What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[MindOverMatter2]

While my part (defending human worth) in the discussion is ended, I will continue to believe that atheists are human beings loved by God. I will continue to believe that Christ hung bleeding on a cross in order to bring salvation to all. No matter what kind of a philosophical situation is devised, atheists still have the moral right to seek God.

And i never denied them that right; and your attempt to paint me in a bad light will fail each time.

 

[grannymh]

And i never denied them that right; and your attempt to paint me in a bad light will fail each time.

One does not have to philosophically deny each and every specific right.
It is the philosophical message, not the messenger, which needs reworking.

This is the philosophical message from post 288. “What moral right does an atheist have? Zero rights.”

Even though my part in the philosophical discussion is ended, I find it important to point out that even philosophical discussions need to be respectful of basic human rights given by our Creator.

 

[Shredderbeam]

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.

I will surprise myself by agreeing with you: As an atheist, I don’t believe that objective moral rights exist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

One does not have to philosophically deny each and every specific right.
It is the philosophical message, not the messenger, which needs reworking.

This is the philosophical message from post 288. “What moral right does an atheist have? Zero rights.”

Even though my part in the philosophical discussion is ended, I find it important to point out that even philosophical discussions need to be respectful of basic human rights given by our Creator.

Taking my words out of context will not help your case either.

 

[Sair]

I will surprise myself by agreeing with you: As an atheist, I don’t believe that objective moral rights exist.

Quite so, and what need have they to do so?

Our worth as human beings, in a naturalistic context, is only what we ascribe to ourselves and each other - a conglomeration of how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we treat others and expect to be treated by them.

If absolutely objective human worth existed, as the OP and others claim, then it would be rational to seek revenge upon nature for all the suffering and wasted life inflicted upon the human race through means of natural disasters, disease and other animals which from time to time succeed in killing humans. Yet those who believe in objective morality would exclude all in the objective universe from the moral realm, except humans.

Nihilism is not a logical consequence of atheism, but of the belief that human worth and human purpose must come from somewhere beyond human awareness in order to mean anything or to have any value. Couple that with the understanding that there isn’t anything else in the universe that is going to value us, other than ourselves, and you might well be led to believe that there’s no point to anything.

 

[Bobber90]

The compound of power, affinity, empathy, fear, desire, reason and dozens of other things certainly doesn’t constitute morality but the law of the jungle!

Is your opposition that you do not think these conditions exist, or that you do not like them? If you think it is morally wrong to describe morality as such, I would argue that by doing so you simply step into the web of negotiations and promote revisions/additions. I do not think disagreeing amounts to negating!

Feelings are not a rational basis for morality.

They are; even you must think that it is right to do unto others as you would have done to yourself? Clearly there is a note of subjectivity in there, otherwise that moral rule would be meaningless. What is the point in apologising for hurting others if, actually, you did not hurt them (because they cannot feel - nonsense), or hurting them doesn’t matter (because ‘feelings are not a rational basis for morality’)?

It would be more realistic to think “Gee, look at all the things we imagine we can do!” if we were materialistic robots.

There is no reason why robots can only imagine: they act.

“altruism is self-regarding” is a self-contradiction!

Not really! No animal ever does anything that is against its own interests goes the theory. When we act ‘altruistically’, we are including in our own interests the wellbeing of others. We still act selfishly, strictly speaking, but with an expanded self. Empirically speaking, real acts of good do happen, and this is a way to understand in naturalistic terms.

Adaptivity is not morality but expediency!

Adaptivity is why we have morality! (Again, are you saying that it is not the reason we have morality, or are you saying you don’t like it?) Morality is expedient from an evolutionary perspective, and integral from a social/subjective perspective. As I said, the latter part is backed up by the fact that as long as we have desires, power, empathy etc etc, we will constantly have to negotiate our moral lives. It is given and inevitable, without having to rely upon a set of objective codes.

Julian Jaynes demonstrates his genius in at least the synthesis of wide-ranging evidence in support of his highly innovative ideas on the origin of consciousness. No need to mention his conclusions as they are disagreeable theistically speaking.

 

[grannymh]

Quite so, and what need have they to do so?

Thank you Sair, for your reply.
I would like to pose questions which may help resolve some of the issues of morality.

Our worth as human beings, in a naturalistic context, is only what we ascribe to ourselves and each other - a conglomeration of how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we treat others and expect to be treated by them.

May I respectfully point out that this is a classic example of subjective thinking in a naturalistic context. In other words, the worldview is relative or the worldview depends on one’s personal opinions and/or speculations.

The crucial question is – Is subjective thinking good or bad? How would you respond?

If absolutely objective human worth existed, as the OP and others claim,

Allow me to explain. The first step is that one accepts that people exist outside our own minds. I believe that it is possible to understand that the person in Alaska exists regardless of what I think about Alaska. This person, as well as all persons, are examples of objective reality.

What I have been very careful to do – is to simply say that the person in Alaska is worthy of profound respect. Can this be verified both subjectively *and *objectively?

Nihilism is not a logical consequence of atheism, but of the belief that human worth and human purpose must come from somewhere beyond human awareness in order to mean anything or to have any value.

If I am understanding this correctly. It sounds as if the person needs to be first objectively worthy. That is, the person’s intrinsic worth does not depend on me being aware of her or him.

Couple that with the understanding that there isn’t anything else in the universe that is going to value us, other than ourselves, and you might well be led to believe that there’s no point to anything.

I suggest that this example is one of *both *subjective *and *objective reasoning which comes to the same conclusion that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
When one details the steps of each method, one can see how this can be.

I can hear your brain saying – that is quite a stretch.
You are not required to believe what I say. Nonetheless, I do hope you can understand. Since I use the old fashioned dictionary definition of subjective and objective, do you understand what I am saying?

When one says “there isn’t anything else in the universe that is going to value us” I think of the phrase “No man is an island.”
Where theists differ with that statement is that they know there is a transcendent, pure spirit, personal God Who loves all people. My point is that a denial of God does not take away a person’s true worth.

Here is the tricky part when we discuss moral and immoral actions.

People are free to do very bad things. So we can legitimately say that there are bad people in the world who are accountable for their actions. There are serious consequences of evil actions and these should not be ignored. Our respect for bad people flies out the window. Yet at the same time, these people, because of their human nature, are worthy of profound respect. This is why the “prodigal son” was welcomed when he turned away from his sinning.

It is important to know that being worthy of profound respect is not an excuse for escaping the consequences of evil actions. It is an universal statement regarding human nature per se.

As for morality, it is expressed in personal decisions and actions or no actions. Plus there has to be a reason behind moral actions.

I have written enough for today. I am interested in your response.

 

[grannymh]

Taking my words out of context will not help your case either.

My apology if that is what you are seeing.

 

[Patty23]

I’ll second the question, and add that human rights such as we understand them are a human invention, not an imposition from beyond human existence. The fact that we recognise similar interests in others to those we ourselves have, and our recognition that we cannot hope to pursue our own interests if we do not allow others to pursue theirs, is enough explanation for our mutual investment in the social contract that is human rights.

All you are doing here is dressing up the old chestnut about atheists having no basis for morality, and this has been debunked time and again.

Not really. There are no compelling arguments. I’m sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

Our worth as human beings, in a naturalistic context, is only what we ascribe to ourselves and each other - a conglomeration of how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we treat others and expect to be treated by them.

Criminals demonstrate the folly of believing our worth is solely what we ascribe to ourselves…

If absolutely objective human worth existed, as the OP and others claim, then it would be rational to seek revenge upon nature for all the suffering and wasted life inflicted upon the human race through means of natural disasters, disease and other animals which from time to time succeed in killing humans.

The implication that nature is responsible and should be punished is irrational.

Yet those who believe in objective morality would exclude all in the objective universe from the moral realm, except humans.

Objective morality includes the entire universe and is recognised by all rational beings.

Nihilism is not a logical consequence of atheism, but of the belief that human worth and human purpose must come from somewhere beyond human awareness in order to mean anything or to have any value.

Nihilism is the belief that nothing whatsoever is of any value - including the belief in human worth and human purpose

Couple that with the understanding that there isn’t anything else in the universe that is going to value us, other than ourselves, and you might well be led to believe that there’s no point to anything. Quite so, and what need have they to do so?

If we value ourselves **for no reason **our evaluation is valueless!

Our worth as human beings, in a naturalistic context, is only what we ascribe to ourselves and each other - a conglomeration of how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we treat others and expect to be treated by them.

“conglomeration” is a perfect description: “a sum total of many heterogenous things taken together” (arbitrarily) and “an occurrence combining miscellaneous things into a (more or less) rounded mass”!

 

[tonyrey]

The compound of power, affinity, empathy, fear, desire, reason and dozens of other things certainly doesn’t constitute morality but the law of the jungle!

Is your opposition that you do not think these conditions exist, or that you do not like them?
Neither!

If you think it is morally wrong to describe morality as such, I would argue that by doing so you simply step into the web of negotiations and promote revisions/additions. I do not think disagreeing amounts to negating!

You need to explain how a compound of power, affinity, empathy, fear, desire, reason and dozens of other things can be anything but the law of the jungle.

Feelings are not a rational basis for morality.

They are; even you must think that it is right to do unto others as you would have done to yourself? Clearly there is a note of subjectivity in there, otherwise that moral rule would be meaningless. What is the point in apologising for hurting others if, actually, you did not hurt them (because they cannot feel - nonsense), or hurting them doesn’t matter (because ‘feelings are not a rational basis for morality’)?
According to that argument all scientific propositions are subjective!

It would be more realistic to think “Gee, look at all the things we imagine we can do!” if we were materialistic robots.

There is no reason why robots can only imagine: they act.Do robots act rationally?

“altruism is self-regarding” is a self-contradiction!

Not really! No animal ever does anything that is against its own interests goes the theory. When we act ‘altruistically’, we are including in our own interests the wellbeing of others. We still act selfishly, strictly speaking, but with an expanded self. Empirically speaking, real acts of good do happen, and this is a way to understand in naturalistic terms.In naturalistic terms there are only natural events which are neither good nor evil.

Adaptivity is not morality but expediency!

Adaptivity is why we have morality! (Again, are you saying that it is not the reason we have morality, or are you saying you don’t like it?)
Neither!

Morality is expedient from an evolutionary perspective, and integral from a social/subjective perspective. As I said, the latter part is backed up by the fact that as long as we have desires, power, empathy etc etc, we will constantly have to negotiate our moral lives. It is given and inevitable, without having to rely upon a set of objective codes.

If morality is simply a matter of negotiation might = right!

Julian Jaynes demonstrates his genius in at least the synthesis of wide-ranging evidence in support of his highly innovative ideas on the origin of consciousness. No need to mention his conclusions as they are disagreeable theistically speaking.

Whether they are disagreeable theistically speaking is irrelevant. The issue is whether his ideas are valid - which needs to be demonstrated…

 

[grannymh]

grannymh:
Going back to post 304
The crucial question is – Is subjective thinking good or bad?

Any answers?

 

[Sair]

Going back to post 304
The crucial question is – Is subjective thinking good or bad?

Any answers?

And whether it’s good or bad, how would one avoid it?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Atheists have just as much a moral right as anyone else.

 

[grannymh]

And whether it’s good or bad, how would one avoid it?

Interesting answer-question. Assuming subjective thinking comes with the human nature package. At the moment, I have been thinking that subjective thinking could be somewhat similar to sentience in animals. In that case, we could not avoid thinking subjectively.

But what does one do, when subjectively one likes too much dark chocolate and ice cream and the bathroom scale just gave up and died? Does one blame the bad scale?

 

[Sair]

Interesting answer-question. Assuming subjective thinking comes with the human nature package. At the moment, I have been thinking that subjective thinking could be somewhat similar to sentience in animals. In that case, we could not avoid thinking subjectively.

But what does one do, when subjectively one likes too much dark chocolate and ice cream and the bathroom scale just gave up and died? Does one blame the bad scale?

From what I understand, it is impossible for us to do otherwise than think subjectively - that is, from our own point of view - simply by virtue of what we are, that is, subjective beings. Even if we may establish that our understanding of some aspect of reality is shared by many individuals, the most we may claim is that this understanding is intersubjective. No matter what object we approach, we cannot hope to see it from anything other than our own point of view, as the subjects of experience.

When it is the case that there is some doubt as to the accuracy or truth of a subjective understanding, then as rational beings, we have options - we can rationalise the various aspects of experience, fitting them into a comprehensible causal chain (and often this is one that favours our desires) or we may seek further evidence in order to construct a different explanatory causal chain, one that perhaps does not reflect our personal desires, but is nonetheless ultimately reliant upon our own perceptions.

I guess the difficulty arises when one supposes a hard line between objective and subjective thought - the one reliant upon rationality and intelligence, the other upon emotion - and adds the (undoubtedly subjective) evaluation that reason is somehow ‘better’ or more accurate than emotion as a means of perception and understanding. But in practice, we cannot do without either. Emotion is no less a reflection of reality than considered and reasoned thought - it’s just that we’ve been culturally conditioned, here in the West, to suppose that the latter is somehow more reliable, as a measure of truth, than the former.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists have just as much a moral right as anyone else.

But they have no rational basis for that belief! In an amoral universe all rights are illusions…

 

[John21652]

I’ll second the question, and add that human rights such as we understand them are a human invention, not an imposition from beyond human existence.

They are indeed a human ‘invention’, as you write. They are also not ‘imposed’ from beyond human existence. If they were imposed from ‘beyond human existence’, there would be no moral choices to make and therefore no immoraliy and therefore no need for the espousement of ‘human rights’.

All orality is a human construct. Catholics and others believe that God showed us the basics of morality when he gave Moses the Ten Commandments. The story is that He did so because mankind had forgotten the moral code that was “written on the hearts of men”. In other words, humanity was not behaving as it naturally should and needed a wake up call. In giving Moses those tablets, morals were not ‘imposed’ and mankind was still free to do as he pleased. That is, he was still free to make moral choices.

The fact that we recognise similar interests in others to those we ourselves have, and our recognition that we cannot hope to pursue our own interests if we do not allow others to pursue theirs, is enough explanation for our mutual investment in the social contract that is human rights.

It is “enough explanation” to the unthinking. The thinking person enquires as to why we need a moral code, or ‘human rights’, as you term it and the thinking person enquires into the validity of a moral code. The fact that others have similar interests as ourselves is a pointer to something that is discernable as being objective. Your trouble is that you baulk at the use of the term ‘objective’, even though ou actually describe it. A moral code is a code of behaviour that governs conflicting human desires and ensures that people can persue their own interests without conflicting upon the ‘own interests’ of others. For that to work, a moral code puts constraints upon human behaviour.

All you are doing here is dressing up the old chestnut about atheists having no basis for morality, and this has been debunked time and again.

Some Atheists think they have debunked the arguments which state they have no basis for morality, but they haven’t and they can’t unless they accept that there is an objective basis for a moral code. If they reject that, then they are left with nothing but the positive law which is nothing more than the whim of the ruler, or of the class in power. Without an objective basis, there can be no Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

 

[grannymh]

From what I understand, it is impossible for us to do otherwise than think subjectively - that is, from our own point of view - simply by virtue of what we are, that is, subjective beings.

If you were to think about the two questions in post 312 – and share with me your thoughts – I should be able to demonstrate that both subjective and objective thinking is inherent in human nature.
Qustions

1. But what does one do, when subjectively one likes too much dark chocolate and ice cream and the bathroom scale just gave up and died?
2. Does one blame the bad scale?

I guess the difficulty arises when one supposes a hard line between objective and subjective thought - the one reliant upon rationality and intelligence, the other upon emotion - and adds the (undoubtedly subjective) evaluation that reason is somehow ‘better’ or more accurate than emotion as a means of perception and understanding.

I must be from some other planet, because this makes no sense to me when I employ both objective and subjective reasoning.

First of all, subjective reasoning includes way more than emotion. Gut instinct for example. Rationality and intelligence is zero unless they are directed to something or are working on something or seeking something. The difference between subjective and objective reasoning is where or what the information comes from. What is the basis for subjective reasoning and what is the basis for objective reasoning?

 

[grannymh]

ruler, or of the class in power. Without an objective basis, there can be no Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

An objective basis? And what might that be when morality is either an action or a description of an action? In my humble opinion, the lowest common denominator basis for morality is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.