Atheists: explain where your moral system comes from

[Gogf]

I'm a liberal Kantian.

I believe that ethical choices are prior to assessment rubrics: regardless of what is morally correct I am required to choose it. This means that the fundamental moral fact is the human being's agency. Thus morality is respecting a human beings ability to make a true, uncorrupted decision. I don't know what an uncorrupted end-state decision is. I am able, however, to understand coercive inputs.

My moral system requires few but demanding things:
1. The development of my own ability to pursue meta-preferences rather than immediate preferences(ie health over the pleasure of food). People often call this rationality, but that's begging the question.
2. Respect for other people's decisions in all matters insofar as they do undermine other people's decisions (a kind of Kantian harm-principle).
3. Aid for other people who clearly have defective inputs in their decision-making processes (poverty, addiction, and so on).

This means that animals, and the mentally disabled have few moral rights. They have moral rights only insofar as some truly rational person cares for them. My moral framework is often criticized as elitist, but I think that it is only so trivially.

This focus on preferences seems more utilitarian than Kantian.

I also have a few questions for you:

- What does it mean for a question to be "morally correct"? You introduce this term before you build up your rationality-based moral philosophy—in fact you use it as the basis for that framework—so you must have some explanation for it. What is that?
- How does "morality is binding" (which is what I think you are trying to express in your first sentence) lead to "the fundamental moral fact is the human being's agency"?
- How do you get from there to the need to respect the ability of others to make "uncorrupted" decisions?

You also have not addressed the basic epistemological problems faced by non-Kantians.

Why restate what others have written about?

If you're genuinely curious, skim through these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

I cannot have a discussion with Wikipedia. If you are going to post in my thread, please contribute something other than links.

As far as I can tell, you do not have a coherent understanding of what it means for something to be moral. Please explain what it means for an action to be ethical.

Do unto others seems like a reasonable way to judge how to treat people. There's not one uniform way I arrive at my morality. There is not one template model I use to draw a moral standard for every situation. Sometimes this is emotional, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it's influenced by strong personal feelings, sometimes it isn't.

The strange thing about this thread is the supposed rift between theists and atheist with regard to morality. I think that the rift is there in specific situations but in many situation there is little difference in how most atheist and theist arrive at their moral standards. They are after all usually very similar. I think there are some rules which make societies successful, these rules get ingrained in culture and passed on by all kinds of interacting which have nothing to do with gods or religion or holy scripture.

I don't think you understand what the project of ethics is. You can't just use whatever method you want whenever you want and arrive at whatever conclusion you want and call that "moral." It's not nearly that simple. If we want to use the language of ethics, then we need to agree that objective morals exist. In that case, we then need a method of accessing that truth. Saying "well, somethings I just feel this way, and sometimes I feel that way, and sometimes I ask my friend" is not a moral framework. Religion provides a moral framework. Religious people often say that atheists cannot be moral because they do not have a moral framework. I have yet to hear someone in this thread present one, and almost everyone here seems to have such an impoverished understanding of morality that the phrase essentially means "stuff I like."

You've lost me. Why don't you explain why God would help, and maybe I can understand what you're asking me.

Bear in mind I have no idea about philosophy and have never taken any course or read any books on it at all.

God helps because religion uses the deity as a source of truth, and therefore justifies the existence of objective morality as flowing from god and our access to it as coming from communication with god.

The problem with what people are posting in this thread is that "morality" is not a well-defined term for them. In order to have a coherent moral philosophy of the type that religious people are talking about when they say atheists cannot be moral, you need two things:

- Objective moral truth.
- Access to that objective moral truth.

I am asking how atheists can justify the existence of objective moral truth (how do we know it exists?) and how they think we can access it (how can we learn that something is a part of OMT?). So far, those epistemological questions remain completely unanswered in this thread.

 

[holy king]

is there any other argument for objective morality to exist other than "if it didnt, how can you condemn auschwitz"?

 

[Lone Wolf]

God helps because religion uses the deity as a source of truth, and therefore justifies the existence of objective morality as flowing from god and our access to it as coming from communication with god.

How can you be sure that God isn't a jerk, though

Seriously, the underlying supposition that God is moral by definition is problematic, IMO.

I think that while objective morality truth exists, it's unprovable. If someone says that eating babies with sauce from the mother's tears is moral, I can't logically disprove that sentiment.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If we want to use the language of ethics, then we need to agree that objective morals exist.

I don't agree.

Religion provides a moral framework.

I don't agree.

I think I misread the scope of your intentions you stated in the OP.

If you do not believe in objective morals, please say whether or not you consider your moral relativism to be meaningfully prescriptive and discuss the relative merits of this versus the objective morality that religion can (supposedly) provide.

And I think I was a little more specific than: "well, somethings I just feel this way, and sometimes I feel that way, and sometimes I ask my friend" or "Stuff I like". But you clearly see no value in my input since I disagree on those two statements above, so I won't pollute your thread any further with off-topicness.

edit: and what's wrong with this definition?

The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

 

[Traitorfish]

is there any other argument for objective morality to exist other than "if it didnt, how can you condemn auschwitz"?

Best question I've heard all day.

 

[Gogf]

is there any other argument for objective morality to exist other than "if it didnt, how can you condemn auschwitz"?

That's not an argument for it to exist, that's an argument for you wanting it to exist.

 

[Akka]

In fact, from what I have seen so far in this thread, no non-religious person here (with the possible exception of the potentially-Kantian Defiant) seems able to provide any justification whatsoever for why they believe what the believe about ethics, exception of course those who don't seem to believe in ethics at all.

Hello : the Golden Rule (don't do to other what you wouldn't like done to you) seems like a pretty good justification, and it has nothing religious in it.

Did you purposedly miss it ?

 

[Gogf]

How can you be sure that God isn't a jerk, though

Seriously, the underlying supposition that God is moral by definition is problematic, IMO.

I think that while objective morality truth exists, it's unprovable. If someone says that eating babies with sauce from the mother's tears is moral, I can't logically disprove that sentiment.

I am not claiming that religious morality is valid or consistent. I am addressing the claim by religious people that atheists cannot construct a justified moral framework.

 

[holy king]

so is there or not? i was, you know, asking a question.

 

[Gogf]

Hello : the Golden Rule (don't do to other what you wouldn't like done to you) seems like a pretty good justification, and it has nothing religious in it.

Did you purposedly miss it ?

Justify the golden rule.

so is there or not? i was, you know, asking a question.

There are definitely coherent ways of arguing that objective morality exists.

 

[holy king]

nice. care to outline them?

 

[Akka]

Justify the golden rule.

Reciprocity.
If you don't want something done to you, you must logically accept that you've no right to do it to other.
Seems pretty obvious...

 

[Gogf]

I don't agree.

Then please explain what it means for an act to be moral.

I don't agree.

Really? You don't consider the ten commandments (for example) to be a moral framework?

This is a moot point, because we are not talking about religious morality.

And I think I was a little more specific than: "well, somethings I just feel this way, and sometimes I feel that way, and sometimes I ask my friend" or "Stuff I like". But you clearly see no value in my input since I disagree on those two statements above, so I won't pollute your thread any further with off-topicness.

You have not explained why your process for determining if an action is moral or not (which is a term you have still not defined) is valid and accesses some kind of moral truth.

edit: and what's wrong with this definition?

Because "a code of conduct that people accept for their own behavior" can mean almost anything. If this is what it means for something to be moral, do you consider the holocaust to be moral? I think this is the central question of this thread: how can atheists construct an epistemically-justified system wherein they can morally criticize the holocaust.

 

[Traitorfish]

God helps because religion uses the deity as a source of truth, and therefore justifies the existence of objective morality as flowing from god and our access to it as coming from communication with god.

What about those religions in which the deity or deities are not omniscient, such as, say, Shinto, or Norse paganism? And what of those systems of belief that hold god to exist, but be unknowable, such as Deism? Does that suggest that the issue is not religion or even theism, but the belief in an omniscient deity who is capable of communicating with humanity?

 

[Gogf]

nice. care to outline them?

No. I am trying to see if the atheists on this forum are able to come up with a justified moral framework, not if I can.

Perhaps I will elaborate more after this thread has progressed farther.

Reciprocity.
If you don't want something done to you, you must logically accept that you've no right to do it to other.
Seems pretty obvious...

That's not the kind of justification I'm asking for. I don't want to know why you want people to follow the golden rule, I want to know why the golden rule is a statement of moral truth.

What about those religions in which the deity or deities are not omniscient, such as, say, Shinto, or Norse paganism? And what of those systems of belief that hold god to exist, but be unknowable, such as Deism? Does that suggest that the issue is not religion or even theism, but the belief in an omniscient deity who is capable of communicating with humanity?

Sure. I am not saying that all religions lead to moral systems. What I am saying is that it is extraordinarily difficult for atheists to justify such a system, and that I have yet to here anyone do so in this thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

No. I am trying to see if the atheists on this forum are able to come up with a justified moral framework, not if I can.

You are also attempting to dictate what is and what is not "justified", which seems disingenuous. I would suggest that you are better in pursuing coherence, rather than something so subjective as "justification".

Sure. I am not saying that all religions lead to moral systems. What I am saying is that it is extraordinarily difficult for atheists to justify such a system, and that I have yet to here anyone do so in this thread.

And I would say the exact same can be said, using your rationale, of many non-atheists. A pagan, pantheist or animist makes no more argument for an objective font of all morality than a modern secular humanist, yet they are spared your scepticism; why is that?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You just asserted "objective morality does not exist because there is no objective morality." I hope you understand the problem with a statement like this. Would you like to rephrase?

Finally, you state that "we act morally because we have evolved to do so." What does this mean? You have not presented a framework for what "acting morally" means. Usually when people use the language of ethics, they are referring to some kind of ethical truth. "Acting morally" means acting in accordance with objective morality. If this is not what you mean by "acting morally," please explain what you do.

You know I was actually going to respond in detail to this, but it is obvious you are not listening to me, because I refute your theory of "God is the only reason why we're moral", so I decided not to waste my precious calories. There is plenty of literature out there about social memes and the evolution of co-operation and empathy for you to be able to dig out examples for yourself.

I'm bowing out of this one. I'll still look in but only reply if someone posts something particularly stupid.

 

[warpus]

Atheists: explain where your moral system comes from

Things I've learned in life, past experiences, gut feeling

My morals aren't determined by anything written in stone, bur rather my own internal moral compass.. which like I said has been shaped by my past experiences in life.

If you do not believe in objective morals, please say whether or not you consider your moral relativism to be meaningfully prescriptive and discuss the relative merits of this versus the objective morality that religion can (supposedly) provide.

I'm not sure if I'm a moral relativist, but I do not believe that objective morals exist.

I understand that some people need moral rules and laws to be written down somewhere for them, and that they can only be moral if they think somebody will punish & reward them based on their actions. That's fine, but my system works better for me.

 

[Orange Seeds]

- What does it mean for a question to be "morally correct"? You introduce this term before you build up your rationality-based moral philosophy—in fact you use it as the basis for that framework—so you must have some explanation for it. What is that?

I didn't introduce what morally correct is in order to build my theory; "regardless of [...]" is an important phrasing here. The point is that decision-based ethical systems are prior to any other. Ergo more important, better.

- How does "morality is binding" (which is what I think you are trying to express in your first sentence) lead to "the fundamental moral fact is the human being's agency"?

No that's not what I meant at all. Let me write this out more tersely:

In any moral framework (any rubric of bad and good). I have to decide both or either of two things: (1) what is good or bad, (2)whether situation x fulfills the prescription given to me for good and bad.

In a utilitarian model, for example, I have to make a decision about something's pain or pleasure leve l(as well as a cascade of pain and pleasure levels for all possible affected people). Thus the faculty of decision making is prior.

In a divine command model I have to decide whether or not god's command applies to situation x. etc. etc.

No matter what I think morality is, I have to make a decision about it. This means that my ability to make a decision is the most important moral item. That is, human agency.

- How do you get from there to the need to respect the ability of others to make "uncorrupted" decisions?

Should be obvious now. If a person's decision-making faculty is corrupted, then they necessarily cannot make a good moral decision. What is a good moral decision? Well, I've just shown it be demonstrating what would have to be the case for us to make any moral decision.

You also have not addressed the basic epistemological problems faced by non-Kantians.

Which are?

 

[Gogf]

You are also attempting to dictate what is and what is not "justified", which seems disingenuous. I would suggest that you are better in pursuing coherence, rather than something so subjective as "justification".

Not exactly. I'm not even passing judgment on the argument that people are presenting, I'm just asking for SOMEONE to present SOME argument. So far, nobody has presented any explanation for why moral truth should exist or how we could access it.