the time the company existed. In the early 1900s, size 4 women looked malnourished. Now it’s the stereotypical ideal.

The widespread love of Beethoven and Mozart’s music for centuries has been accidental?

Bandwagon fallacy. And not true at any rate. We know they’ve had their detractors.

That St Peter’s Basilica will shock and awe all of us with its beauty and grandeur—just an accident, right?

Nothing compares, for me, to the Winged Victory of Samothrace. And she was sculpted by a bunch of pagans.

Many people would think it’s ordinary if not ugly? Like many guys think Tom Brady’s wife Giselle is ugly too…right? It’s all in the eye of the beholder, is it…?

Ha. So you do see it. It is, indeed, subjective.

 

[Hume]

Like @Hume acknowledged, there’s that inexorable tug toward the transcendent in just about all of us.

Whoa whoa whoa, that’s not exactly what I said.

What I said, essentially, is the “god shaped hole” theory.

If I were to further clarify, it exists because we’re so smart as to invent the metaphysical. As physical reality doesn’t give much in the way of answers to this invented category, we have to invent answers to it.

Religion makes a perfect nest to put all these metaphysical answers into. Again, the religion itself doesn’t matter - at all. What matters is that it’s the common religion for everyone in the tribe so as to facilitate it’s function.

 

[Ender]

It’s a means to an end. Not an end in itself. So to ask if it’s morally true makes no sense.

If morality is nothing more than a means to an end then whatever means advance my ends is acceptable. For example: Richard Rich of Tudor England betrayed St. John Fisher and lied in the trial of St Thomas Moore, both of whom were executed largely based on his testimony. Working with Henry VIII he dissolved nunneries and monasteries that had existed for centuries, and then bought up places he had just condemned for a fraction of their worth. He was by all accounts a thoroughly immoral person, yet he acquired great position and wealth, lived a long and comfortable life, and died peacefully in his bed.

So on what basis can you condemn his actions as immoral? It certainly worked out profitably for him so what is the non-religious argument that he shouldn’t have behaved that way? If morality is not objectively true then why was he not justified in behaving as he did?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s a means to an end. Not an end in itself. So to ask if it’s morally true makes no sense.

If morality is nothing more than a means to an end then whatever means advance my ends is acceptable. For example: Richard Rich of Tudor England betrayed St. John Fisher and lied in the trial of St Thomas Moore, both of whom were executed largely based on his testimony. Working with Henry VIII he dissolved nunneries and monasteries that had existed for centuries, and then bought up places he had just condemned for a fraction of their worth. He was by all accounts a thoroughly immoral person, yet he acquired great position and wealth, lived a long and comfortable life, and died peacefully in his bed.

So on what basis can you condemn his actions as immoral? It certainly worked out profitably for him so what is the non-religious argument that he shouldn’t have behaved that way? If morality is not objectively true then why was he not justified in behaving as he did?

Well, this couldn’t be easier. One could simply apply the golden rule and ask oneself: ‘would I find it acceptable if someone lied about me, an act which would lead to my execution?’ Obviously not.

So Jesus would tell you that therefore the right think to do would be not to lie about someone else.

Now we have a standard of morality. Does that mean you have to follow it? Of course not. But there isn’t a moral code in existence where you are forced to follow it (I hope you don’t suggest that the prospect of punishment ‘makes’ you follow it).

Even if you didn’t follow it, you’d know it was wrong. And we have developed the sense of concepts such as shame and anger and pride etc which prompt us to do the right thing. Can you get away with doing wrong? Good grief, of course. But that doesn’t detract from the method of determining that it was wrong in the first place.

 

[christismylord]

Is the golden rule anything other than a self interested notion upon which to base action? Is it morally true or simply tactical?

It’s a command of Jesus: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets“ (Matthew 7:12)

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.

From a Christian perspective, it is wrong because God says it is wrong. End of story, completely unchangeable.

From an atheist’s perspective, they could say it is wrong because it hurts people who don’t deserve to be treated that way. But why is that wrong? They could say that is wrong because we should do unto others what we would want to be done unto us. But why is it “good” to follow that? Because they think so? That’s not objective or valid reasoning. There is always a “why” that the atheist must answer subjectively, because without God there is no definite good or bad.

Muder is wrong in a defined way because we commonly agree it’s wrong and codify it as such.

No, murder is wrong because God says so. Exodus 20:13 says “You shall not murder.” If things are wrong because of human opinion about it then if we all agreed it is good to kill eachother would it be right? Certainly not. Because God’s Will wouldn’t change no matter what we personally feel.

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

True. “For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.” (John 12:49)
“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” (John 14:10) “I have come in My Father’s name” (John 5:43)

 

[christismylord]

And please don’t anyone say ‘whatever God says’. We’d need the reason why He said it.

He said it because He created everything so He has total control and right to say whatever He wants about what goes on in His world. Imagine a painter, do they have total control over what they paint and what goes on in that painting? Yes, because they make it so they get to decide what is good for the painting. So God controls what is good or bad in His world. God is holy and righteous and there is no evil in Him, so what He says is correct. As for us, tainted with evil, how do we know what is good and bad? Because of our own opinion? No, because we listen to what God says about it.

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?

BeCaUsE God SaId sO

“And the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Mark 10:8) “Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Genesis 2:18) “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2) “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

 

[Hume]

No, murder is wrong because God says so.

I don’t think your god is real, so that basis doesn’t work for me.

 

[christismylord]

So if things are wrong because of human opinion about it then if people agreed it is good to kill eachother would it be right?

 

[Hume]

So if things are wrong because of human opinion about it then if people agreed it is good to kill eachother would it be right?

Sure. Catholics call this “Just War Theory”.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think your god is real, so that basis doesn’t work for me.

Can you explain what, if anything, makes murder immoral, or do you accept the notion that morality is nothing more than personal preference?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

I don’t think your god is real, so that basis doesn’t work for me.

Can you explain what, if anything, makes murder immoral, or do you accept the notion that morality is nothing more than personal preference?

I accept that “wrong” is created by the collective (tribe, government, church, w/e) and that it is not absolute. We obey the collective because it has the might to enforce it’s will or we leave it’s physical domain.

 

[Ender]

I accept that “wrong” is created by the collective (tribe, government, church, w/e) and that it is not absolute. We obey the collective because it has the might to enforce it’s will or we leave it’s physical domain.

As I understand this then, legal right and wrong exist, but moral right and wrong do not. Is that your position? This would be a rejection of the existence of morality as the term is generally used.

 

[Magnanimity]

They haven’t, though. Female beauty standards have evolved substantially in the time the company existed.

You do not gain anything by overstating your case. Since the advent of the modern modeling industry began in the late 1960’s there has been sustained commonality among the body-types and facial-features of the most successful female fashion models. You would have to cite particular individuals to undermine my point. Tall, low bmi, waist-to-hip ratio in the 12-14" range, long legs, full lips, high cheekbones, striking eyes, straight noses, etc. Not all models will have all these features, but all models will have most of these features. There is remarkable commonality and very little variation among fashion models, and this has been the case for decades now. The same could be said for “leading ladies” in Hollywood and female pop stars. Louis C.K. had a good bit in one of his stand up routines playing on this fact of female beauty in the entertainment industry. “Isn’t it odd,” he said, “that all the women with the best voices in this country also happen to be the most gorgeous…?”

But, if you’re making a broader point that there is quite a range of female body types that men find beautiful (from Kim Kardashian all the way to Ariana Grande), then sure. Yet, even here my point is upheld–not all beautiful women in modeling/entertainment have every feature I mentioned above but they all have most of those features.

So you do see it. It is, indeed, subjective.

It is useless to try to pretend to ourselves that there is no commonality among what men (and women) judge as beautiful in the female person.

As to your claim that the music of Beethoven and Mozart have not enjoyed widespread love for its beauty, that is so far removed from truth as to not be capable of being taken seriously. You accused me of bandwagon, I can only respond with a horse laugh.