Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

I am entirely unclear how you arrive at these conclusions. I say something. Then you attribute to me a view quite different to any I have argued for. At what point have I asserted that morality is fixed over time?

I do not know what you mean by 'absolute' morality.

I have made clear what I understand by 'morality'. MOrality instructs and those instructions have inescapable rational authority.

I left in the part of my reply you ignored.

So are you saying that God's morality changes with time? So what is morally acceptable to God at one point in our history is not at a later point? How can that be?

Also - how do you know that "those instructions have inescapable rational authority?" Even if there is a God there is no reason the authority would have to be rational. Judging by most of the things you have posted they certainly don't appear to be.

You are fundamentally not understanding the position I am outlining. Morality doesn't belong to a person. Morality refers to instructions and favourings of a god (so I am arguing). Talk of 'god's morality' or 'my morality' is misleading - it suggests morality is like an item of clothing, or is something one person might have and another not. Morality is the instructions and favourings of a god.

Can this god's instructions and favourings change over time? Well of course they can. Doesn't mean they have - but they can. Why think otherwise? what can't change is the god's resolve to harm the interests of those who do not do as she instructs at any given time. But what she instructs us to do can alter, for her tastes may change.

You ask 'how can this be?' Well, I've just explained. Note: I am not claiming this has happened. If morality exists then it appears very stable over time. But it may not be fixed. Perhaps it is, but it may not be. I see no reason to think it must be fixed. Again, I am not saying it has changed. I am just saying it is capable of changing.

---

? First, what I am arguing is that there would need to be an afterlife for moral instructions to exist. That's a conditional. I'm not saying 'there is an afterlife'. I am saying 'there would need to be if these sensations are to have anything that vindicates them'. If I am correct about that then our moral sensations are sensations 'of' the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife. And therefore those sensations would be defeasible evidence of such a person and a place. Note 'defeasible'. It isn't proof anymore than your visual impression that there is a computer monitor in front of you is 'proof' of such a thing.

That takes a very dim view of humanity - and one that is encouraged by Religion so that all goodness can be allocated to God.

Morality is its own reward - there is no need for rewards in heaven. Its the feel good factor as much as anything else.

For example: the other day I was walking the dog and came across a wallet in the park. In the wallet was an a bank statement. The address was close by so I dropped it off on the way back. No reward required - I felt good all day.

My view of humanity is no dimmer than yours. I am not denying that you behaved as you did, am I? What I am saying is that if there is no god then what you did was rational if and only if doing it served some ends of yours. And it did.

Happily, most of us have no real desire to be gits. Most of us like being nice, kind, benevolent etc (at least to a degree). And so most of us have reason to behave in these ways irrespective of whether there is a god.

But that doesn't show morality to exist. Imagine you found that wallet and you really wanted to keep the money and use the bank statement to somehow take out loans in that person's name or something like that. That's what you wanted to do. And imagine you can get away with it as well (or perhaps that you just don't care about getting caught and don't mind prison). What reason do you have to return the wallet now? None, if morality does not exist.

Now, you might say 'oh, but I would never be like that'. but that misses the point. the point is that your actions are not right just because you want to perform them or have ends that performing them will serve. If your actions are right it is because MORALITY instructs them. You have nothing to do with it. Giving the wallet back and being nice etc was not right just because you happened to want to do it.

---

Also - how do you know that "those instructions have inescapable rational authority?" Even if there is a God there is no reason the authority would have to be rational. Judging by most of the things you have posted they certainly don't appear to be.

Moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. That's a conceptual claim. What I am trying to do is figure out what it would take for a person's instructions to have that feature.

Engage in the following thought experiment. Imagine there exists an afterlife. When you die that's where you're going for the rest of eternity. No escape. In that afterlife there is a god. She has control over your interests. You want a cake, she can get you a cake. She has control over what you want as well. If the only cakes in the afterlife are fruitcakes, she can make sure the sort of cake you want most, is a fruitcake. Anyway, she has that sort of control. So, your welfare long term is in her hands. Imagine she's vengeful such that if you do not do as she instructs she'll harm your interests (make you want chocolate cake when you have to spend eternity in a place where there is only fruitcake, for instance). Imagine that your moral sense really is a sense of what she wants you to do here, in this realm. Do you have reason to do what she wants?