Atheists: explain where your moral system comes from

[emzie]

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

Alright, just wanted to make clear you're not interested in hearing an answer to your OP and instead want to run circles on paper.

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.

Excuse me? I might have a different idea of what morality is (a system of hard-wired behavioural laws for the betterment of a group) and where it comes from (game theory and evolution) but that doesn't mean I don't have an idea of what it means to be moral. Reciprocal altruism (for short hand, I'll just say "the golden rule") is well grounded in evolutionary theory. Actions that are consistent within it would be, for lack of a better word, "ethical" or "moral"

Justify the golden rule.

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.

Because it's shorthand for reciprocal altruism? If you approach a social species in the context of game theory, those groups that display reciprocal altruism within their band, group, tribe, whatever, do better than other groups.

 

[Gogf]

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?

I'm just as skeptical of them, that's just not the topic of this thread.

FYI: I'm not religious.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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

You're funny, you know that?

I went back in the thread to see whether I missed the point by that margin to see I simply answered your question.

Please explain why you believe they are the right way to go. Do you have a reason for it? Are you just emotionally drawn towards acting the way you consider to be moral?

If you don't want me saying stuff you don't want to discuss, don't ask for it. And when I make the effort of answering being condescending towards me isn't the best way to get me to make any more effort.

Good luck.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

That in itself is a judgement; you are assuming that a moral framework may only be justified if it claims objectivity, which is a passive form of judgement.

 

[Gogf]

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.

It's posts like this that made me stop posting in CFC OT. I obviously don't believe that "god is the only reason why we're moral" because I don't believe in god. I recommend that, in the future, you read the posts you are responding to rather than inventing your own idea of what you expect other people to be saying.

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.



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.

Warpus: In your mind, what does it mean for an action to be "moral"?

 

[Orange Seeds]

I'd like to point out to all the golden rule theorists that their theory fails the psychopath test.

Is it morally correct for the masochist to treat others as he would like to be treated himself?

 

[Gogf]

Alright, just wanted to make clear you're not interested in hearing an answer to your OP and instead want to run circles on paper.

I didn't post this thread to have a bunch of obnoxious teenagers link me to wikipedia. I wanted to ask if any atheist on here is capable of justifying a moral framework.

Excuse me? I might have a different idea of what morality is (a system of hard-wired behavioural laws for the betterment of a group) and where it comes from (game theory and evolution) but that doesn't mean I don't have an idea of what it means to be moral. Reciprocal altruism (for short hand, I'll just say "the golden rule") is well grounded in evolutionary theory. Actions that are consistent within it would be, for lack of a better word, "ethical" or "moral"

So then for you an action being "moral" just means that it comports with an arbitrary set of evolutionary-developed instincts?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm just as skeptical of them, that's just not the topic of this thread.

But why not? Your scepticism doesn't seem to be of atheism, but of the lack of an omniscient personal deity, which is not uniquely characteristic of atheism.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd like to point out to all the golden rule theorists that their theory fails the psychopath test.

Is it morally correct for the masochist to treat others as he would like to be treated himself?

Is it morally correct in the masochist's perspective?

 

[W|M]

Being moral is so you can make you and other people happy. Atheists don't need an arbitary being telling them that we have to be kind, it's just being moral for happiness's sake.

 

[emzie]

I didn't post this thread to have a bunch of obnoxious teenagers link me to wikipedia. I wanted to ask if any atheist on here is capable of justifying a moral framework.

Considering you yourself are a teen and I am not, kindly refrain from that condescension.

So then for you an action being "moral" just means that it comports with an arbitrary set of evolutionary-developed instincts?

More or less. Arbitrary isn't the right word though. The moral system that develops through evolution is, by definition, better at ensuring group survival than rival forms.

 

[Gogf]

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.



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.




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.




Which are?

Good post!

A few more questions:

1. I agree with you that a fundamental aspect to most moral theories is the ability to rationally decide whether or not an action would be justified by that theory. But how do you get from there to the universalization that we need to respect the autonomy of other people's rationality? If we are justifying rationality solely in an ends-based calculation (the ability to make moral decisions) then why is it wrong for me to force other people to act morally? This achieves the same ends which you are arguing justifies the need for rationality. Also, why do I care whether or not other people act morally?
2. As for the epistemic questions faced by non-Kantians: why do you believe that objective moral truth exists, and why do you believe that our rationality affords us some kind of access to it? You would agree that your justification of rationality is predicated on the existence of some moral framework—how do you know that such a framework exists at all?

Good post though, I'm glad you understand what I'm asking in this thread .

 

[dirtyparrot]

I honestly don't understand where the OP is trying to go with this. There are many different types of moral systems that exist outside the realm of religion (numerous warrior codes, professional codes, etc). They reflect that in society compromises and accommodations must be struck in order for it to function relatively smoothly. Any person is likely to draw from any number of sources to varying degrees to determine his or hers personal sets of morals. And these are likely to change over time based on experiences and introspection/reflection. Ultimately, society has probably the greatest influence on a person's morals simply because for the most part, people want to fit in and it has started to be instilled in us from a very young age.

 

[warpus]

Warpus: In your mind, what does it mean for an action to be "moral"?

Take a random action B. M(B) is the morality quotient of that action. As M(B) approaches 0, the morality of the action approaches hypothetical evil. As M(B) approaches 1, the morality of the action approaches moral perfection.

An action is more moral when its morality quotient is higher. The morality quotient is determined behind the scenes by my subconscious, which I don't have direct access to, so I couldn't explain the exact mechanism by which M(B) is determined. It is probabliy heavily influenced by past experiences and things I've learned in life

 

[Gogf]

But why not? Your scepticism doesn't seem to be of atheism, but of the lack of an omniscient personal deity, which is not uniquely characteristic of atheism.

This thread could be about lots of things that it's not about. I don't understand why you're asking this. I am addressing the general complaint that religious people often raise that "atheists cannot have moralities." It is not very common to hear "pantheists cannot have moralities."

More or less. Arbitrary isn't the right word though. The moral system that develops through evolution is, by definition, better at ensuring group survival than rival forms.

This is not what almost anyone means when they say "morality," and it is certainly not what religious people mean when they say "atheists cannot have morality." I hear very often that "you don't need to be religious to be moral," but if "being moral" just means following some system that enables "group survival" then I do not think anyone is particularly impressed that atheists can be "moral." You can, if you like, define the terms however you wish, but if you wish to participate in this conversation you must understand that I am using the terms as they are commonly understood.

Take a random action B. M(B) is the morality quotient of that action. As M(B) approaches 0, the morality of the action approaches hypothetical evil. As M(B) approaches 1, the morality of the action approaches moral perfection.

An action is more moral when its morality quotient is higher. The morality quotient is determined behind the scenes by my subconscious, which I don't have direct access to, so I couldn't explain the exact mechanism by which M(B) is determined. It is probabliy heavily influenced by past experiences and things I've learned in life

This does not address the issue at hand. I am asking not "how do you determine how moral you think an action is" but "is an action moral or not?" Unless you believe you have some kind of special metaphysical power (ie you are a god) then I would hope you do not actually believe your subconscious determines how moral an action is.

 

[emzie]

This is not what almost anyone means when they say "morality," and it is certainly not what religious people mean when they say "atheists cannot have morality." I hear very often that "you don't need to be religious to be moral," but if "being moral" just means following some system that enables "group survival" then I do not think anyone is particularly impressed that atheists can be "moral." You can, if you like, define the terms however you wish, but if you wish to participate in this conversation you must understand that I am using the terms as they are commonly understood.

The idea of morality, in short hand, is the same between religions and the idea of which atheists speak. The difference is the source: the supernatural or biological.

 

[Traitorfish]

This thread could be about lots of things that it's not about. I don't understand why you're asking this. I am addressing the general complaint that religious people often raise that "atheists cannot have moralities." It is not very common to hear "pantheists cannot have moralities."

The simplistic ignorance of American bigots doesn't justify an arbitrarily limited scope of inquiry on your part. Reduce the assertion in question to its core components- that i) a moral system must be objective to be justified and that ii) morality must be derived from an omniscient personal deity- and you may actually be able to deal with it in an effective manner.

Is it morally correct for the masochist to treat others as he would like to be treated himself?

Is it morale for the masochist to pursue the physical pleasure of others in an intimate environment? Probably, yes.

 

[Gogf]

The idea of morality, in short hand, is the same between religions and the idea of which atheists speak. The difference is the source: the supernatural or biological.

What you are talking about is not what most atheists mean when they say "morality."

 

[emzie]

What you are talking about is not what most atheists mean when they say "morality."

If morality is a universal set of guidelines agreed upon by all cultures, say, the golden rule, then yes, yes it is.

 

[Gogf]

The simplistic ignorance of American bigots doesn't justify an arbitrarily limited scope of inquiry on your part. Reduce the assertion in question to its core components- that i) a moral system must be objective to be justified and that ii) morality must be derived from an omniscient personal deity- and you may actually be able to deal with it in an effective manner.

Have you been reading this thread or are you too intent on pursuing the idea that I am somehow advancing the inconsistent idea that morality must come from god?

Some things for you to consider:

1. I do not believe in god.
2. I have not said that "morality must be derived from an omniscient personal deity."
3. I am asking a certain group of people to justify their moral systems. If you want to ask others to, that is your prerogative.
4. As for the "simplistic ignorance of American bigots," you have yet to provide any explanation of how an atheist would address the two fundamental questions I raised earlier that must be addressed to justify a moral framework (why is there objective truth and how do we have access to it), so you have yet to show that you are any less "ignorant" than the supposed bigots.

If morality is a universal set of guidelines agreed upon by all cultures, say, the golden rule, then yes, yes it is.

That's not what morality is, and the golden rule is also not that.