Immorality & Atheism

[Mountain Man]

What a horrendous thing to say. If the power was in your hands to save a child and you did not act, not only would you be fraught with grief you would be looked down upon by your peers and possibly face charges (depending on how the situation played out). I'll let you hesitate and decide if it is commanded of you or not. I'll jump in and attempt to save the child. The very compulsion that you refer to is an onus to act. Human beings can look at a situation they themselves are not in and feel compelled to act; the ability of empathy is what would apply the moral obligation upon you. Everyone who knows the situation would feel that surge of compulsion and then watch you do nothing knowing that you felt the compulsion as well. Luckily we also know the compulsion of fear and the other feelings you might be experiencing during such a situation and we are capable of forgiveness.

I know the post referred to an 'innocent life'. However, do you not see how the compulsion is stronger if it is a child rather than a full grown adult? We have a built in reaction to protect the weak. I guarantee during a situation such as this you will not go through your repository of bible verses to see how to react. You'll act and then interpret your action through the bible verse.

Nice appeal to emotion that completely misses the point.

Absolutely nothing about morality requires an obligation to be meted out by a divine arbiter.

I agree completely. I accept that it is theoretically possible that morality could simply exist as a brute force fact of nature like the laws physics. Moral obligation is another matter. Just because morals exists doesn't mean we are obligated to live by them.

Obligation is merely a requirement to act. That requirement can come from anywhere.

That's like saying that legal obligation can come from anywhere. If a child invents a law that you are required to give him cookies and ice cream, are you legally obligated to comply? If legal obligation, like moral obligation, "can come from anywhere" then you have to answer yes. But I think you recognize the answer is no because the child is not a competent legal authority who is qualified to command your obedience.

So, no, moral obligation can not come from anywhere. It can only come from a competent moral authority who is qualified to command our obedience.

Theists posit that we are ultimately held responsible of everything by a divine agent. However, find anyone who would argue that humans do not place requirements upon each other. In the here and now, humans make requirements of other humans. The command of obedience in either case is a threat of retribution be it from a divine agent or an institutionalized body of your peers.

Moral obligation, like legal obligation, has nothing to do with whether or not the commanding authority can or will mete out retribution. We are obligated solely on the basis that an authority has commanded our obedience.

So this brings us back to the heart of the matter: can atheists account for moral obligation? To put it another way, if atheism is true and if it is possible for someone to do the "wrong" thing without consequence, why shouldn't they?

[Mountain Man]

One would save a drowning child as an instinctive reaction, not out of “obligation” to god or anything else.

And if atheism is true then the man who follows those instincts is no better than the man who ignores them because there is no obligation one way or the other. In fact, from a purely naturalistic perspective, the man who refrains from unnecessarily risking his life stands a significantly better chance of surviving and passing on his genetic material, and isn't "survival of the fittest" what it's all about?

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Please don't use that term on Tweb...it has been determined by Staff to be very offensive in some cultures.

Thanks

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

So in other words, You need some deity to tell you to do the right thing, other wise you wouldn't? So, the concept of preservation of the species, or Community benefit is meaningless to you without some invisible friend telling you that they are GOOD things to espouse?

[Hamster]

the concept of preservation of the species,

has no objective worth and you only like it because it was a successful method for your genes to survive. If biting the fingers off old people was an advantage for some reason, you'd be here saying "Everyone knows its good to eat grandpa's hand, do you really need God to tell you that?"

[Cu Mhorrigan]

has no objective worth and you only like it because it was a successful method for your genes to survive. If biting the fingers off old people was an advantage for some reason, you'd be here saying "Everyone knows its good to eat grandpa's hand, do you really need God to tell you that?"

Actually, It wouldnt be advantageous to nibble on grampa's finger because he wouldnt be able to help collect resources or take care of the young. Put it this way, Yhwh has commanded his followers to commit acts of genocide, and yet we say genocide is wrong. Yhwh condones slavery, yet we have since learned that slavery is wrong. Under YHWH's commandments, women were property, yet we are learning that women are equals. Let's look at modern times, How many of your religion's leaders wind up committing crimes? or Commit adultery? Doesn't this show that religious people can be just as immoral as you christians say atheists and other religious groups are?
The point is, when looking at a narcissistic, needy, vindictive, genocidal and petty deity like YHWH, can you really claim to have a superior morality even though all evidence points to the contrary?

[Snarfy]

I'm not a Christian, but here's the philosophical question I have: The usual atheistic explanation for morality is that it has evolved to ensure the survival of our species. This implies that the propagation of our species is some kind of objective virtue. Since humans are not merely creatures of instinct, why is the desire to propagate the species objectively a greater good than satisfying one's own personal needs or desires that come into conflict with the preservation of the species?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I'm not a Christian, but here's the philosophical question I have: The usual atheistic explanation for morality is that it has evolved to ensure the survival of our species. This implies that the propagation of our species is some kind of objective virtue. Since humans are not merely creatures of instinct, why is the desire to propagate the species objectively a greater good than satisfying one's own personal needs or desires that come into conflict with the preservation of the species?

One of the things that make our species do well is our ability to use our mind to adapt to difficult challenges. look at it this way, Enlightened self interest not only preserves yourself, but also helps the community at large which also helps you. If you go around killing people over ideology, you eventually create problems for yourself in the long run. History has shown that time and time again. You only need to look at history to see where people have only made things worse for themselves, by not thinking things through.

[Hamster]

Actually, It wouldnt be advantageous to nibble on grampa's finger because he wouldnt be able to help collect resources or take care of the young

Yes, that's my point

Put it this way, Yhwh has commanded his followers to commit acts of genocide, and yet we say genocide is wrong. Yhwh condones slavery, yet we have since learned that slavery is wrong. Under YHWH's commandments, women were property, yet we are learning that women are equals. Let's look at modern times, How many of your religion's leaders wind up committing crimes? or Commit adultery?
The point is, when looking at a narcissistic, needy, vindictive, genocidal and petty deity like YHWH, can you really claim to have a superior morality even though all evidence points to the contrary?

Doesn't this show that religious people can be just as immoral as you christians say atheists and other religious groups are?

Okay - the bible contains errors, lies, etc. How does that disprove that we need theism in order for morality?

Doesn't this show that religious people can be just as immoral as you christians say atheists and other religious groups are?

I am definitely not saying that atheists or the non-religious are "more evil" because they don't believe in God. Some of the worst evils require a religious person in order to occur. I I believe atheists and agnostics can be and are good people all over the world. The issue is their explanation for morality, not their ability to recognize it.

look at it this way, Enlightened self interest not only preserves yourself, but also helps the community at large which also helps you. If you go around killing people over ideology, you eventually create problems for yourself in the long run. History has shown that time and time again. You only need to look at history to see where people have only made things worse for themselves, by not thinking things through.

Your answer seems to be "The security and propagation of the human species is good because if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to be secure and propagate." It's like saying that checkmates are morally good because that's how we win at chess without explaining why we are obligated to care about playing chess in the first place.

[Mountain Man]

So in other words, You need some deity to tell you to do the right thing, other wise you wouldn't? So, the concept of preservation of the species, or Community benefit is meaningless to you without some invisible friend telling you that they are GOOD things to espouse?

That whistling sound is the point going over your head.

It's very simple: If atheism is true then we have no obligation to do the right thing even if objective morality existed. Now you can appeal to consequence and emotion and ad hominem fallacies all you want, but the uncomfortable truth for the atheist is that if his world view is true then the man who does good is no better than the man who does evil because neither one is obligated either way, and morality is reduced to a matter of convenience. I agree that it seems generally convenient to do the right thing, but if it's more convenient to the do the wrong thing then why shouldn't we?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Okay - the bible contains errors, lies, etc. How does that disprove that we need theism in order for morality?

What it DOES prove is that religion is not needed for morality, Given the blatant Hypocrisy within the Christian scriptures. That the God they worship is no more Moral than say Zeus or Odin...

I am definitely not saying that atheists or the non-religious are "more evil" because they don't believe in God. Some of the worst evils require a religious person in order to occur. I I believe atheists and agnostics can be and are good people all over the world. The issue is their explanation for morality, not their ability to recognize it.

Not an atheist myself I can only speak for my own explanation.

Your answer seems to be "The security and propagation of the human species is good because if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to be secure and propagate." It's like saying that checkmates are morally good because that's how we win at chess without explaining why we are obligated to care about playing chess in the first place.

you kind of missed what I was saying here: The idea I was trying to get across is that morality and Ethics can be based on Observation, Common sense and reason as opposed to religious ideology. By observing what others do, you can get a better Idea of knowing what to do and not to do, than some tired old man screaming from behind a glorified desk.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

That whistling sound is the point going over your head.

It's very simple: If atheism is true then we have no obligation to do the right thing even if objective morality existed. Now you can appeal to consequence and emotion and ad hominem fallacies all you want, but the uncomfortable truth for the atheist is that if his world view is true then the man who does good is no better than the man who does evil because neither one is obligated either way, and morality is reduced to a matter of convenience. I agree that it seems generally convenient to do the right thing, but if it's more convenient to the do the wrong thing then why shouldn't we?

To paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: People have their eyes and their brains.
If noone is obligated to act benevolently and does so, that is far better than someone acting out of fear of their invisible friend.
We can observe the consequences of bad behavior, we can observe the consequences of Good behavior, when people CHOOSE to act benevolently it generally makes for a better society.
Compare that to individuals who require belief in a deity in order to act benevolently. If they have a crisis of faith, they start making their way to unethical behavior.

[Psychic Missile]

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.

How did Confucius and Jesus Christ both teach the golden rule without ever coming into contact with one another?

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.

What consequence does someone who cheats on their spouse face in a small community?

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).

The reason I asked you the previous question is because there are always consequences when you take other people into account. Maybe my fellow bankers won't care, but the people I screwed over sure will. That's why I said in an earlier post that morality only exists when you talk about other living things.

Your psychology is you. You are your psychology. Competition does not necessarily overpower a moral compass, so I don't understand why you keep pressing the issue. If my psychology tells me that an act is immoral, I am mentally unable to commit the act. It's that simple. That's why adherence to moral obligation is rational, even if I don't have anything to gain or even something to lose. Altruism is a general moral concept placed into human beings instinctively. The first civilization could never have started otherwise. Self-serving anarchy is an unsustainable behavior pattern.

[Snarfy]

Your psychology is you. You are your psychology. Competition does not necessarily overpower a moral compass, so I don't understand why you keep pressing the issue. If my psychology tells me that an act is immoral, I am mentally unable to commit the act. It's that simple. That's why adherence to moral obligation is rational, even if I don't have anything to gain or even something to lose. Altruism is a general moral concept placed into human beings instinctively. The first civilization could never have started otherwise. Self-serving anarchy is an unsustainable behavior pattern.

What about people who are mentally capable of "committing the act"? Willingness to perform certain acts varies from person to person and from culture to culture, and is thus not a good way to measure universal morality. The "first civilization" surely had different moral standards than does ours (by the way, why is civilization objectively better than hunter-gatherer societies? Some believe that pre-civilized societies are/were superior to civilized societies.)

[Tassman]

And if atheism is true then the man who follows those instincts is no better than the man who ignores them because there is no obligation one way or the other. In fact, from a purely naturalistic perspective, the man who refrains from unnecessarily risking his life stands a significantly better chance of surviving and passing on his genetic material, and isn't "survival of the fittest" what it's all about?

Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. This has been true since long before any of the gods came into existence to impose their rules.

You are attempting to compare mere obeying of man-made rules (attributed to a god) with genetically encoded instincts based on the biological imperative and there is no comparison.

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Please stop making inappropriate changes to user names.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[seanD]

Competition does not necessarily overpower a moral compass, so I don't understand why you keep pressing the issue. If my psychology tells me that an act is immoral, I am mentally unable to commit the act. It's that simple.

If you actually believe that, then you win.