RE: Where do atheists get their morality from?
September 11, 2012 at 5:12 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2012 at 5:13 pm by Undeceived.)
(September 11, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Red Celt Wrote:In The Selfish Gene Dawkins gave two reasons for apparently altruistic actions: 1) the person I help has my genes, or 2) the person I help will reciprocate. Well, say I give up my bus seat to an old lady. She neither has my genes, nor is she likely to pay me back. Not only that, but she's rather weak and probably the last person on the bus I'd like to reproduce for humankind. Or take me sending food rations to children in Africa. They neither have my genes nor are they capable of sending me anything in return. If you wish to make the case for altruistic actions helping society as a whole, even evolutionists stop short of that argument. Internal natural selection forbids my helping weaker individuals at the expense of myself. You're right, other humans benefit from my altruistic actions... but my DNA carrying the altruism gene will not be passed to my children.(September 11, 2012 at 4:49 pm)Undeceived Wrote: As moral. As moral as theists, based on theistic morals? Where else might atheists get this standard of morality? From society, perhaps, which borrows almost exclusively from Christianity. Sure you can abide by Christianity's morals, and many atheists do. But by definition of evolution you have no objective morals. You are simply imitating culture to be accepted by culture. In the process, you validate Christian ethics as the most acceptable, tossing out one or two (such as adultery, abortion) to suit your own personal whims. Perhaps by 'having morals' you mean being generally good to other human beings. Yet according to evolution there is no good, just survival. Your 'good' is done out of self-interest. If you truly were altruistic, you'd contradict survival of the fittest. Why should anyone be impressed you can imitate out of self-interest? A monkey can do that. Moral atheism is an oxymoron unless the atheist defines a moral his own way. In such a case, what good is a subjective moral? Why should anyone be impressed that you can create your own idea of right and wrong? A monkey can do that too. Without altruism, ethics is just an act.
Stand back, please, people...
(beats Undeceived to death with a copy of The Selfish Gene)
Well, as an atheist, I have no morals, right?
Perhaps I should just have told him to read the fucking book, so that he could perhaps understand why social animals benefit from altruism.