Is There a Point To Living a Moral Life?

[Sword of Christ]

For an atheist morality is only a mixture of current social tastes and evolutionary beneficial behavior in a social species. You don't go around killing people because you don't want people going around killing you. Beyond that morality as concept only exists in human brains.

[Esquilax]

For an atheist morality is only a mixture of current social tastes and evolutionary beneficial behavior in a social species. You don't go around killing people because you don't want people going around killing you. Beyond that morality as concept only exists in human brains.

Again, you see fit to tell us- people you've never met, occupying a soteriological position you've never experienced- what we believe. To that, by now, after being warned about that multiple times, I can only say, fuck you.

You don't get to demand things of us. You don't get to tell us the things we believe, and you don't get to take this haughty, superior stance over the things you want us to believe because it's more convenient for your dishonest and baseless argument.

We have this wonderful thing called a conscience, that apparently you christians seem to lack, which is why you need a book to tell you not to do things that us normal people find intuitive. That conscience was developed by evolution, yes, but that doesn't make it any less valid or sublime a concept than your- potentially nonexistent and entirely unevidenced- magic sky daddy's big book of rules.

Hell, those morals don't even come from god anyway, they can't, because if they did you'd be stuck with obeying anything he said up to and including immoral acts, under the illusion that it's moral because god says so. So don't pretend like you've got some moral high ground here, Sword.

[Sword of Christ]

Again, you see fit to tell us- people you've never met, occupying a soteriological position you've never experienced- what we believe. To that, by now, after being warned about that multiple times, I can only say, fuck you.

If God doesn't exist then what else do you think morality is other than a mutually agreed upon social contract?

We have this wonderful thing called a conscience

We certainly do yes. Why do you think we have that?

[paulpablo]

For an atheist morality is only a mixture of current social tastes and evolutionary beneficial behavior in a social species. You don't go around killing people because you don't want people going around killing you. Beyond that morality as concept only exists in human brains.

You only don't go round killing people because you don't want to go to hell, or you do go round killing people if you believe they are witches, or muslims if a crusade is going on.

[Esquilax]

If God doesn't exist then what else do you think morality is other than a mutually agreed upon social contract?

Well, for one, it's a mutually agreed upon social contract set within a physical world that constrains us to certain absolutes.

This isn't the moral relativistic bullshit that you guys always seem to want to pin on us. Murder wouldn't suddenly become morally acceptable if enough people were in favor of it, because murder would still violate a number of the truths that we can state about our own experiences in the world, namely that death is not a preferred state of being. Regardless of one's stance on the afterlife, I'm sure we can agree in that: after all, this is the only life that we know we have.

No doubt you're currently combing your mind for exceptions to this, as if a handful of differing scenarios would somehow invalidate the entire position. Of course there are going to be exceptions, because this is a more complex, context driven system than theists typically want to portray it as. These absolutes of reality are somewhat numerous, and applying them properly would take a lot of time and space; all I'm saying is, there are things about being alive that stop vile acts from becoming moral simply because they have majority approval.

Incidentally, your christian religion doesn't solve this problem you've pointed to in secular morality either, because religion is a mutually agreed upon social contract. Whether you think these rules have passed down from god or not, the fact is, you and yours don't follow them all. You pick and choose; this stuff about eating shellfish and stoning people? That doesn't apply. This here, about not killing? Obviously that's divinely inspired! And yet you all disagree on what exactly is and isn't that way, and you all claim your version is the perfect truth, etc etc. Let's not pretend you've got some wonderful, objective system in place; the thirty thousand denominations of your church begs to differ.

Not to mention the concept that we're all born sinners, as well; you guys have failing those "objective standards" built right into the premise of your religion! So keeping them isn't the obligation you seem to think it is.

We certainly do yes. Why do you think we have that?

Wow, did you just not want to read the rest of the paragraph? I already said, it's an evolved mechanism.

Incidentally, why didn't you start out asking questions in the first place?

[Sword of Christ]

Wow, did you just not want to read the rest of the paragraph? I already said, it's an evolved mechanism.

That's what I said, it will also be relative to cultural values as well of course. There's no point trying to argue with me if we both agree on this point.

[popeyespappy]

For an atheist morality is only a mixture of current social tastes and evolutionary beneficial behavior in a social species. You don't go around killing people because you don't want people going around killing you. Beyond that morality as concept only exists in human brains.

I won't speak for Esquilax, but I generally agree with your first sentence, partially agree with the second one and disagree with the third.

Yes, morality is based in current social norms and beneficial behavior that evolved in our social species. It most likely has its roots in compassion, and compassion is an evolved trait. Generally speaking society sets the norms for what is acceptable behavior and what is not. In most current cultures stealing, rape and murder are considered wrong. It hasn't always been that way though. In earlier cultures these things were sometimes acceptable although usually only outside of one's immediate social group.

There is a little more to it than do onto others as you would have them do onto you though. There is also altruism. Some of us have a genuine concern for the welfare of others. For example some people involved in animal rescue do it because saving the life of another species makes us feel good about ourselves. This too probably has its roots in compassion.

As far as only existing in the human brain goes I doubt it. Other species on this planet exhibit behaviors consistent with what most humans consider moral behavior. We have observed them taking care of the weak, risking their own lives for the sake of others and even morning their dead. We don't communicate with them well enough to know if any one of them understand the concept of morality, but my guess is the closer many of them are to us on the evolutionary tree the higher the probability that they do.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[NB: I did NOT read every post in this thread, so if I go over ground already touched on, apos in advance.]

For me the point to living a moral life are the Gold and Silver Rules: Do as you would be done by, and do NOT do as you would NOT be done by.

For me, at least, it is difficult to imagine a more universal maxim than the ethics of reciprocity. Yeah, yeah, we've all heard the supposed conundrum about the masochist and the sadist, so kindly don't bring up that particular piece of idiocy.

I don't commit unethical acts because I wouldn't like to have them visited on me, simple as that. Human beings have, by and large, tastes and goals that are similar enough to make this one of the best possible working standards by which people can get on with one another. The aberrations to the standard are sufficiently rare as not to damage the rule. In fact, virtually ALL instances where human relations fail can be attribute to a violation of the Golden Rule.

Some advantages to this POV are: 1) consequences tend to be in line with the wrong done, as opposite to the lunatic theistic tradition of infinite punishment for finite transgressions; 2) The standard is sufficiently malleable as to permit infractions for a greater good; and 3) The wrong done for a humanistic violation of ethics can be cleared up or addressed by human beings.

And, to forestall the mistake always made, the Golden Rule is NOT original to Jesus. To quote Russell, 'The New Testament is both good and original. But what is good is not original, and what is original is not good.'

Boru

[Sword of Christ]

I won't speak for Esquilax, but I generally agree with your first sentence, partially agree with the second one and disagree with the third.

Yes, morality is based in current social norms and beneficial behavior that evolved in our social species. It most likely has its roots in compassion, and compassion is an evolved trait. Generally speaking society sets the norms for what is acceptable behavior and what is not. In most current cultures stealing, rape and murder are considered wrong. It hasn't always been that way though. In earlier cultures these things were sometimes acceptable although usually only outside of one's immediate social group.

There is a little more to it than do onto others as you would have them do onto you though. There is also altruism. Some of us have a genuine concern for the welfare of others. For example some people involved in animal rescue do it because saving the life of another species makes us feel good about ourselves. This too probably has its roots in compassion.

I would argue with good reason based on what we observe of the human situation on the ground that genuine compassion, altruism selflessness goes beyond your utilitarian view of naturally evolved mutual survival systems. It wouldn't explain why a soldier would jump on a grenade to save his squad mates for example. They're not genetically related to him, if they died and he survived that's no disadvantage to him personally. There was an example of this in the recent shootings in Kenya when someone drew the terrorists attention to himself so saving a group of children. They weren't his children so no good reason to care if they were shot and he himself survived.

As far as only existing in the human brain goes I doubt it. Other species on this planet exhibit behaviors consistent with what most humans consider moral behavior. We have observed them taking care of the weak, risking their own lives for the sake of others and even morning their dead. We don't communicate with them well enough to know if any one of them understand the concept of morality, but my guess is the closer many of them are to us on the evolutionary tree the higher the probability that they do.

Animals don't have a concept of morality but the higher intelligent animals demonstrate some degree of selflessness/altruism like ourselves so not purely utilitarian/survival based. Dolphins have been known to rescue humans in trouble in the water putting themselves at risk of shark attack.





And humans have been known to eat dolphins so that's an interesting juxtaposition there I suppose.

[Esquilax]

I would argue with good reason based on what we observe of the human situation on the ground that genuine compassion, altruism selflessness goes beyond your utilitarian view of naturally evolved mutual survival systems. It wouldn't explain why a soldier would jump on a grenade to save his squad mates for example. They're not genetically related to him, if they died and he survived that's no disadvantage to him personally. There was an example of this in the recent shootings in Kenya when someone drew the terrorists attention to himself so saving a group of children. They weren't his children so no good reason to care if they were shot and he himself survived.

As weird as it is to say this, one could probably make the case that our current empathetic and altruistic behavioral patterns are actually errors in the selection process that forged them in us. It's often forgotten in discussions like these, but evolution isn't some perfect straight line heading toward a goal, it's a rather more haphazard process.

In this case, the behavior getting selected for would have been something like "protect your group," as in our case, doing that often leads to better survival. It's the core of a group society, anyway. But there's no discernment there, no actual will ensuring that that behavior works to the survival of the individual organism. The line is still "protect the group," which sometimes comes up against our survival instincts and wins out.

Altruism was selected for because it allowed those that possessed it to survive and pass on their genes, but that wasn't the goal behind it doing so.