quote:You can trust your biological brain to decide between right and wrong, but you have to admit that the decision it reaches will be arbitrary. When asked, "Why did you decide this way?" ultimately you'll have to respond with, "Because I felt like it." Which is fine, but it places us on par with animals.
That's just the thing though, religion is also arbitrary, just take a look at the incredibly wide range of beliefs out there. In the end, theists are also making an arbitrary decision by choosing their religion, if there were only one single all-encompassing religion out there your argument would work, but as it stands, the decision of which religion to follow and therefore which set of morals you adhere to is as arbitrary as the decision of doing things "because you felt like it" or because you were raised that way.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the outside looking in, of course the decision seems arbitrary, Rico. You are aware, though, that the people in religions don't feel that way, aren't you? They have faith that their decision isn't arbitrary. People don't select religions by throwing a dart.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, duh, and now you are going to claim that atheist morality feels arbitrary? Outside looking in is the only standard that can possibly apply, and you have quite correctly applied it to atheism. Now apply it to theism.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I realize that, but can you see why from an agnostic perspective, your line of reasoning seems to fall in exactly the same category as mine?
posted
I have applied it to theism. I've admitted repeatedly that the degree of arbitrariness between a theist and an atheist is only seperated, because ultimately the same questions must be asked of God.
But the difference lies in the degree of knowledge and experience the...umm...decider has. Atheists have only themselves and other human beings to look to. Theists have faith in a being that has vastly, and in some cases infinitely, more experience and wisdom, thus that being's decisions can-in their opinion-be trusted to be less arbitrary.
But just as you don't hear theists talking in such terms very often, you rarely hear atheists talking in such terms, either.
My point remains that atheists have no response to the standard I'm using except, "It feels good." Now you may argue that a theist has no real response aside from that either, with the degree of seperation...but that's not what they actually believe. They believe that their morality isn't arbitrary, because of their faith in God or other deities. They have an answer for why, whereas the atheist answer is, "It feels good," and that alone is the answer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
KoM, I think dkw put it very well. I don't think that anything about eternal punishment is arbitrary. I think that things are set up the way they are and that's the way it is. I believe God simply knows more about it than we do. So He tells us about how things are in the hopes that we will trust and put our faith in that and live now so as not to suffer the consequences of our actions. It is very much like a parent encouraging their child in the path of wisdom for their own happiness.
Why would regret be eternal? I honestly don't understand it enough to tell you. I speculate on it from time to time, wonder, but I don't know. That is why for me it is a matter of faith rather than understanding.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I find myself stronging disagreeing with you. What about doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do?. Not because of punishment from a higher authority earthly or even heavenly but because doing wrong really does hurt all of society as well as the invidual. There may be less rules when it comes to sexuality other than rape is wrong because it is damaging, but I fail to see how not believing in God will automatically make a person wild, frivolous and hedonistic. It's not a matter of something feeling good, but knowing that what you do could hurt another person and hurt yourself and hurting other people really feels a lot worse than hurting yourself. That involves empathy though and I've had arguments with an atheist friend about the existence of empathy as he doesn't believe in anything spiritual at all.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From the outside looking in, of course the decision seems arbitrary, Rico. You are aware, though, that the people in religions don't feel that way, aren't you?
The same is true of atheistic ethics, as KoM has pointed out.
quote:My point remains that atheists have no response to the standard I'm using except, "It feels good."
Um... this is totally false. Read any book on 20th Century ethical theory to see why. How about any of the following rationales:
-Wrong actions are the ones that are unfair to someone (John Rawls).
-Wrong actions are the ones that can't be justified by a rule that everyone should accept (Kant).
-Right actions are the ones that bring about the most overall good (most modern ethicists).
-Wrong actions are the ones that infringe someone's right to freely use his property as he sees fit (Robert Nozick).
All these thinkers offer secular justifications for their views that in no way boil down to "it feels good."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the difference lies in the degree of knowledge and experience the...umm...decider has. Atheists have only themselves and other human beings to look to. Theists have faith in a being that has vastly, and in some cases infinitely, more experience and wisdom, thus that being's decisions can-in their opinion-be trusted to be less arbitrary.
Theists only have themselves and other human beings to look to, as well. They also have a belief in a being that they claim has more experience and wisdom, but they have absolutely no evidence that this is true. Instead, they rely on how they think this being would respond (WWJD) which is no more than relying on themselves, or they rely on ancient and semi-ancient texts, written by OTHER PEOPLE, and interpreted BY OTHER PEOPLE. But then they claim that they somehow have a higher standard that they adhere to, making their decisions, somehow, "better," when, in fact, they are measurably just as "arbitrary"* as an atheist's decision.
*And I would disagree that any of the decisions are really arbitrary. They all boil down to carrying the intent to continue the health and well-being of the human species as a whole. But at least the atheist takes the responsibility for understanding why he or she acts or thinks or behaves in a certain way. We don't rely on some ancient or semi-ancient, multi- and mis-interrpreted text as our basis.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a non-sequitur (not of the logical type, of the irrelavance type):
I admire the civility of dialogue in this thread. There (evidentally, according to a recent thread) has been a lot of name calling and what not in recent religio-politico threads and I'm glad this discussion has stayed above that.
While I'm here I'll say I'm still confused about atheism and morality. I tend to take a utilitarian perspective on choice, so I might frame my confusion in those terms. Or I might not, here goes: The crux (to me) is temptation. A desire to commit an action that is "wrong." I interpret temptation as a misevaluation by me of the true utility of the action, due to my spiritual imperfection. The "right" action is the one that is truly beneficial to me, although it needs an eternal perspective to see why. Because of the specific moral code I adhere to, this selfishness is also selfless, because an action that harms someone else, harms me as well (in the eternal sense). This is a gross simplification, but aren't all single sentence statements of morality.
Okay, so now take away the eternal perspective. We are products of evolution, our desires programmed into us, there is no ghost in the machine, and nothing on a higher plane to elevate us. Why, in this situation, forgo immediate gratification, even if other people get hurtif they're not capable of hurting you back? Why should one rationally care about the state of the world for one's children? Is there a rational reason to regret consequences to others when there will be no negative consequences to yourself?
Maybe I can state it differently; say you can take an action that is enjoyable to you and has no immediate effect on the world. But lets say it dooms the world to sudden and immediate destruction the day after you die (whenever that may be). Is there any reason not to take the action? Why care about the fate of the human race? I know it's natural, I just don't see how it's rational.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Um... this is totally false. Read any book on 20th Century ethical theory to see why. How about any of the following rationales:
-Wrong actions are the ones that are unfair to someone (John Rawls).
-Wrong actions are the ones that can't be justified by a rule that everyone should accept (Kant).
-Right actions are the ones that bring about the most overall good (most modern ethicists).
-Wrong actions are the ones that infringe someone's right to freely use his property as he sees fit (Robert Nozick). [/QB]
No disrespect to these secular moralists, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with actions in each case that most or all people on this board would agree are right/wrong that contradict their definitions. Maybe that's unimportant; after all, I don't seek popular support for my morality, so maybe it's an unfair standard. I guess my point is similar to what Karl found in his "Toward an Objective Morality", namely that morality is too complex to base on simple rules like those given above. They're nice general guidelines, but they fail as absolutes (IMO).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj: so? Its impossible to get any two people to agree on what constitutes right and wrong at some sufficiently fine degree of granularity.
That doesn't negate that Destineer has pointed out several examples of people judging morality not based on what "feels good", at least in the immediate sense. Now, granted, anything can be turned into a question of "because that seemed best" given sufficient degrees of indirection, but this only serves as an example of how anything can be made totally meaningless if you add sufficient degrees of indirection.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, so now take away the eternal perspective. We are products of evolution, our desires programmed into us, there is no ghost in the machine, and nothing on a higher plane to elevate us. Why, in this situation, forgo immediate gratification, even if other people get hurtif they're not capable of hurting you back? Why should one rationally care about the state of the world for one's children? Is there a rational reason to regret consequences to others when there will be no negative consequences to yourself?
Because I choose to do so. There is likewise no really logical reason to love your children; nonetheless, most people do. But there again, why should you follow your god's instructions, except 'I choose to do so'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What seems to be getting dismissed is that my own code of ethics is as binding to me as any theist code is to anyone else. By consistantly labeling it as arbitrary the implication is that it's casually arrived at and easily cast aside when inconvenient. I hope you can appreciate how insulting that might be.
I have exactly as much access to experience and wisdom as a theist. If it's been written down, I can read it just as easily. The bible contains a great many valuable lessons in ethics and correct behavior and I treasure its stories even though I don't believe they had a deific source. It's not like I became an agnostic and suddenly had to come up with a code from scratch. As long as humans have been writing things down, they've been discussing the best ways to act and I have all of that to draw from. I also have my own life and the lives of those around me to show me immediate reasons for ethical behavior.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: We are products of evolution, our desires programmed into us, there is no ghost in the machine, and nothing on a higher plane to elevate us. Why, in this situation, forgo immediate gratification, even if other people get hurtif they're not capable of hurting you back? Why should one rationally care about the state of the world for one's children? Is there a rational reason to regret consequences to others when there will be no negative consequences to yourself?
Actually, people are naturally social and gregarious. To be mentally and physically healthy, people need some kind of emotional support. Look at Harry Harlow's work.
Socially, most people who are selfish and don't think of others run out of friends, or get killed. So, because they need friends and to be loved, because it is 'logical' to do so, they correct their behavior.
Don't forget that there is also a biological component in empathy. See, for instance, the curious case of Phineas Gage.
Of course, people fight. People naturally want to get angry and beat the crap out of others, to a greater or lesser degree. Again, this desire is self-correcting in almost any community. Edit: What I meant to say, rather than self-correcting, was that the reasons for behaving are self-evident for most people, both in and out of a community, though of course being in a community where your actions are accountable helps.
posted
Been away from hatrack and so my comments are a bit late. From the start:
An article that says a belief in god damages society sounds like the funniest conclusion in the world and is absolutly ridiculous. How long have people been believing in god? If the conclusion is correct, why are any of us even here?
Now I shall give lots of support to his conclusion. I'm Christian (to Mormons, to most other Christians I'm not because Mormons don't believe in the Trinity), so I still don't agree with the conclusion because I'm going to talk about the bad of religion, and not what I get out of it.
Ironically, I prefer non-religious friends because I can't stand religious hypocracy. Non-religious people I know tend to have more morality than the religious people I know.
I happen to have a past full of very evil "religious" people and very good religious people and so my expeirences aren't "normal" because I don't think most people really see "evil" at work. Usually people who are "very" religious tend to bring out the very worst in evil people.
I couldn't believe a statement in Harry Potter 6 that basically says evil people will not rest while good people exist. I've actually seen this happen with real people. They can not stand to let good people exist and will do everything in their power to hurt them.
Most Mormons can't accept that some of their own flock are wolves, and, like now, I tend to make it my first point of religious conversations, so they don't like me. Where non-religious people, this seems to be their number one objection to religion, so we get along.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: A quote from a famous atheist:
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god.
To me, this is a very Godlike/good (whatever you want to call it) attitude. Many religious people don't even do this.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But none of us experience God. Some of us experience belief in God, but none of us actually experience the thing itself.
I've said on a previous thread that one of the reasons I believe in an afterlife is because I found a person who had died the night before, and talked to the person and it took many hours for me to get it in my head the person's body wasn't going to work again because I kept feeling the person's spirit so strongly that I knew the person was still here, if they would just get back in their body...
So I don't like people saying there is no afterlife because for me, I've got proof, and they can't prove a negative. While I'm not giving evidence of God, the point is still valid that nobody can prove that "none of us experience God".
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE]reason itself, in the absence of a God, is really just the arbitrary firing of neurons and therefore meaningless in the big scheme of things.
*shrug* I'm content appealing to physics, but I can understand why other people might not be.
We are just bags of water and I would say 99% of everything we think and feel is a chemical reaction based on how our bodies respond to the environment, including how our brains interpret the sounds and sights from our ears and eyes.
How many people have been falsely offended at the sight or sound of something that was not offensive? I can remember someone touching me "offensively" and turned to find out it was an object I had accidentally set in motion...
Feelings like these are clearly chemical reactions, there is no divine in it (unless you credit the existance of the reaction to being created by God).
Similarly, many religious peoples' "conversion" is just a chemical reaction that "feels good" and I would call this what Glenn said "experiencing belief". Being religious, I have drawn my own line of what falls in the domain of "just chemical reactions" and what is "God."
How many people have known things they couldn't know without the help of some sort of non-chemical reaction?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why should you do this in the presence of a god? I mean, we've agreed that the fear of punishment is not real morality.....
I agree fear has nothing to do with morality. Fear is a control tool. A real religion does not have to use fear to motivate *often*. There are other motivations that are stronger than fear, and religions should be using them. And besides, people do not function well under constant fear. If people constantly choose one outcome because they are afraid of choosing the other, are they really choosing? What point is a religion in creating drones. Mormon leaders have said the real trials of faith come when they are blessed with abundance (money, safety, and security), because then you don't have fear dictating your every move.
Mormons actually believe the plan of salvation according to Satan is: make everyone behave using any means possible, especially fear.
quote:....so what makes 'good' good just because your god says so?
Good is the opposite of evil. Evil is the desire to hurt others. Lust for pleasure from sex or glut or hurting someone is evil. Feeding off of people is evil. Predatory, hungry eyes is evil.
Nobody needs religion to see the difference between good and bad or to be good or bad. Admitting good is good and bad is bad is a WHOLE different monster.
Considering that I'm a regular church goer, I'm embarrassed to say how many people I see there with predatory eyes. And because it is church, they are often defended by leaders. Often the predators are made the teachers of the children... Why do religious leaders tolerate, even create these situations? I don't buy the "they are getting better". Predatory eyes are not "getting better", they are planning on their next human meal and I am sick with all the images in my head of predatory eyes wandering over children's bodies (at church services no less).
To me, yes, society would be better without a religion that supports people like this. But by and large, religions don't support these people, but expose them and keep them from the vulnerable. And it is a religions job to take care of the vulnerable, the sick, the needy, to protect them, and to help them be their equal. Something I rarely see in church "service" projects, which seem to aim to uplift the giver of service at the expense of the receiver, and even I've been guilty of it. But I've also been a receiver, and I've been the receiver at my own expense enough times that I'm pretty negative about church service.
<Mild tone of voice...>But you see, it is all about what church is suppose to be like.</Mild tone of voice...> So if you don't believe in God, I agree, IMO, it seems like the world would be better off without religion.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One last comment to follow up. The reason I don't believe the world would be better off without religion is there is a tital wave of evil waiting to consume the world and have it for lunch and I honestly believe religions (at least the good ones doing what they are suppose to) are doing enough to stop this from happening. Sometimes it is questionable, but so far the world is still here.
And you could say that I'm seeing ghosts and hallucinating evil where it doesn't exist, and that is perfectly fine.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After the 20th Century, it's hard to imagine people saying evil is a hallucination; yet they do.
quote:That's just the thing though, religion is also arbitrary, just take a look at the incredibly wide range of beliefs out there. In the end, theists are also making an arbitrary decision by choosing their religion, if there were only one single all-encompassing religion out there your argument would work, but as it stands, the decision of which religion to follow and therefore which set of morals you adhere to is as arbitrary as the decision of doing things "because you felt like it" or because you were raised that way.
If it's really the case that all beliefs about God are arbitrary, then it logically follows that yours -- no matter what they may be -- are also arbitrary. You became an atheist, agnostic, or theist because you felt like it or because you were raised that way.
There are many perspectives on religious issues; therefore they're all aritrary. (Including this one? But this is a variation on the Epiminides paradox: "This statement is false.")
We get a lot of that in discussions like that. Refutations that destroy the refuter's own position.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All these thinkers offer secular justifications for their views that in no way boil down to "it feels good."
Ultimately, they do. Call it totally false, but if there's no reason we're here, why care about our fellow man? Loyalty to the herd? Indirect selfishness, as Chris suggested? Well, direct selfishness pays off more for the individual.
Ssywak,
quote:Theists only have themselves and other human beings to look to, as well. They also have a belief in a being that they claim has more experience and wisdom, but they have absolutely no evidence that this is true. Instead, they rely on how they think this being would respond (WWJD) which is no more than relying on themselves, or they rely on ancient and semi-ancient texts, written by OTHER PEOPLE, and interpreted BY OTHER PEOPLE. But then they claim that they somehow have a higher standard that they adhere to, making their decisions, somehow, "better," when, in fact, they are measurably just as "arbitrary"* as an atheist's decision.
Well, your faith that there isn't a deity or the supernatural is informing this belief too, you know. And you insist on missing the point, deliberately I begin to think. I'm not talking about whether or not there is a deity or supernatural. All I'm talking about is the question why and who has what reasons for doing good things.
Theists often definitely don't rely on themselves for moral decisions, just as atheists often don't, either. Instead of doing what they would like to do, they do what they believe God would like them to do. Peer pressure, with God. Atheists have peer pressure with peers. Now setting aside questions of whether or not God is real, peer pressure from God-fulfilling God's expectations-seems a better motive than fulfilling Joe Everyman's expectations.
quote:*And I would disagree that any of the decisions are really arbitrary. They all boil down to carrying the intent to continue the health and well-being of the human species as a whole. But at least the atheist takes the responsibility for understanding why he or she acts or thinks or behaves in a certain way. We don't rely on some ancient or semi-ancient, multi- and mis-interrpreted text as our basis.
You can disagree all you like, but the truth is that these decisions you're talking about are either informed by evolutionary survival instinct-animalistic, in other words-or are arbitrary based on what emotions we feel when we make them.
Oh, and I know you know that theists take responsibility for their own actions as well, so please don't play that tired old anti-religious card.
Fugu,
quote:That doesn't negate that Destineer has pointed out several examples of people judging morality not based on what "feels good", at least in the immediate sense. Now, granted, anything can be turned into a question of "because that seemed best" given sufficient degrees of indirection, but this only serves as an example of how anything can be made totally meaningless if you add sufficient degrees of indirection.
I think that if I didn't take those types of actions, I'd feel pretty bad.
Chris,
quote:What seems to be getting dismissed is that my own code of ethics is as binding to me as any theist code is to anyone else. By consistantly labeling it as arbitrary the implication is that it's casually arrived at and easily cast aside when inconvenient. I hope you can appreciate how insulting that might be.
I apologize. I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion. I will point out though that I have said the following
quote:Since I'm about to go to work and won't be here until tomorrow probably, let me make it clear: I think the decision to be a good, honorable, compassionate and courageous person is a noble and worthy thing, whether or not it's arbitrary. And in some ways, sometimes, I think the arbitrary decision-just because one chooses to do so-is the best.
Let me add to that when I say that the arbitrary decision need not be whimsical, or careless, or arrived at too quickly.
quote:As long as humans have been writing things down, they've been discussing the best ways to act and I have all of that to draw from. I also have my own life and the lives of those around me to show me immediate reasons for ethical behavior.
I've also said that theists have the same questions of arbitrariness, but instead of relying on what small amount of the collected learning and wisdom of humanity a single individual can learn in a lifetime, the theist is-they believe-relying on an incredibly wise, ancient, and powerful force that has vastly more learning, experience, and wisdom than the entire human race.
I will question this, though: when you became an agnostic, Chris, what informed the new moral code you built (or reassembled, or modified)?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...the theist is-they believe-relying on an incredibly wise, ancient, and powerful force that has vastly more learning, experience, and wisdom than the entire human race.
From my point of view, the theist is relying on what has been written about an incredibly wise, ancient, and powerful force that has vastly more learning, experience, and wisdom than the entire human race, which is a different thing.
And I freely admit that teaching I received from religious sources formed much of the basis for my own ethical code. I became an agnostic through gradual dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the religion I was raised in, but the lessons I learned there remained. As I said, the bible has a great many useful stories that illustrate good behavior. I also studied many other religions and a lot of mythology.
Thing is, I can watch a Bugs Bunny cartoon and get the message that bullying is wrong without having to believe in my heart that Bugs is real (although I'm not so sure of that sometimes...). Acceptance of lessons learned from a source doesn't equal total validation of that source.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: After the 20th Century, it's hard to imagine people saying evil is a hallucination; yet they do.
You know, people always say this about the 20th Century -- implying that it was somehow more evil or wicked than all the other centuries before it -- but it was actually a time of peace, prosperity, and the absence of savagery. Even the most horrible acts of that century -- the Holocaust, the firebombing of Dresden, etc. -- pale in comparison to the depravity of history.
------
quote: Refutations that destroy the refuter's own position.
Except that it doesn't. Because most atheists will concede that all morality is arbitrary, but will argue that not all morality is equivalent. In other words, they believe that their morality is maybe only a little less arbitrary than yours, but it's still superior.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I meant was that if I didn't act according to the ideas Destineer posted, I'd feel pretty bad.
------
Chris,
quote:From my point of view, the theist is relying on what has been written about an incredibly wise, ancient, and powerful force that has vastly more learning, experience, and wisdom than the entire human race, which is a different thing.
I know that. This discussion started out with the question why, though, not about the truth of any religion. The theist when asked why makes some reference to God, and all of the other reasons mentioned by Destineer and yourself-which are, I think, either evolutionary or emotional in basis.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, as its easy to note circumstances that make the sets of actions from those ideals pairwise exclusive.
Furthermore, its relatively easy to point to people who follow moral codes (religious and nonreligious) and don't seem to particularly like doing so.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The theist when asked why makes some reference to God, and all of the other reasons mentioned by Destineer and yourself-which are, I think, either evolutionary or emotional in basis.
I think what concerns non-theists, Rak, is when the first part -- the reference to a God-given morality -- is in direct conflict with the evolutionary, emotional, or rational reasons for a behavior. Which one wins, and why?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to consider them deductive. This act leads to these consequences, and these consequences lead to this situation. We have seen over time which situations are beneficial and so we can choose which actions to encourage and which actions to decry.
To help us we also have legends and written accounts and mythology and fiction and comic books and fairy tales and fables and poems and songs and tales passed down around campfires that teach lessons about ethical behavior, some simple, some complex. It is also possible (and educational) to examine the philosophies behind the world's religions and look for common ground - once the deific and afterlife portions are removed and the ceremonies are stripped away, there's not a lot of difference between most of them.
I guess what it boils down to is yes, my decision to be an ethical person is entirely arbitrary, with some basis in evolutionary and biological imperatives along with social peer pressure. That choice was as informed as I could make it and my code develops and deepens with every new experience I have or hear about. And despite my lack of all-powerful, all-good role model or disciplanarian, my ethics are binding and meaningful to me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand what you mean by pairwise exclusive. As for not liking it, well yes-many people obey moral codes they don't particularly like. And while we can never prove what might have been, I think that such people might be even less happy had they not followed that code, no matter what the code is. Until they make the decision to change it, that is.
-------
Tom,
I share that concern. Bear in mind I'm not talking about which is intrinsically better except for answering the question why.
-------
Chris,
quote:I guess what it boils down to is yes, my decision to be an ethical person is entirely arbitrary, with some basis in evolutionary and biological imperatives along with social peer pressure. That choice was as informed as I could make it and my code develops and deepens with every new experience I have or hear about. And despite my lack of all-powerful, all-good role model or disciplanarian, my ethics are binding and meaningful to me.
I have a good deal of respect for someone who makes such an acknowledgement. The choice to be good despite concerns that being good are arbitary or meaningless (and I'm not saying that you were concerned your choice was meaningless) is a very worthy one. It has to do with a person craving their own self-respect. "Honor is the gift a man gives himself," like the film says, right?
I think there's beauty and nobility in the decision to say, "I don't know what the truth of the cosmos is. I don't know why I'm here, or what happens after I die. But I am going to do this, because I decided I'd live by a set of principles, and I intend to hold to that choice."
That was in fact for a long time my decision, the one that I actually made, despite slipping up and failing or having doubts or questions almost constantly. And I thought then and think now that from a qualitative standpoint, that kind of morality is superior to the one that says, "I'm going to be good because it will make God happy," or even worse, "I'm going to be good because if I'm bad, God sends me to hell."
I think that for any morality to be truly good for its own sake, that same decision must lie somewhere at the heart of it. Thankfully I found a religion which does not, in my opinion, negate that decision.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And while we can never prove what might have been, I think that such people might be even less happy had they not followed that code, no matter what the code is. Until they make the decision to change it, that is.
As you point out, there are lots of people whose lives become happier after changing moral codes. I suspect they would still have been happier had they changed just before the last moral action they took, too, and perhaps for the one before that, and maybe even further back.
If this is the case, those actions were taken under a moral code that was not based on what would make them feel good. So unless you're supporting the theory that everyone operates under the moral code the yields them the most happiness, and changes the instant the balance changes, I don't see how you assertion could hold up.
Re: pairwise exclusive. Those moral theories contradict each other at times (a lot of times, in fact). It may be that each of your actions makes you feel good and fits under one or a few of those theories, but one of the big reasons so many prominent theories exist is there are cases for each of them where people don't like the answers they give, so new theories were pondered that give more likable answers for those cases . . . but have their own problem cases.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it's really the case that all beliefs about God are arbitrary, then it logically follows that yours -- no matter what they may be -- are also arbitrary. You became an atheist, agnostic, or theist because you felt like it or because you were raised that way.
There are many perspectives on religious issues; therefore they're all aritrary. (Including this one? But this is a variation on the Epiminides paradox: "This statement is false.")
We get a lot of that in discussions like that. Refutations that destroy the refuter's own position.
That's just the thing though, I have never claimed my beliefs to be anything but arbitrary. I fully admitted to the fact that my upbringing, past beliefs, and society, have shaped my idea of what being "good" means.
(I believe the particular post is back in page 4 of this thread.)
I am entirely aware of the fact of how arbitrary my decision is, that doesn't mean that my code of morals is any worse than anyone else's or that it means less than a theist point of view.
quote:Ultimately, they do. Call it totally false, but if there's no reason we're here, why care about our fellow man? Loyalty to the herd? Indirect selfishness, as Chris suggested? Well, direct selfishness pays off more for the individual.
Conversely, if there's no reason we're here, why care about ourselves? Why should something's paying off for me be a reason for me to do it?
People who say there's an evolutionary reason for being selfish are just misreading evolution. The only thing we have an "evolutionary reason" to do (if that notion even makes sense) is reproduce.
But humans are social creatures, and we are also decision-making creatures. We're the only creatures in the world who have interests -- things can go well for us, or they can go badly. One of the things we learn from science is that I'm no different from you, or anyone else, in this way. We all have interests. So my interests don't matter any more than yours do. The world is better when things go better for humans, and when we all have our fair share. That's where morality comes from, and it has nothing to do with God.
This doesn't all work out perfectly, and there are many objections to be raised. But the same is true of the religious side. What makes God's commands right?
This is the Euthyphro problem, first considered long ago by Plato. God commands us to do what's good, right? Well, is it good because God commands it, or good because it's really good in itself? If it's good just because God commands it, would murder be good if God commanded us to murder? (And you can't say "no, because God is good and wouldn't give such a command" -- that's circular reasoning!) Seems like God's commanding something can't make it morally good if it wasn't good already.
But if what's morally good is good already, independent of God, why do we need God's commands to tell us what's good? Can't we find out for ourselves? (That's the atheist's position.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer -- it gets even better; a consistent evolutionarily successful behavior for populations (and their common genetic code) is to not be selfish.
Lots and lots of organisms with some sense of community/family/pack develop patterns of self-sacrifice for the good of the group.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Rico, I missed your earlier post. I'm all for consistency!
quote:That's just the thing though, I have never claimed my beliefs to be anything but arbitrary. I fully admitted to the fact that my upbringing, past beliefs, and society, have shaped my idea of what being "good" means.
(I believe the particular post is back in page 4 of this thread.)
I am entirely aware of the fact of how arbitrary my decision is, that doesn't mean that my code of morals is any worse than anyone else's or that it means less than a theist point of view.
Problem: if your sense of what "good" is, is arbitrary, doesn't this mean that your judgment (that your sense of "good" is just as good as others') is arbitrary? So a competing belief that your sense of good is not as good would be just as valid.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A problem with using evolution of communities to justify morality is that what is good for a community is sometimes in conflict with what is good for an individual. It can explain why communities with inhibitions evolve; but it can't explain why it would be wrong for me to cheat someone if I can get away with it.
The question of separating goodness from God: let's suppose for a moment that we do, completely -- and let's not stop there. What is this goodness? Are we talking Taoism? If not, what is this standard? It's not a physical object. It can't plausibly be derived from physical objects.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Conversely, if there's no reason we're here, why care about ourselves? Why should something's paying off for me be a reason for me to do it?
People who say there's an evolutionary reason for being selfish are just misreading evolution. The only thing we have an "evolutionary reason" to do (if that notion even makes sense) is reproduce.
Because if we're going to live, it's better to have things pay off for oneself?
And it's arguable, but I think you're mistaken about the only thing there is an "evolutionary reason" for is reproduction. We have two evolutionary impulses: stay alive and reproduce, and once the second is done the first becomes less important.
quote:One of the things we learn from science is that I'm no different from you, or anyone else, in this way. We all have interests. So my interests don't matter any more than yours do. The world is better when things go better for humans, and when we all have our fair share. That's where morality comes from, and it has nothing to do with God.
My interests matter to me more than yours do to me. I'm not sure what science brings you to a different conclusion. The world for humans is better when things go well for humans. But...which humans? USA humans? Chinese humans? Zimbabwe humans? What is good for the one is not necessarily good for the other.
You can have your own faith about where morality comes from, and as usual it's interesting when people who disavow faith in god nonetheless have faith in things like, "This is where morality comes from."
As for the question of what makes God's commands right...I don't even know why you're bringing that up. You persist in trying to argue things that I'm not even arguing about. If you're addressing this to someone else, that's cool but if you're talking to me, I don't get it.
I was asking why does an atheist do things? I suggested that an atheist does things for two reasons: emotional response, and evolutionary reasons.
The one is arbitrary-yes, we feel emotions, obviously they're real, but they're totally subjective to all sorts of things. Curiously, if a religious person cites emotion as one reason for their faith, some atheists will immediately belabor this point. But for this question, well emotions are real, and we should lend credence to their promptings.
The other is animalistic. It puts our decisions and responses on a level with beasts. It is neither good nor bad, merely pragmatic.
I'm not saying atheists do things for those proximate reasons, but for those ultimate reasons. I'm saying that's all an atheist is left with when asked, "Why do you choose to be a good person?"
The theist has those two reasons, and one other: some variation on, "Because God tells me it is best to do so." I realize atheists don't recognize that reasoning as anything other than delusion, and I realize that it begs the question, "Why does God want us to be good, if God exists?"
I don't know, I can't speak in certainties. The collection of human knowledge and wisdom is limited. Theists have faith they are responding to a being with vastly greater knowledge and wisdom, who uses both to inform the teachings imparted to us. That is the third reason theists have, that atheists do not.
This is the longest discussion I've had on Hatrack in awhile, and I'm repeating myself too much. I can't think of much I haven't said, and I'm also unconvinced that anyone has refuted what I'm saying. But we're all convinced we're right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Problem: if your sense of what "good" is, is arbitrary, doesn't this mean that your judgment (that your sense of "good" is just as good as others') is arbitrary? So a competing belief that your sense of good is not as good would be just as valid.
If I didn't believe my moral code was just as good, if not better than others, I wouldn't follow it. I'd change it so that it fits the above criteria of being just as good or better than others.
What I mean by this is that I accept my decision of adhering to an arbitrary morality because ultimately I see all of morality as being arbitrary, faith or no faith. I accept the fact that what I perceive as good may not mesh up with someone else's definition, and it is during these instances that I question my own moral code and decide whether to change, but only if I think this change will help me improve as a human being.
I actually take pride in the fact that my morality is arbitrary. Why? Because I feel like it provides me with flexibility, because if I didn't accept my beliefs as arbitrary it would mean that I'd be stuck being the same person all my life. It is the constant search for self improvement that drives me to be a better person.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to chime in and say I've greatly enjoyed this discussion, especially fugu, Rakeesh, Rico, Destineer, Glenn, and Chris.
There have been other good participants, too, of course, but those are the names that stick out right now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see how it matters why atheists should stick to a particular moral code. The fact remains that they do. And they are being precisely as rational as any theist : Both parties proceed from some given axioms on what is good. These axioms are completely arbitrary in both cases; nevertheless, they are generally agreed on - not in details, but in the overarching structure. The theist is no more able to to say why they are good axioms than the atheist is; sure, you can point at a god, but that just puts you in the position of appealing to an authority. The choice of authority is likewise arbitrary. In other words, saying that an atheist's morality is arbitrary is a bit akin to saying that the theist can change from Judeo-Christian to Dionysian or Thuggee at will; in a sense it is true, but it is not an accurate description of the reality.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What atheists need is a well-written, unified code of ethics complete with parables and examples to teach children. The secular people really don't have a consistent code of behavior (other than the legal system) to teach children, and that's somewhere where religionists excel. Is there a secular Moses out there?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Standard Ten Commandments Believed to have been written by the Long Island Secular Humanists in 1999:
We, the members of the human community speak these words, saying.
1. We shall not limit freedom of thought. 2. We shall not cause unnecessary harm to any living thing or the environment. 3. We shall be respectful of the rights of others. 4. We shall be honest. 5. We shall be responsible for our actions. 6. We shall be fair in all matters to all persons. 7. We shall be considerate of the happiness and well being of others. 8. We shall be reasonable in our actions. 9. We shall nurture these values by word & deed in our children, family, friends and acquaintances. 10. We shall not limit inquiring or testing by their consequences, on any matter, including these Commandments.
Native American Ten Commandments This has been published in many places on the Internet. The author is unknown: 1. Treat the Earth and all that dwell thereon with respect. 2. Remain close to the Great Spirit. 3. Consider the impact on the next six generations when making decisions. 4. Work together to benefit all humanity. 5. Freely give help and kindness wherever needed. 6. Do what you believe to be right. 7. Look after the well-being of your mind and body. 8. Contribute a share of your efforts to the greater good. 9. Be truthful and honest at all times. 10. Take full responsibility for your actions.
Think Hatrack can come up with 10 we can agree on?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My interests matter to me more than yours do to me. I'm not sure what science brings you to a different conclusion. The world for humans is better when things go well for humans. But...which humans? USA humans? Chinese humans? Zimbabwe humans? What is good for the one is not necessarily good for the other.
Right, that's why you have to consider everyone equally in reckoning what to do. The idea is this: by thinking about my own interests, I realize that if something is good for me it makes the world a better place. What science, or experience more broadly, tells me is that I'm a person no different from you. Therefore, what's good for you also makes the world better, so I have to consider your interests as well as my own. The same goes for everyone alive.
quote:I was asking why does an atheist do things? I suggested that an atheist does things for two reasons: emotional response, and evolutionary reasons.
I disagree. There are all sorts of things that I do for other reasons besides these two. When I do a math problem, do I get the right answer for evolutionary reasons? Only in a very indirect sense, because it was evolutionarily useful that my ancestors be able to understand math. There's a better way of explaining why I get the right result: because it's true, and my way of discovering mathematical truths is reliable.
Now think about a moral situation; say I'm deciding whether to betray my friend. Just like in the mathematical situation, I use my faculties -- in this case, my sense of empathy for my friend and my notion of duty -- to reach an answer. The right answer.
These moral faculties, empathy and sense of duty, are evolved faculties, I grant. And in some ways they evolved imperfectly -- for example, I have a much stronger natural sense of duty for my neighbors than for people in China, even though I know the Chinese people matter just as much. But overall my moral faculties are reliable, and where they're not I can correct them by learning more about ethics. Moral knowledge is not so different from any other sort of knowledge.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure if this has been brought up yet. I've been kind of haphazardly following the thread and don't recall it, so:
1. There is/are a spiritual force/s in the universe that cause/s people to do good.
2. Likewise, there are bad forces out there.
2. Atheists are people.
3. This/these force/s therefore communicates with atheists.
Do they involve themselves more often or less often than they do (the religion of your choice)? Who knows? This goes back to the question of when you pray, who are you praying to? Are you sure you're involving yourself with the right deity? Or are you actually involving yourself with the wrong one? Who knows?
I don't say that I believe the above, but I just thought that I'd throw it out there as a possibility that some of the 'theists' on this board might not have considered. That is, the argument they are making seems to be that free will determines whether or not a person is moral inasmuch as a person chooses a religion and to worship God/Bob/The Tooth Fairy. However, this may not be the case.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard that some religious boys have this "emotional adultery" game they play. A boy will flirt with a girl and slowly build an intimate non-physical relationship and a high expectation so that the girl thinks she is the only one and is the most important thing in the world to the guy as he makes her feel so loved and important. Then the boy asks another girl out to an event that the first girl is at and disses the first girl in public by telling girl 2 an embarrassing secret of girl 1.
There is absolutely no punishment for this behavior because the boy has done nothing wrong, technically. Maybe a "naughty naughty, be good". If the girl was in the same church as the boy, it gets very interesting as Sunday becomes a day of dread for the girl, and the boy gets to relive the act of dissing the girl every week, especially if he is in a position of "righteousness", like if he was an alter boy or blessed the sacrement (boys 16-18 do this in Mormon church).
I contrast this with atheist guy who has physical relationships with girls with no intention of marrying them. He does this for pleasure, and he likes girls. But he doesn't seek to hurt them too badly, as the expectations never really get near marriage, or at least the girl knew that from the start, and may build the expectation through a relationship, but it was kinda unwise on her part to do so given the guy was never going to go near it.
Who has the higher morals and why?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
