Atheistic Morality, Oh my

BendzR, the way you're making it sound as though God is killing people for egotistical reasons. Which, I'll admit killing someone, because of idoltry does seem egotistical. Though, who do you give thanks to, and who's laws do you replace with your own god's laws?

 

Thank you for sayig this! I firmly believe that belief in God is essential for morality to have any real meaning. Most of those arguing against this belief were arguing your point, without coming straight out and saying so. So now, let's address what you have so clearly stated.

First, I would answer that social standards are not necessarily the same thing as morality. For instance, you guys drive on the wrong side of the road . That's an example of a social standard that has nothing to do with morality. That is also why what side of the road you drive on is not transcendent (equally applicable to both of us, beyond any borders).

Second, I think Socrastein had the right idea with his initial post: if morality is NOT tied up with belief in God, then let's propose something else, and see if we can arrive at some kind of rational, workable, alternative transcendent morality. So, in keeping with your proposition, let's define a morality where "good shall be defined as whatever most promotes the survival of our species." If we agree that this shall be our definition of 'good', then our morality looks like this:
1. Individuals with genetic abnormalities that can result in physical or mental handicaps will be sterilized at once, to preserve and improve the gene pool.
2. Physically or mentally handicapped individuals should be executed for the good of society, so that they don't deplete resources that could be better used by productive societal members. Retired individuals shall be executed for the same reason.
3. Money, food, education, and other resources shall be redistributed so that the most genetically fit individuals will receive more. In areas where there is significant disease or starvation, attempts to import food and/or medicines that could be used elsewhere shall be forbidden.
4. Genetic screening shall be required before any marriages are allowed. Two Jewish people who both carry the Tasachs gene shall not be permitted to marry.
5. Women of child-bearing age who are intelligent and athletic shall be required to have more children. 'Less fit' parents shall be discouraged from having children.
Still think our first assumption is 'moral'? Could you live under a society that defined 'good' in such a way? (As a side note, this 'morality' is very similar to what was actually employed in Nazi Germany, and includes key points advocated by eugenics proponents like Margaret Sanger in this country, during the 1930's and 1940's.)

 

I've transfered this to this thread...

Do you have an example of religious animals? If not your claim falls flat on its face. Morality and social issues are not exclusive to human being.

Morality is a product of society.

 

Not to be pedantic, but let's look at some definitions, and make sure we're both talking about the same thing:

Morality: having to do with 'right' and 'wrong'; a system for determining or assessing whether an action, attitude, thought, or approach is 'right' or 'wrong'.
Social Construct: anything that a group/society agrees to establish as a rule.

If I'm understanding what you're meaning (honestly trying to get inside your head so I can understand where you're coming from), I think your view is that morality is just a set of standards or guidelines for acceptable behavior dictated by societal groupthink. Based on the two definitions I've offered above, I see them as two different things. Societal norms may or may not be related to morality.

As a fairly-pointless-but-trivial example, think of what it means to have a 'moral' society. If the society defines morality, then there can be no such thing as a 'moral' society, and no such thing as an immoral society, or a good society or a bad society. In such a case, it would be impossible for our societies (yours and mine) to judge the Nazi perpetrators to have done anything 'wrong', since they were following orders, and the values and dictates of their social group.

This goes back to whoever first talked in this thread about a 'private morality', where good or evil or right or wrong was defined by the individual, for the individual. The problem with this was its lack of transcendence: it would not necessarily apply to anyone else, and therefore could not result in justice. If society defines morality (as opposed to either an individual or a transcendent Law Giver), then all we have is a slightly-larger private morality. Such a morality wouldn't necessarily apply to other societies, and therefore could not result in justice, either. In fact wouldn't you agree that the lack of a moral consensus between societies is the cause of most wars?

Society members may agree to play by certain 'rules', but these would be exactly that: rules. There would be nothing intrinsic in the rules themselves to allow one to state that something was 'right' or 'wrong'. 'Right' and 'wrong', on the other hand, are intrinsic qualities. I might violate a social taboo from your culture without violating any of the rules in mine, but if I do something 'wrong' or 'unjust' in my society, it is still 'wrong' or 'unjust' if I move over the river and through the woods to your neighborhood.

Now, about them animals...

Many animal species display social structure. There are expected behaviors, and sometimes there are even sanctions for failing to adhere to those expectations. None of this necessarily has anything to do with morality, nor does it mean that the individual animals have any concept that some things are inherently 'right' or 'wrong' or 'good' or 'evil'. Experiments that purport to 'prove' morality in animals start by assuming the desired result; i.e., that morality is nothing more than a social construct, therefore, since animals have social constructs they have morality.

More later...

 

Well then we have to agree to disagree, because I strongly believe that social standards and morality are the exact same thing.

Morality to me, is just a word to describe the process of functioning appropriately towards social structures.

The Nazis were wrong, in that they aren't the only society on earth. When I am saying "Social Structures" I mean that which is normal to humans, naturally. It is within our genetic makeup to look after our young. If we do not do this, we are wrong. If every single group of humans acted like the Nazis, and then another group did not, they would be wrong.

If you believe in a creator, or a guider-to-life then you could argue that God put our morality in our genetics. I read in Time magazine about a year ago, about a gene that actually correlates to our morality. This sounds quite logical to me, since we are - wether created or not - only matter. We have no souls. I guess you believe that we do, but unfortunately I don't.

If you are the last person on the planet, and your social structure is non-existant. Does morality still exist ? Please tell me something that is "wrong" that doesn't involve others ?

Rape, Murder, Stealing, Lying, etc are all out of the window. The only sins left are those directly related to God. The Atheist does not believe in God, but I assume we weren't debating those sins in the first place ?

It would be quite pointless. Atheists by definition are commiters of those sins, therefore to even think of morality regarding sins that are commited by definition, is rather pointless. The Atheist would disagree because he does not acknowledge those sins even exist.

If your real arguement is actually "Atheists do no believe in God, which is a sin, by my religions' laws, therefore through my view Atheism = Immorality" then it is pretty much impossible to make you believe otherwise, since that arguement is logically sound (not maybe valid to me, but sound nevertheless) and then there is no point to continue this

Morality is a product of Society. Homer is correct (imo). If you want to know the SOURCE of our morality-drive that comes up within society, then I would say its in our genes. Morality is a product of Nature. Not a product of some devine force.

Sparkle, we can continue our debate in PM's if you'd like.

 

But morals are a result of the society a person was raised in. Some societies will be different, and would likely have different morals.

Example… If I were to move to another country which had quite different morals to the ones I was raised on within my society, I would have different morals, but should I stay in this new society long enough, my morals may change in accordance to my new way of living.

Some morals are usually universal, save for some remote places, because of a closer and more united world. We know that killing and rape are wrong and this is generally accepted worldwide, but go back hundreds if not thoudends of years and most morals will be less universal.

A moral/immoral and good/bad society are subjective and is determined by our own morals, and hence, society.

 

Before we wander into moral relativism it may be helpful to analyes the relativist's case:

Basically it goes:
1) Differing cultures (or individuals) have different moral codes.
2) Therefore there is no objective truth in morality. It is merely a matter of opinion.

However there is no way to get from point one to point two. One does not imply two. There may be a watertight moral theory out there, and if people fail to accept it it is not because they are right, but because they are stubborn.

Secondly is the relationship between morality and religion. Morality can be seen to be independant from religion via the Euthyphro dilemma: Is conduct moral because the gods command it or do the gods command it because it is right?

On the first option, divine comand theory, then god's commandments are arbitary. Hence Gottfried von Leibniz states: "...in saying that things are good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of god, it seems to me that one destroys, without realising it, all the love of god and all his glory. For why praise him for doing what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?"

On the second option however it is admitted that there an external standard of morality. Hence Atheists can have moral systems as god is an inessential component.

In fact this dilemma seems to reduce phrases like 'religious ethics' and 'non-religious ethics' to nonsense - how can we talk about these thing when suddenly religion has no bearing what so ever on moral theory? The most religion can do is to lay claim to an incentive to act morally. However this incentive is not the only one and other non-religious based incentives have been proposed: David Hume, an (likely) Atheist, states that all moral incentives come from passions such as compassion. Immanuel Kant states that it is rational to act morally from a pure sense of duty.

The dillemma also seems to lay another blow to religious claims to morality as someone said earlier; religious incentives are fear of fiery damnation whereas atheistic ones are chosen for other reasons and are infinitely more admirable than simply acting morally as a supernatural insurance policy.

 

As someone who does not believe in God, I assure you that I do have a sense of right and wrong. I base mine on empathy, mostly, and on my perceptions of how the worlds works.

In religion, God tells you what is right or wrong. For atheists, they must decide that for themselves, and will sometimes base it on what is considered acceptable in society.

You won't ever have a morality that is entirely objective unless God has laid down the law for us. That is because, unless you have a God's say-so, nothing is intrinsically good or bad. But as an atheist, you can have a subjective morality.

An interesting question I have for the theists: How do you suppose that God decides what is right and wrong? He must arbitrarily decide 'x is good', 'y is bad' or just base it on what he likes or doesn't like. Seems awfully human to me. It can't be that he says 'good things are right' and 'bad things are wrong' because then you have good and bad existing in the absence of a God to lay them down as Law.

I think this is actually a far more complex concept than some of you are giving it credit for. I will attempt to gather my thoughts into some sort of coherent form, and then we can see if we can draw any conclusions from points that we agree on.

 

I didn't read your post until I'd posted mine. And you've posted almost exactly what I was thinking. It must be God at work on the internets.

 

Alexander: An interesting difference is that you've allowed for the possibility of a moral code that exists in the absence of a God to determine it.

The reason I did not include that in my discussion is that if it does exist for atheists, how is it possible to determine what it is? If we assume that God does not exist, then we are left with philosophy, science, personal experience etc, and I don't really see those revealing intrinsic 'goodness' in possible courses of action. So it might be 'out there' but we can't reach it. What does it even mean for something to be 'right'? That we'll get punished for not doing it? If we can't ever know that something is 'right' or 'wrong', and if we won't be rewarded/punished for it or ever know we've done something right or wrong, is it still 'right' or 'wrong'? What are your thoughts? If God does exist, maybe all he does is communicate to us the moral code that we are unable to determine by ourselves. God is, after all, all-knowing, he'd know what that code is. If God really is good, then, we can in this case consider these two possibilities: That praising God for communicating morals to us is one of the morally 'right' things to do, or that it isn't, and it's something someone made up to make us religious. Presumably this someone isn't God, unless God isn't good and is telling us to praise him when this isn't a 'right' thing to do. Also, if moral standards are objective, and exist in the absence of God, perhaps it is morally 'right' for God to punish us for breaking those codes, and as we all 'know', God is powerful enough to do that. Is God then bound by this objective morality, and forced to punish or show mercy as morality dictates? Or can he ignore this moral code, and as such commit 'wrong' acts himself? If there is a moral code that exists without God, it pretty much destroys the whole idea of what a God is.

 

Likewise. And I stongly disagree with this:

I try to live according to a moral code that is mostly derived from the way my parents brought me up. I've modified it here and there as I've grown up and thought about it myself, but it's largely unchanged.

My morality has meaning for me because by not following my animal desires I'm being more considerate of others and more aware of the environment we live in. In a small way this is my contribution towards making the world a better place, not only for the rest of the human race to live in, but for me, my friends and my family also.

 

Capt Ann may I ask why you address this point to me? If you read my post you'll see all I said was... "I 100% agree with you, moral behaviour does not rely on religion." I didn't mention anything about Christians.

 

I've just sat through a really dull lecture on economic theory of profit maximising in perfectly competitive markets. I didn't listen to a word of it! I was sitting there jotting down thoughts on moral theory and what imperatives we ought to follow in a world where 'god is dead'.

Here's a list of some of the key non-religious moral theorists, in a more or less chronological order, and how they thought that morality was determined:

1) Aristotle - he approached the situation a bit differently from others. Instead of asking 'how ought I to act?' he asked 'what character ought I to be?'. His reasoning was that everything in nature has an end (eyes are meant for seeing, ears for hearing etc...) and man is no exception. Man's ultimate end is Eudaimonia - or happiness. This is not mere pleasure but a far higher self-fullfillment on a par with the gods. We know it is the ultimate end of man as we strive for nothing beyond it (although you may buy a Ferrari it is not done for its own sake but for that of your own happiness, whereas we aim for Eudaimonia for its own sake and for nothing else). Virtue ethics states that the moral thing is to cultivate our character to reach this perfection. The cultivation of character require acquiring certain virtues such as couage, integrety, loyalty, compassion and a sense of justice. The moral man will be one that is admired and liked by all, always acting in ways that are appropriate.

2) Social Contract theory - this goes right to the heart of what morality is; the optimal way in which to resolve the disputes between two moral agents. If there were no disputes there would be no need to have a moral code. Hence Social contract theory states that moral rules are those necessary to gain the benefit of social living.

3) Emotivism - was a 20th century theory developed by Charles Stevenson but it was based upon the simple Ethical Subjectivism of David Hume. Hume claimed that there were no absolute moral rules, and that any action we find to be morally wrong is in fact due to our emotion felt towards it: "Take any action allow'd to be vicious: Wilful murder for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existance, that you call vice... You will never find it, till you turn your reflection in upon your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, toward this action. Here is a matter of fact; but 'tis the object of feeling, not reason." - David Hume, A Treatise Concerning Human Nature.

4) Deontology - this was the ethical system of Immanuel Kant who claimed that there are absolute moral rules which he called 'categorical imperatives'. These imperatives are derived from man's transcendental freedom and rationality; they cannot be broken under any circumstances.

5) Utilitarianism - developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill this theory takes a hedonistic base; everything a man does, the Utilitarian claims, is done for pleasure alone. Hence only the consequences can justify an action as the motive is already set. Therefore, since all men seek pleasure, the moral action will maximise total pleasure for the maximum ammount of people.

6) Existentialism - also known as the 'Ethics of Authenticity'. It is derived from the famous Existentialist dictum 'Man is condemned to be free'. It holds that this existential freedom is the guiding principle behind moral action and that it should be recognised in ourselves and respected in others. (I've talked about this one quite a lot on MAP.)

Actually I disagree. My own moral thoughts are a hybrid of 1, 2 and 6 on the list above.

MY thoughts would sound a bit odd if I just laid them down. Read this before reading the next paragraph.

O.k. Existentialist Ethics would go 'beyond good and evil'. 'Good', 'Evil', 'Nice' etc... are simply evaluations that man put in the world, not the other way around. The Existentialist Ethics have at their heart respect for others. If you are acting in a way which is respectful of other's freedom you are acting 'morally'. If you are not acting respectfully then you are acting 'immorally' - or that the way I interpret Existentialism and Humanism. Why should we act morally - well, no reason, it depends on how you want to be judged by others:

"What we do in life, echoes in eternity," - Maximus.

The aspect of God that people claim to be all-goodness implies that he is good because adheres to the moral code. The all-powerful aspect; the enforcer. The all-knowing aspect; knowing the code and knowing who adheres to it and who breaks it.

EDIT: My religious views are Atheistic. So this issue is, for me, of the deepest philosophical importance.

 

But they all seem to assume some goal for people relating to happiness, respect for others, etc. Where did this idea of a 'goal' come from? I am uncertain of my goal in life, but while I desire a happy life, I find pure happiness alone unfulfilling. How can we determine what the goal for everyone should be? How do we know it is 'right' for everyone to be able to spend their life working on their own project? This in fact explicitly contradicts certain religious morals - you're supposed to follow God's plan, not your own. So where did we get this idea from?

Again, I am not sure where this definition of morality comes from. While I recognise respect for other people as something good, that is only because it is a preconceived idea put upon me by society. I see no reason for respect to be the defining quality of morality. I also do not see how expressing morality in terms of respect provides us with an objective morality, due to the subjective evaluation of what is more respectful. For example, a man is about to die unless he gets an organ transplant. The only organ available is in the body of a man who died just a few minutes ago. However, before he died, he stated very clearly that he did not want his organs to be used in transplants. Should you respect that first man's right to life, or should you respect the second man's desires to be buried with all his organs intact? What is more respectful? What is 'right'?

So is he bound by the moral code, or is he capable of breaking it? Does he just choose not to? What would happen if he did break it? Would he cease to be good?

It is the same as that old chestnut: If God is all-powerful, can he create an object that he cannot destroy?

I have been presented with answers that involve God being able to but choosing not to. For some reason I find that answer unsatisfactory. I suspect the answer lies somewhere within the nature of human understanding of the term 'all-powerful'. If you apply human logic to it, then it doesn't work, in the same way that classical logic doesn't apply to quantum states*.


* Pedant's note: unless they're in eigenstates.

 

I agree with 3, mostly. I don't see how number 4 defines an objective morality. It seems it is just talking about a subjectively defined morality that should be followed objectively.

 

This entire post is excellent. I see every part you're saying except the last sentence. Please revisit that. It may be that the idea of god is destroyed by such a discussion, or it may be that one specific idea we have about God is wrong (i.e., God isn't exactly the way we think He is, which is kind of what I'd expect any infinite God to be).

 

No offence Socrastein, but I think on this occasion you've fallen victim to your own eloquence (which is admittedly impressive) and desire to demonstrate it to everyone. Your original argument is pretty straightforward, but because you insisted on wording it in the most elaborate way possible, you've unnecessarily provided more potential for confusion and more opportunities for your critics to pick it apart. In law, I personally prefer to argue things in the most concise way possible. There's just less to go wrong that way, and it helps you avoid descent into pointless semantics arguments, such as the vast bulk of this thread.

Having said that though, I do agree that you don't need religion to have a moral code. Morality is a personal thing anyway, and even most Christians have their own ideas about what is right and wrong; for example, there are grey areas subject to interpretation, some people simply pick and choose what bits of the Bible to believe in (often at their own convenience), and there are some things that the Bible just doesn't cover.

 

Are we to assume that everything created/not prevented by God such as disease, pestilence, rape, destruction is 'good'?

 

And for arguments sake supposing we accept that ultimate morality was derived from "the way God is" how are we to find out this 'way'?