Immorality & Atheism

[seanD]

I don't understand. Let me try to put your last sentence in an example, and you can tell me if it's apt, regardless of my conclusions.

If I am an accountant and surrounded by other accountants, and everyone but me is embezzling funds, then I am subject to my morality (a combination of nature and nurture), which is influenced by my psychological weaknesses (broken window theory, etc.).

If my morality says that I shouldn't engage in embezzling, I can't then choose to embezzle, because morality is psychology. If my morality succumbs to my weaknesses, and I choose to embezzle, people who aren't in my position have created secular law to protect others from just this kind of thing.

You seem to be under the impression that one can change one's morality to suit one's needs. This simply isn't possible.

Your example is a bad one because your example is an act that is outside the law. I specifically stated, quite clearly, acts that are within the law that you might consider immoral or unethical, but that your peers don't. I gave you an example of unethical practices the banks engaged in, where they worked around the law to screw folks with the securities they sold, essentially screwing the entire country. See, that's the problem I've been trying to relay to you, which is why you resorted to something that was specifically defined by the law. But the law, your only moral authority, is not defined enough to cover those gray areas. Since you don't seem to be paying attention to the discussion, I think I'll bow out at this point.

But what you said is exactly what I meant. The guidelines are things like "don't kill" or "don't steal". It's when we get into gray areas it becomes complicated. In the right scenario most people would say killing or stealing would be the correct action. It's why both Confucius and Jesus came up with the golden rule. It's inherent to the general human psychology.

The atheist might believe these men were wise (at least those who believe they existed), but they neither follow the moral obligations of Jesus or Confucius because to them, they are but human beings of an outdated age. I believe the Sermon on the Mount covers every aspect of moral obligation you can think of, and because I believe Jesus represents God, his moral standard comes from a superior source regardless of how far back in time it dates. So when I see someone, including myself, not living up to that standard, I know they are being immoral based on the authority of that standard. You have no such authority to appeal to other than your only authority which is the law, or the consensus of your peers, the latter being a problem for you because the latter is often shaped by competition to thrive.

[showmeproof]

Do you think it's right to kidnap someone, take away all of their property, and possibly execute them on the grounds that they didn't do what you wanted them to do? Even if there are 50 people who agree with you? If I force you at gunpoint to bite the head off a mouse are you morally obligated to do it and are you moral for keeping that obligation?
I can't speak for other theists but in my view the moral obligation doesn't arise because God will harm you if you don't do what He says. It comes from the nature of the universe and it's relationship to God. If God never lifted a finger in judgment against a single person we'd still have moral obligations because 'oughts' are woven into the fabric of creation which God personally authored it and sustains with his omnipresent brain. Good and evil are real properties, not just breaking rules or opinions enforced by an authority.
I'd really like to believe this is true, and it probably is for everyone posting in this thread... but I've seen people watch and laugh as a preteen child was screaming for help before he fell out of a ferris wheel and died. And I've seen them wave goodbye to a gypsy child as it was swept out to sea by the ocean currents. There's also 300 million people in the United States alone that have anti-social personality disorder which leaves them with no ability to feel empathy at all

I sure don't, but the Israelites did...read the OT. I am not arguing a mere 'might makes right'. I understand the fine line you are pointing out. Unfortunately, throughout history this is exactly how morality has been practiced. Derivation of an ideal is different than the practice. We have, throughout our history, formed groups which are selectively inclusive; usually family, extended family, and various allies. Everyone else was not included within that group and subsequently the rules of the group did not extend to them. Likewise, the moral obligations did not extend to them. This is historical fact that is included even in your own holy texts. Let's phrase it this way, if I committed those same acts to one of the members of my group of 50 I would be held accountable and it would be labeled immoral. If I were part of the 50 and no one stepped up to hold us accountable it would be marked in the annals of history, just as it is in your texts, as a military triumph. That is indeed unfortunate.

On the flip side, individuals step up (at risk to themselves and their families) and challenge the accepted practices of the group. In just the past century + in America we have witnessed the inclusion of women in the right to vote and a great deal of other advances towards their equality. Many today, looking back on when this wasn't the case, find the exclusion and the second class status of women as immoral. It surely wasn't viewed in that manner by the group until people started stepping up and challenging the norm. Likewise we have seen the abolition of slavery and the civil rights act to elevate those of African descent, who were viewed as property, to that of a fellow human being. This is the reason we can look back on past events and proclaim events that were formerly accepted as moral, immoral; just as in the case of the genocide practiced, at least in tradition, by the Israelites against the Canaanites.

Life is full of great iniquities and great triumphs. As much as it is undesirable to view morality in this way it is how it is practiced. The best possible morality is a code that extends the rights you would grant yourself to everyone. Christians know this as the Golden rule. It was known by Confucius. This is why we are seeing the elevation of the gay community. They will be allowed in the military, corporations are giving benefits to their partners, and soon prop 8 will be deemed unconstitutional in its appeal to the Supreme Court which will set a nation wide standard. That is the moral advancement of our age. Scoff if you will, check back in a few years and I promise you'll eat your words. We even have a phrase for this "the wind of change".

As many know I have been interested in the ANE, and amongst the biblically maligned Canaanites you find texts that speak of the king's responsibility to take care of the widowed, poor, and orphans. You also find texts detailing sacrifices expiating the sins of the group.

In the bolded above you will find that you are in company with atheists. While you assert that it is imprinted upon creation by god's design we think that it is an evolved trait. Good and evil are concepts defined by their opposites; if everything were good nothing could be evil and vice versa. The distinction between the two is left to the judgment of humans...most of us are able to make the distinction. However, for both the theist and the atheist, castigation is imminent if you are caught; unless of course in both cases forgiveness is enacted.

[showmeproof]

Your example is a bad one because your example is an act that is outside the law. I specifically stated, quite clearly, acts that are within the law that you might consider immoral or unethical, but that your peers don't. I gave you an example of unethical practices the banks engaged in, where they worked around the law to screw folks with the securities they sold, essentially screwing the entire country. See, that's the problem I've been trying to relay to you, which is why you resorted to something that was specifically defined by the law. But the law, your only moral authority, is not defined enough to cover those gray areas. Since you don't seem to be paying attention to the discussion, I think I'll bow out at this point.


The atheist might believe these men were wise (at least those who believe they existed), but they neither follow the moral obligations of Jesus or Confucius because to them, they are but human beings of an outdated age. I believe the Sermon on the Mount covers every aspect of moral obligation you can think of, and because I believe Jesus represents God, his moral standard comes from a superior source regardless of how far back in time it dates. So when I see someone, including myself, not living up to that standard, I know they are being immoral based on the authority of that standard. You have no such authority to appeal to other than your only authority which is the law, or the consensus of your peers, the latter being a problem for you because the latter is often shaped by competition to thrive.

You forget the ever changing legal system. People will indeed find ways to beat the system. However, when it becomes grievous enough to attract the attention of those who can change the law they will snap back hard and fast. Do you not recall how ticked off people were? Do you not recall the demand for change? Luckily, in our system we elect those who are capable of changing the law...as slow as it might proceed.

We have ethics committees dealing with synthetic biology....how does the beatitudes deal with that gray area? Where new advances are made we are more and more being proactive in accessing the potential consequences.

[seanD]

You forget the ever changing legal system. People will indeed find ways to beat the system. However, when it becomes grievous enough to attract the attention of those who can change the law they will snap back hard and fast. Do you not recall how ticked off people were? Do you not recall the demand for change? Luckily, in our system we elect those who are capable of changing the law...as slow as it might proceed.

We have ethics committees dealing with synthetic biology....how does the beatitudes deal with that gray area? Where new advances are made we are more and more being proactive in accessing the potential consequences.

How many on that ethics committee pray and fast or follow Matthew 6:24 or 24:33? Perhaps things like nuclear fusion or synthetic biology is not an area God wants us to go. Perhaps this will end in disaster. But since they set their own moral course and want to play God, that is the lot they will have to deal with if that happens.

"Capable of changing the laws"? Hate to take this off topic, but you're really reaching there. Can you honestly say that you're satisfied with our representatives?The problem is, the grievous actions may be so complex, profound, or hidden that the theoretical consensus against those actions doesn't know it's happening until they start seeing the effects, and then it's too late. Most people have no clue how the banks screwed the system, assuming those who are even aware they screwed the system. And if you're a banker, you obviously don't agree with others that what you did was immoral (which is why I pointed out that diverse moral obligations fall into a diversity of groups), and yet have the power to lobby the representatives to avoid making any real changes within the law to affect their actions. But this is getting complicated and off topic because I would have explain to you how the so-called financial "reform" bill did absolutely nothing to change anything. Point is, this was just one among infinite examples I was using.

[showmeproof]

How many on that ethics committee pray and fast or follow Matthew 6:24 or 24:33? Perhaps things like nuclear fusion or synthetic biology is not an area God wants us to go. Perhaps this will end in disaster. But since they set their own moral course and want to play God, that is the lot they will have to deal with if that happens.

"Capable of changing the laws"? Hate to take this off topic, but you're really reaching there. Can you honestly say that you're satisfied with our representatives?The problem is, the grievous actions may be so complex, profound, or hidden that the theoretical consensus against those actions doesn't know it's happening until they start seeing the effects, and then it's too late. Most people have no clue how the banks screwed the system, assuming those who are even aware they screwed the system. And if you're a banker, you obviously don't agree with others that what you did was immoral (which is why I pointed out that diverse moral obligations fall into a diversity of groups), and yet have the power to lobby the representatives to avoid making any real changes within the law to affect their actions. But this is getting complicated and off topic because I would have explain to you how the so-called financial "reform" bill did absolutely nothing to change anything. Point is, this was just one among infinite examples I was using.

I am not proposing that fasting or praying is an effective way of ascertaining the right or wrong of new advances. Why do you think that should impress? What benefit could fasting and praying provide to synthetic biology? If you spend that time thinking...then I'd agree. What I do know, is that looking to 1 century or Iron Age or Bronze age theologies will not help us in these very foreign space-age concepts. My point is that as new potential problems arise we adapt to meet them. Perhaps these will lead to disaster. However, I'll take the modern expert over the ignorant deceased person. I find it interesting that you state that synthetic biology, and presumably fusion (did you mean fission?), is playing god. Think a moment what is meant by 'playing god'. You seem to imply that we have the power, but possibly not the wisdom, to direct changes in areas which should be beyond our reach. Have we finally built the tower of Babel?

What is presumed 'too late', is often when action is taken. Sometimes we come out on top and reflect that action wasn't taken soon enough. Katrina? I can't say that I'm satisfied with our current situation. I can't presume that I know the solution. Actions can and will be taken. These actions will be performed by those we elect, and those who are bold enough to act. Where that will lead, I cannot say. I hope those elected will have spent their time learning economics rather than fasting and praying. The importance is that action is taken when the problem is acknowledged. Many societies have failed, that is a fact of history. Will we fail...I certainly hope not.

[seanD]

I am not proposing that fasting or praying is an effective way of ascertaining the right or wrong of new advances. Why do you think that should impress? What benefit could fasting and praying provide to synthetic biology? If you spend that time thinking...then I'd agree. What I do know, is that looking to 1 century or Iron Age or Bronze age theologies will not help us in these very foreign space-age concepts. My point is that as new potential problems arise we adapt to meet them. Perhaps these will lead to disaster. However, I'll take the modern expert over the ignorant deceased person. I find it interesting that you state that synthetic biology, and presumably fusion (did you mean fission?), is playing god. Think a moment what is meant by 'playing god'. You seem to imply that we have the power, but possibly not the wisdom, to direct changes in areas which should be beyond our reach. Have we finally built the tower of Babel?

What is presumed 'too late', is often when action is taken. Sometimes we come out on top and reflect that action wasn't taken soon enough. Katrina? I can't say that I'm satisfied with our current situation. I can't presume that I know the solution. Actions can and will be taken. These actions will be performed by those we elect, and those who are bold enough to act. Where that will lead, I cannot say. I hope those elected will have spent their time learning economics rather than fasting and praying. The importance is that action is taken when the problem is acknowledged. Many societies have failed, that is a fact of history. Will we fail...I certainly hope not.

You asked me where we can apply this to a specific subject like synthetic biology and its moral implication. The point I was making about fasting and praying and focusing on God's righteousness, which is an instruction Jesus gave on the Sermon on the Mount, is what I believe to be an important aspect of morality necessary to drive us in the right direction. You don't have to believe this, but I was trying correlate this with the previous discussion that seemed to drift off topic. Synthetic biology has branched off into areas that have implications that are just as disastrous as nuclear energy. Perhaps if we focused on (what I believe) is the most important form of morality, God would lead us in the right direction, and this doesn't mean absence of science, it just means a less disastrous course than mankind using its own moral course has been following. But you're focusing on one aspect of the science field (which is why this is heading off topic), when there are infinite situations like this in many different areas, such the financial field, which is another. But these are just examples. The point is, and to get this back to the previous discussion, when man follows his own moral course, which is often shaped by competitive materialistic or egotistical drives, even via consensus, this always leads to disastrous results. Always. Even when its within the law. But this is the only alternative or the atheist.

[Hamster]

I sure don't, but the Israelites did...read the OT.

Gah! I recant my position posthaste!

I am not arguing a mere 'might makes right'. I understand the fine line you are pointing out. Unfortunately, throughout history this is exactly how morality has been practiced.

Honestly, I can't see any other way a system of ethics could be practiced in a non-theist/naturalist world. Do what we say or we'll kill you. But even that is evil if we don't have an inherent right to inflict our conventions on others.

Derivation of an ideal is different than the practice. We have, throughout our history, formed groups which are selectively inclusive; usually family, extended family, and various allies. Everyone else was not included within that group and subsequently the rules of the group did not extend to them. Likewise, the moral obligations did not extend to them. This is historical fact that is included even in your own holy texts. Let's phrase it this way, if I committed those same acts to one of the members of my group of 50 I would be held accountable and it would be labeled immoral. If I were part of the 50 and no one stepped up to hold us accountable it would be marked in the annals of history, just as it is in your texts, as a military triumph. That is indeed unfortunate.
On the flip side, individuals step up (at risk to themselves and their families) and challenge the accepted practices of the group. In just the past century + in America we have witnessed the inclusion of women in the right to vote and a great deal of other advances towards their equality. Many today, looking back on when this wasn't the case, find the exclusion and the second class status of women as immoral. It surely wasn't viewed in that manner by the group until people started stepping up and challenging the norm. Likewise we have seen the abolition of slavery and the civil rights act to elevate those of African descent, who were viewed as property, to that of a fellow human being. This is the reason we can look back on past events and proclaim events that were formerly accepted as moral, immoral; just as in the case of the genocide practiced, at least in tradition, by the Israelites against the Canaanites.

I don't deny that people have worked out ways to be good, and in my opinion, have been very good. That includes people who never even heard of Jesus. My view isn't that Christianity (the religion) provides the goodness, but that all of these groups have access to a moral reality that they can feel. The teachers of morality who appear and remind us about what is good and what is evil often come to the same conclusions. And even the people that do evil things aren't doing them because they're evil, but because there's some good that they value in so much excess that they try and get it at the expense of some other good. Justice at the expense of mercy, honor at the expense of kindness, loyalty at the expense of honesty, etc. I think that you are a better person for rejecting that passage than the people who accept that passage as something evil "but it's okay because God commanded it."

But unless goodness (which is synonymous with the will of God in a theist's view) is something real, "good" and "evil" mean the same thing as "tag, you're it." Just a game we agree to play to keep us happy and safe until we die. If you think about it, not pretending that the game itself provides its own value, the universe universe turns out to be into an intolerable nightmare. A place full of capricious suffering. Genes multiplying unintelligently. Fathers raping their daughters and locking them in basements. Children suffering from neglect before being thrown down stairs by their mothers' boyfriends. And the feelings that you feel when you experience these things are just your brain squirting some hormones to stimulate a particular response that has allowed your genes to thrive. Not because it's actually good, or right, but because it's useful. If you'd been born with a slightly different brain chemistry or in different circumstances you might not feel them at all.

A man steals a baby out of his ex-girlfriend's crib. It's not his baby, it's his rival's baby. He takes it to a pond. He places it in the pond and watches it disappear beneath the cloudy water. Fifty years later he lays dying in his bed, having led a full life of love, happiness, and success. Fifty years later that baby is a pile of slimy bones at the bottom of a creek. And you could have loved that baby as you love your own babies had it been born to you and not to that woman. Who could be at home enough to bother caring about "good" in a universe like this? It would be perfectly rational to kill yourself and everyone around you to save them the trouble of living in it. Only it wouldn't because there's no tangible reason to even care about the hormone-fueled world of happy and sad. We'd only bother living through fifty tolerable experiences to get to the positive experiences we use to convince ourselves that any of this makes sense or is worth living.

I'm not saying that atheists or anyone else don't value things or that their values are actually meaningless. Also NOT saying that we should believe in God because it's too scary not to.

The people who discover this about the universe are usually the suffering, either physically or psychologically, who have to weigh whether it's worth going on our not.


Okay, now that that's all over, please detox yourself with this video:

[Tassman]

The definition of obligation is "a moral or legal requirement". That's not "my" definition, it's from the dictionary. Can something be morally or legally required without an authority commanding it? For example, would I be legally obligated to drive no faster than 55 miles-per-hour on the freeway if a legal authority hasn't commanded it? I can't see how. Similarly, would I be morally obligated to protect an innocent life if a moral authority hasn't commanded? Again, I can't see how. An atheist might very well feel compelled to save the drowning child in your example, but he is certainly under no moral obligation to do so.

One would save a drowning child as an instinctive reaction, not out of “obligation” to god or anything else. Morals and rules have evolved from biological facts. Killing the enemy is good because it saves our children, saving drowning children is good because it helps stabilize our society; killing my neighbor is bad because it destabilizes society. And so on……..

You appeal to reciprocity, but that doesn't advance your argument because reciprocity is actually a teleological -- that is an outcomes based -- approach to ethics and morality, and you're trying to argue as if it's deotological -- that is rules based. Reciprocity essentially says, "I will do X and refrain from Y because doing so has positive consequences." So basically your argument is nothing more than an appeal to consequence which is the only argument you can make that is consistent with atheism.

It is not an appeal to consequence because it is not a conscious act and nor is it rules based. Reciprocity evolved as an instinctive means of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups essential for the stability of the group. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic, reciprocal group outweigh the benefits of individualism.

[Psychic Missile]

Your example is a bad one because your example is an act that is outside the law. I specifically stated, quite clearly, acts that are within the law that you might consider immoral or unethical, but that your peers don't. I gave you an example of unethical practices the banks engaged in, where they worked around the law to screw folks with the securities they sold, essentially screwing the entire country. See, that's the problem I've been trying to relay to you, which is why you resorted to something that was specifically defined by the law. But the law, your only moral authority, is not defined enough to cover those gray areas. Since you don't seem to be paying attention to the discussion, I think I'll bow out at this point.

It doesn't matter for my example if embezzling is or isn't against the law. The law isn't a moral authority, in that it doesn't determine morals. Each human being is their own moral authority, essentially the only moral authority.

I am having a hard time understand your point since you keep bringing up how we can, and should, change our own morality to improve our personal gain, which is ludicrous on both counts. If you wish to bow out because you are finding it hard to express your opinion, I understand.

The atheist might believe these men were wise (at least those who believe they existed), but they neither follow the moral obligations of Jesus or Confucius because to them, they are but human beings of an outdated age. I believe the Sermon on the Mount covers every aspect of moral obligation you can think of, and because I believe Jesus represents God, his moral standard comes from a superior source regardless of how far back in time it dates. So when I see someone, including myself, not living up to that standard, I know they are being immoral based on the authority of that standard. You have no such authority to appeal to other than your only authority which is the law, or the consensus of your peers, the latter being a problem for you because the latter is often shaped by competition to thrive.

If gray areas didn't exist in theology, there would be only one Christian church. Religious people tend to consider their interpretation to be the correct one, and thus they are following the God-given moral authority. This is indistinguishable from a secular-based morality, except for when doctrine and moral compass inexplicably compete, then you get rationalizations and an cognitive dissonance. Also, because the individual considers their moral compass to be aligned with a deity's, then you don't have that whole democratic discussion deal I spoke about earlier.

Also, it's not peer consensus that is shaped by competition, it's individual human psychology, specifically in response to imminent needs. Similar to Maslow's hierarchy. Peer consensus is merely the collection of individual moralities "averaged out".

[seanD]

It doesn't matter for my example if embezzling is or isn't against the law. The law isn't a moral authority, in that it doesn't determine morals. Each human being is their own moral authority, essentially the only moral authority.

I am having a hard time understand your point since you keep bringing up how we can, and should, change our own morality to improve our personal gain, which is ludicrous on both counts. If you wish to bow out because you are finding it hard to express your opinion, I understand.



If gray areas didn't exist in theology, there would be only one Christian church. Religious people tend to consider their interpretation to be the correct one, and thus they are following the God-given moral authority. This is indistinguishable from a secular-based morality, except for when doctrine and moral compass inexplicably compete, then you get rationalizations and an cognitive dissonance. Also, because the individual considers their moral compass to be aligned with a deity's, then you don't have that whole democratic discussion deal I spoke about earlier.

Also, it's not peer consensus that is shaped by competition, it's individual human psychology, specifically in response to imminent needs. Similar to Maslow's hierarchy. Peer consensus is merely the collection of individual moralities "averaged out".

Your embezzlement example had nothing to do with my argument. And the law absolutely determines moral obligation, it doesn’t matter which law is correct or not. The civil law, which is the consensus, is your only moral obligation. Not sure how you think otherwise. Moral consensus defines the law, and the law then keeps those morals in check, so the civil law is your only superior authority that guarantees consequences if that moral obligation is not kept.

Morality is shaped by materialistic and egotistical drives. You can deny this all you want, but we plainly see this by observing human society. It’s not a matter of whether we should allow this or not or whether you think it’s ludicrous or not, because this is just what happens. I believe it is ludicrous because it is evidence of our spiritually fallen nature, but that’s neither here nor there, but at least I have a moral authority above just the civil law in order to determine what is right and what is wrong and consequences of both. Whether I follow it or not is not the issue. There is no moral authority above the civil law for you as an atheist, thus there are no consequences of right or wrong that fall within the civil law. For you as a banker not to follow the same unethical practices as your fellow bankers in order to succeed, as long as it’s within the law, would itself be ludicrous.

And it's not that I'm having a hard time expressing myself, it's that I don't take too kindly when you assert points that I'm not arguing.

[Psychic Missile]

Your embezzlement example had nothing to do with my argument. And the law absolutely determines moral obligation, it doesn’t matter which law is correct or not. The civil law, which is the consensus, is your only moral obligation. Not sure how you think otherwise. Moral consensus defines the law, and the law then keeps those morals in check, so the civil law is your only superior authority that guarantees consequences if that moral obligation is not kept.

Nobody is morally obligated to the law. File-sharing, marijuana use, gay marriage, anti-abortion, there are plenty of moral issues that are in opposition to the law. The moral consensus is not analogous to the law either, for the same reason. The moral consensus is that adultery is wrong, but it's not illegal. The moral consensus and the law fill similar roles, yes, but the law's purpose is to codify and clarify the moral consensus. How the law is formed can also exclude the moral consensus and simply rely on the consensus of a smaller group (lawmakers/politicians). The law and consensus are an application of individual morality, and an application of a concept doesn't have authority over that concept. So individual moral authority is the only moral obligation, since it supersedes consensus and law..

Morality is shaped by materialistic and egotistical drives. You can deny this all you want, but we plainly see this by observing human society. It’s not a matter of whether we should allow this or not or whether you think it’s ludicrous or not, because this is just what happens. I believe it is ludicrous because it is evidence of our spiritually fallen nature, but that’s neither here nor there, but at least I have a moral authority above just the civil law in order to determine what is right and what is wrong and consequences of both. Whether I follow it or not is not the issue. There is no moral authority above the civil law for you as an atheist, thus there are no consequences of right or wrong that fall within the civil law. For you as a banker not to follow the same unethical practices as your fellow bankers in order to succeed, as long as it’s within the law, would itself be ludicrous.

I agree that something we would normally consider moral or immoral can be considered the opposite if our psychological weaknesses overpower our commitment to our moral compass (changing it, if only momentarily). However, if my psychology tells me that to commit an unethical practice is wrong, I am unable to commit that act. For example, some people might think it moral to steal something they want if nobody is looking, while some might not, with the same pressures/weaknesses applied to both parties. Those who don't steal are referring to their own moral compass, the ultimate authority. The religious can't help but sin even though they follow God's moral authority. This is because their own moral compass supersedes supposedly divine law.

And it's not that I'm having a hard time expressing myself, it's that I don't take too kindly when you assert points that I'm not arguing.

I told you to correct me if I got it wrong.

[seanD]

Nobody is morally obligated to the law. File-sharing, marijuana use, gay marriage, anti-abortion, there are plenty of moral issues that are in opposition to the law. The moral consensus is not analogous to the law either, for the same reason. The moral consensus is that adultery is wrong, but it's not illegal. The moral consensus and the law fill similar roles, yes, but the law's purpose is to codify and clarify the moral consensus. How the law is formed can also exclude the moral consensus and simply rely on the consensus of a smaller group (lawmakers/politicians). The law and consensus are an application of individual morality, and an application of a concept doesn't have authority over that concept. So individual moral authority is the only moral obligation, since it supersedes consensus and law..



I agree that something we would normally consider moral or immoral can be considered the opposite if our psychological weaknesses overpower our commitment to our moral compass (changing it, if only momentarily). However, if my psychology tells me that to commit an unethical practice is wrong, I am unable to commit that act. For example, some people might think it moral to steal something they want if nobody is looking, while some might not, with the same pressures/weaknesses applied to both parties. Those who don't steal are referring to their own moral compass, the ultimate authority. The religious can't help but sin even though they follow God's moral authority. This is because their own moral compass supersedes supposedly divine law.



I told you to correct me if I got it wrong.

You keep assuming there is a consensus of moral obligation, when this is simply untrue. Yes, there are some specifics that are broadly unacceptable, which is what the civil law covers, but there is more diversity and disagreement than there are agreements, especially within the law (meaning things that are not illegal), evident by the many different political, religious, cultural, social and class lines that express these moral diversities (not sure why I have to keep repeating myself). So consensus with acts that are not illegal become obfuscated for you here, because there is no consensus. Even adultery is not something I would consider specific because in some social and cultural circles the areas are gray to make it acceptable such as bigamy. And you are correct, no one is morally obligated to the civil law any more or less than a religious adherent is morally obligated to their moral obligation if they don’t care about facing the consequences. And though Christians may not always adhere to the moral beliefs they feel they should, which is why they believe we need salvation, they at least have a standard by which to know their shortcomings and where they are wrong. The only consequence you face is breaking the civil law. The fact is that without consequences, your adherence to any moral obligation is not rational, particularly if you gain nothing from it. And there you go. You keep using things that are outside the law to further your argument, which is what I’m not arguing. Stealing is outside the law. It’s very telling to me that you keep resorting to this. And psychology has absolutely no power to stop immoral acts, because competition overpowers this, thus people often adapt and use rationalization, especially if what they believe to be immoral is not unlawful and looks like the norm or something that is necessary for them to thrive (the banker example once again).

[Mountain Man]

Yes it is consequentialism. However, getting away with something directly implies that it is not permitted; i.e. the action you engaged in is judged impermissible by the group.

So? That still doesn't give any basis for moral obligation.

The question, "does moral obligation exist" is a very facile and misguided query.

Not at all. If it's not the case that moral obligation exists and that consequences are the only consideration when determining a course of action then morality becomes nothing more than minimizing or avoiding the negative consequences rather than a matter of doing what is right -- in other words, if it is entirely possible to benefit by doing the "wrong" thing without suffering any negative consequences, then what reason is there to not do the wrong thing?

Obviously moral obligations exist.

Not so obvious if atheism is true. Care to connect the dots?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

There have been a study correlating criminals who have been incarcerated and their religious beliefs:
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/...e-religious-do
http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison2.html

Also if you take a look through out history, many of crimes, murders and wars have used religion as either the main excuse. and how far do you have to look before finding yet another religious leader has committed some kind of crime, or got caught with their pants down, or engaging in some kind of illegal activity? The long and the short of it is, that being religious does not mean that you are a better person, any more than being an atheist makes you a bad one.

[Mountain Man]

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the premises of YOUR argument for Christianity and God is true, no other evidence nor valid argument that is not circular. You cannot get any more circular than that.

This brings to mind a child who has jumped into the deep end of a pool and is now struggling to get back to the surface.

My argument would be circular if I used the premise that moral obligation exists to prove that moral obligation exists. I haven't done this. Rather, I assume for the sake of argument that the premises of Christianity are true -- that is God exists, that he is the foundation of reality, and that we were created by him -- which leads to the first conclusion that God is therefore a competent moral authority who is qualified to command our obedience which leads to the final conclusion that we are obligated to be moral. If this is circular reasoning (that is the premises assume the conclusion) then you need to show how instead of desperately throwing empty accusations at me and hoping they stick.

So back to the matter at hand, assuming the premises of atheism are true, is there any way to logically arrive at the conclusion that moral obligation exists? So far the answer has been a resounding "no". The atheist can argue pragmatism (along with its pitfalls), but he can't argue moral obligation.