What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[Charlemagne_II]

ThinkingSapien

Does some one that falls off of a cliff value the rocks towards which they are drawn? Is that why the person moves towards them?

Certainly. He values them as hard rocks to be avoided in a fall.

After all, aren’t there both negative and positive values?

Your objection reminds me of the objection evolutionists bring to bear on the application of the idea of evolution to the history of the universe. They don’t like to think the universe evolved in the same sense that life evolves. Granted. But the universe has changed, has adapted itself to new forms, has “selected” some states of being over others, has varied itself in that respect, has formed more and more complex organizations of matter, has done all the things living things do … but most of all from the very start of time has included in itself a (so-to-speak) written DNA (blueprint for the future) that would eventually evolve into man … the universe finally “valuing” self-consciousness and learning about its own destiny in the being called Man.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Whether they found value is irrelevant. Did their lives have any value at all - regardless of your opinion?

I’m not sure what you are asking given the constraints you’ve put on the question. As a part of my explanation for the meaning of the word “value” within this context is that it involves a relationship between something (the valued) and one assessing the valued (the valuer). When people speak of something’s value some times the valuer is implicit.

I could meet the literal constraints that you’ve mentioned by just finding some one else that may hold value in them. But I don’t think that is what you are asking. I think you are asking me if there is value without a valuer. I see that as being similar to asking if there is running without a runner.

So values are entirely fictitious?

No more than the entities that hold them.

Does a fact cease to exist if no one is aware of it?

Not as far as I know.

 

[grannymh]

ThinkingSapien

Does some one that falls off of a cliff value the rocks towards which they are drawn? Is that why the person moves towards them?

Certainly. He values them as hard rocks to be avoided in a fall.

After all, aren’t there both negative and positive values?

Your objection reminds me of the objection evolutionists bring to bear on the application of the idea of evolution to the history of the universe. They don’t like to think the universe evolved in the same sense that life evolves. Granted. But the universe has changed, has adapted itself to new forms, has “selected” some states of being over others, has varied itself in that respect, has formed more and more complex organizations of matter, has done all the things living things do … but most of all from the very start of time has included in itself a (so-to-speak) written DNA (blueprint for the future) that would eventually evolve into man … the universe finally “valuing” self-consciousness and learning about its own destiny in the being called Man.

It is because of the God-created spiritual soul, that the body formed of matter becomes a human person. This is why each and every human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien
Does some one that falls off of a cliff value the rocks towards which they are drawn? Is that why the person moves towards them?

Certainly. He values them as hard rocks to be avoided in a fall.

Sounds like we are talking about different meanings of “value.” Here your usage is more synonymous with “perception” or “identification.”

the universe finally “valuing” self-consciousness and learning about its own destiny in the being called Man.

Sounds a bit like Carl Sagan’s comment "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ThinkingSapien
**
Sounds a bit like Carl Sagan’s comment "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself” **

Not an original idea with Sagan. George Bernard Shaw in his 1903 play Man and Superman used the same language to describe human evolution as the universe’s way to become conscious of itself.

But why should it be conscious of itself unless it was driven (drawn) in that direction from the foundation of its existence … evolution of matter and energy from the time of the Big Bang to now?

There would not be any life anywhere in the universe if the universe had not given rise to (valued) stars and their planets.

The program (blueprint) for all of Creation was imprinted on the universe right from the start.

Because God valued Creation.

 

[Bobber90]

What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

They have no theologically-defined rights, nothing God-given, and I bet that is your standard for ‘true moral rights’. If we step outside the theological paradigm and ask atheistic questions, we have to stop requiring religious answers.

That’s my :twocents:

 

[tonyrey]

Whether they found value is irrelevant. Did their lives have any value at all - regardless of your opinion?

It was an atheist, Thomas Nagel, who pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities - regardless of whether they are recognised or not.

So values are entirely fictitious?

No more than the entities that hold them.

So values are real!

Does a fact cease to exist if no one is aware of it?

Not as far as I know.

Then why should a value cease to exist if no one is aware of it?

 

[grannymh]

They have no theologically-defined rights, nothing God-given, and I bet that is your standard for ‘true moral rights’. If we step outside the theological paradigm and ask atheistic questions, we have to stop requiring religious answers.

That’s my :twocents:

All human beings, A-Z (atheist to zoologist) have the right to moral treatment.

 

[Sair]

It was an atheist, Thomas Nagel, who pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities - regardless of whether they are recognised or not.

And this is an explanation of the value of life that requires no religious or spiritual backing. The implication, again, is that value requires a subject - life is valuable, or at least potentially valuable, to living things. There is no independently realised category of objects or things called values.

So values are real!

As real as any subjective experience. My pain is real to me, though no-one else can experience my pain; my values are a real aspect of me, even if some others don’t share them.

Then why should a value cease to exist if no one is aware of it?

Because values are not the same as objective facts - they require, as ThinkingSapien pointed out, a relationship between valuer and valued. A tree doesn’t require my observation or awareness in order to exist as an object. The value of the tree is contingent upon what I and others think and feel about the tree - I might value it as a tree, as a thing of beauty and an important element of the environment; others might only value it because it can be cut down to provide timber. The facts of its existence and its utility are independent; the value it has depends upon the relationship of the valuer towards it.

 

[tonyrey]

It was an atheist, Thomas Nagel, who pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities - regardless of whether they are recognised or not.

The value of an ultimately purposeless life is severely restricted to the realm of the five senses and immensely less than a life in a religious and spiritual context.

The implication, again, is that value requires a subject - life is valuable, or at least potentially valuable, to living things.

Inanimate objects are valuable because without them life wouldn’t even exist!

There is no independently realised category of objects or things called values.

So your dog would be valueless if those who know it were no longer alive and no one else cared for it?

So values are real!

As real as any subjective experience. My pain is real to me, though no-one else can experience my pain;

Pain in itself is neither good nor evil. It is the effects of pain that are morally significant.

…

my values are a real aspect of me, even if some others don’t share them.

Values are either true or false depending on the circumstances.

Then why should a value cease to exist if no one is aware of it?

Because values are not the same as objective facts - they require, as ThinkingSapien pointed out, a relationship between valuer and valued.

So everything that is unknown is valueless?

A tree doesn’t require my observation or awareness in order to exist as an object.

But it thereby ceases to have any value because you alone bestow value on it?

The value of the tree is contingent upon what I and others think and feel about the tree - I might value it as a tree, as a thing of beauty and an important element of the environment; others might only value it because it can be cut down to provide timber. The facts of its existence and its utility are independent; the value it has depends upon the relationship of the valuer towards it.

Thereby making man (and woman) the measure of all things… Highly convenient! I’m beginning to understand the great advantages of subjective morality…

 

[grannymh]

The facts of its existence and its utility are independent; the value it has depends upon the relationship of the valuer towards it.

“The facts of its [tree] existence and its utility are independent” is an objective fact.
The human being’s objective existence is why a human being is worthy of profound respect.

In addition to recognizing that the human being is an objective reality, people can use their own subjective feelings, memories, their own perceptions, etc. to determine their own relationship to another human being. Regardless of the decision of the valuer, the human person remains an independent fact of existence and is worthy of profound respect.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

After having typed this I think it is necessary to say that if the definitions I’ve provided for “value” are not fitting then please provide clarification for what meaning is most relevant to your comments.

So values are real!

Depends on what you mean by “real” here. If you are taling about something that has corporeal existence then I would have to say “No.” If you mean that it can be factually stated that some people/animals/entities (will just type “entity” from hereon) have a certain disposition or relationship to some other concept/entity then I would say “yes.” If you are asking can there be dispositions or relationships to something without there being any entity that holds that relationship or disposition than that’s getting into the territory where that I’m asking about (value without a valuer).

Then why should a value cease to exist if no one is aware of it?

Given the meaning that I’ve provided for “value” in this context being aware of the value is about being aware of one’s thoughts, that is to have a thought about one’s thought. Sometimes people think about their thoughts, other times they let their thoughts flow without monitoring them, and manytimes there are thoughts (subconcious ) of which one is not aware.

 

[Sair]

The value of an ultimately purposeless life is severely restricted to the realm of the five senses and immensely less than a life in a religious and spiritual context.

Why need I be troubled by the fact that my life has no ultimate purpose? When I cease to exist as an entity, my value as such also ceases; but by the same token, I will no longer exist to be bothered by whether or not anyone considers me valuable.

What’s more, if you feel that humans require a religious and spiritual context in order to be valuable, that does rather give the lie to any claim of intrinsic value…

Inanimate objects are valuable because without them life wouldn’t even exist!

Then their value is dependent upon their relationship to living things.

So your dog would be valueless if those who know it were no longer alive and no one else cared for it?

I believe my dog is a being capable of valuing his own existence on some level, so no, he would not be valueless.

Pain in itself is neither good nor evil. It is the effects of pain that are morally significant.

I wasn’t discussing the moral status of pain - only its subjective nature.

…Values are either true or false depending on the circumstances.

Some people attach a value to gold and diamonds. Others don’t. What is your point?

So everything that is unknown is valueless?

Only if you take an anthropocentric view of value. Humans are not the only beings capable of having relationships with other beings or objects in their environment. The fact that we have probably hastened the extinction of many species without even knowing it does not lessen the value of those species in relation to the environments and ecosystems in which they once existed.

But it thereby ceases to have any value because you alone bestow value on it?

Absolutely not. It is not I alone who is capable of a value-based relationship with any aspect of my environment.

Thereby making man (and woman) the measure of all things… Highly convenient! I’m beginning to understand the great advantages of subjective morality…

Again, only if you assume humans are the only subjective beings that exist, and thus the only beings capable of relating to their environment such that certain aspects of it are considered to have value. Humans may or may not be unique amongst animals in appreciating the value that others might have for beings or things which they personally do not value. But the point is, value is a product of a relationship between valuer and the object of value - it isn’t some category of thing that exists independently of such a relationship.

 

[Sair]

The human being’s objective existence is why a human being is worthy of profound respect.

If existence is the reason for profound respect, then we are all guilty of abusing the respect due to other things which objectively exist.

In addition to recognizing that the human being is an objective reality, people can use their own subjective feelings, memories, their own perceptions, etc. to determine their own relationship to another human being. Regardless of the decision of the valuer, the human person remains an independent fact of existence and is worthy of profound respect.

I believe humans are subjective beings capable of valuing our own existence. This is still a relationship between valuer and valued, even though these are the same thing. Even if we do not specifically value other beings, we are capable of perceiving the value that others hold for those beings, and relating that value to ourselves, were we to be in the same position. Indeed, this is the very basis of human morality, or so I understand it - the golden rule, that you do unto others as you would have done to yourself (or the earlier formulation - and as some see it, the superior one, since it merely requires that others be left alone to pursue their own ends - the silver rule: do not do to others that which you would not have done to yourself).

 

[grannymh]

If existence is the reason for profound respect, then we are all guilty of abusing the respect due to other things which objectively exist.

I qualified existence by saying that it is the existence of the human being.
Furthermore, we are not abusing the respect due, we are abusing a human person or another being.

I believe humans are subjective beings capable of valuing our own existence. This is still a relationship between valuer and valued, even though these are the same thing. Even if we do not specifically value other beings, we are capable of perceiving the value that others hold for those beings, and relating that value to ourselves, were we to be in the same position. Indeed, this is the very basis of human morality, or so I understand it - the golden rule, that you do unto others as you would have done to yourself (or the earlier formulation - and as some see it, the superior one, since it merely requires that others be left alone to pursue their own ends - the silver rule: do not do to others that which you would not have done to yourself).

My apology. But I can’t get beyond the first sentence “I believe humans are subjective beings capable of valuing our own existence.”
It reminds me of some philosophies toward the end of my philosophy course. When it got to the point that philosophers doubted their own existence as being in someone else’s imagination --slight exaggeration–I considered them a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic and dismissed them.

I really do need to better understand your belief about humans being subjective beings. I consider a human person as objectively existing independent of the belief of others. This human person has to capability to think *both *subjectively *and *objectively. This both-and principle seems to throw people off since many people think in terms of either subjective *or *objective, also referred to as the mutually exclusive “or”. Small note: there are some situations which are either-or.

 

[tonyrey]

The value of an ultimately purposeless life is severely restricted to the realm of the five senses and immensely less than a life in a religious and spiritual context.
Why need I be troubled by the fact that my life has no ultimate purpose?

You obviously are not troubled but delighted! It liberates you from an obstacle to your desires and ambitions.

When I cease to exist as an entity, my value as such also ceases; but by the same token, I will no longer exist to be bothered by whether or not anyone considers me valuable.

You are assuming you will cease to exist:

“To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause…”

What’s more, if you feel that humans require a religious and spiritual context in order to be valuable, that does rather give the lie to any claim of intrinsic value…

                                        Inanimate objects are valuable because without them life wouldn't even exist!       Then their value is dependent upon their relationship to living things.

Not all living things are capable of valuation…

So your dog would be valueless if those who know it were no longer alive and no one else cared for it?

I believe my dog is a being capable of valuing his own existence on some level, so no, he would not be valueless.

Is he capable of meditating on his existence? Comparing his life with others or deciding whether it is worth staying alive?

Pain in itself is neither good nor evil. It is the effects of pain that are morally significant.

I wasn’t discussing the moral status of pain - only its subjective nature.

Does it have no moral significance? Is pain not an objective fact?

                                                  ..

.

Values are either true or false depending on the circumstances.

Some people attach a value to gold and diamonds. Others don’t. What is your point?

That value does not depend entirely on what an individual thinks.

So everything that is unknown is valueless?

Only if you take an anthropocentric view of value. Humans are not the only beings capable of having relationships with other beings or objects in their environment. The fact that we have probably hastened the extinction of many species without even knowing it does not lessen the value of those species in relation to the environments and ecosystems in which they once existed.

If the value of an individual depends on a relationship with others it is objective.

But it thereby ceases to have any value because you alone

bestow value on it? Absolutely not. It is not I alone who is capable of a value-based relationship with any aspect of my environment.

But if you alone aware of that object?

Thereby making man (and woman) the measure of all things… Highly convenient! I’m beginning to understand the great advantages of subjective morality…

Again, only if you assume humans are the only subjective beings that exist, and thus the only beings capable of relating to their environment such that certain aspects of it are considered to have value. Humans may or may not be unique amongst animals in appreciating the value that others might have for beings or things which they personally do not value. But the point is, value is a product of a relationship between valuer and the object of value - it isn’t some category of thing that exists independently of such a relationship.

So the universe was valueless before advanced forms of life existed?

 

[Sair]

I qualified existence by saying that it is the existence of the human being.
Furthermore, we are not abusing the respect due, we are abusing a human person or another being.

From what I’ve gathered, it is indeed the particular form of objective existence that seems to matter for not just theistic believers, but humanists also - which is largely why I don’t identify as a humanist, despite sharing a large proportion of humanist beliefs. And I consider an abuse of any being to be likewise an abuse of any notion of respect that could subjectively attach to that being - I don’t believe the two are independent.

My apology. But I can’t get beyond the first sentence “I believe humans are subjective beings capable of valuing our own existence.”
It reminds me of some philosophies toward the end of my philosophy course. When it got to the point that philosophers doubted their own existence as being in someone else’s imagination --slight exaggeration–I considered them a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic and dismissed them.

With respect, I don’t see how the doubting/questioning of one’s existence - which I see to be an extreme manifestation of self-delusion and self-indulgence, to be honest, open only to those who have the leisure to remove themselves quite thoroughly from the demands of physical existence - is relevant to our ability, as subjective beings, to value our own existence.

I really do need to better understand your belief about humans being subjective beings. I consider a human person as objectively existing independent of the belief of others. This human person has to capability to think *both *subjectively *and *objectively. This both-and principle seems to throw people off since many people think in terms of either subjective *or *objective, also referred to as the mutually exclusive “or”. Small note: there are some situations which are either-or.

My understanding of humans as subjective beings in no way undermines our objective existence as physical entities. We are, simply, physical entities that are (to some extent) consciously aware of the effects of physical phenomena, even if we don’t perceive all the causes of our subjective states. The problem of “subjective” and “objective” existence, when it comes to human interactions, would seem to be generated by the notion that mind and matter are separate entities and that the mind’s constructions are not necessarily related to anything in the external environment. I don’t believe this is the case. Mind is a product of physical phenomena just as bodies are.

 

[grannymh]

Why need I be troubled by the fact that my life has no ultimate purpose? When I cease to exist as an entity, my value as such also ceases; but by the same token, I will no longer exist to be bothered by whether or not anyone considers me valuable.

“I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life! — and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.”

www3.amherst.edu/~rjyanco94/literature/elizabethbarrettbrowning/poems/sonnetsfromtheportuguese/howdoilovetheeletmecounttheways.html

 

[grannymh]

. The problem of “subjective” and “objective” existence, when it comes to human interactions, would seem to be generated by the notion that mind and matter are separate entities and that the mind’s constructions are not necessarily related to anything in the external environment. I don’t believe this is the case. Mind is a product of physical phenomena just as bodies are.

While I do not consider the mind a product of physical phenomena; neither do I see the mind as a separate entity from the body as in Cartesian [extreme] dualism). What I observe in any discussion of morals–the discussion can be based on Utilitarianism, Catholicism, Pantheism, whatever–the major difficulty is the misunderstanding and misuse of the human’s wondrous subjective powers.

What really gets to me about this thread’s title is that human nature is human nature is human nature and it doesn’t make any difference what a person believes or denies, all humans, regardless, have moral rights.

 

[tonyrey]

What really gets to me about this thread’s title is that human nature is human nature is human nature and it doesn’t make any difference what a person believes or denies, all humans, regardless, have moral rights.

I think it means “What moral right does an atheist have according to his Godless view of life?”