Atheism, A Grim Position?

[Esquilax]

Hmmm. So your argument against genocide is that morality needs conscious agents which it would eliminate. So something is morally wrong if it would eliminate morality. Sounds somewhat circular to me. Why not just do away with morality and everyone just does what they want, even if it eliminates all moral agents?

Look, don't ask me questions about how moral systems work, and then leap to asking me why we should have a moral system at all once you've been given an answer, those are two completely different questions. As it stands, there's nothing circular about the maintenance of moral system contributing to the reasoning behind that same system; eliminating morality necessarily opens the door to behavior that the now non-existent moral system would hold to be immoral. In short, it is immoral to eliminate morality, because that leads to the propagation of acts that morality has, for a variety of reasons, defined to be immoral. It's not circular, it's definitional; if something allows for immoral things to happen, it is an immoral thing.

As to why you shouldn't get rid of morality altogether, the answer is simple and rational, so it's obvious why you, with your ridiculous ideas about how morality is grounded- which I'll get to in just a minute- didn't get it immediately: It's beneficial. A society that lives according to moral strictures that are grounded in what I've listed is demonstrably healthier than one that does not. See, the problem with this interrogation you keep conducting isn't with my answers, it's with you for refusing to modulate your position in the slightest; you aren't actually thinking through the consequences of the things you're asking, you're just thinking about how they would affect you, even after we've established that morality considers all people, not just the individual. Why keep morality? Do you understand how much of your comfortable life is bound up in the social contract every member of your culture has made? If everyone acted like the amoral monster you keep asking me why it's not okay for you to act like, your access to food, medical care, technology, everything that your society produces, diminishes immediately, because those things are made on the basis of trust that wouldn't exist in a world where everything is permissible. What would prompt the farmer, after all, to put his wares out for sale when it's totally okay for you to just murder him and take it all?

You like the life you lead? You like not having to be your own farmer, and doctor, and dentist, and scientist, and everything else, because your society allows people to specialize and depend on each other for individual expertise? Then that is why you should keep morality in place, even if your own evolved sense of empathy somehow isn't preventing you from acting like a monster anyway. I'm sorry if the rational answer isn't sufficient to you, and you were looking for an irrational one for some reason, but there you go.

Now, as for your own ideas of morality, which I did promise I'd get to, why is god's opinion on what's right and wrong the "ultimate grounding" for morals? Aside from the simple fiat assertion that it is, what reason do you have? Without referring to his power (might makes right isn't ultimate morality, it's a dictatorship) or to his creating everything (that's just an act, it doesn't imbue him with control over morality) what do you actually have to justify this absurd claim? Or hell, the further claim you make that morality requires an ultimate grounding at all? You've made two completely unjustified claims and so far have been happy to just sit there and make us all dance to your burden of proof shifting bullshit, but how about you start justifying your assumptions before we continue, eh? Because from where I'm standing, all you're doing is claiming that because some guy created the universe and was there before everyone else, his unjustified opinions on what's right and wrong are somehow objectively true, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow at all.

If that's not enough for you, I'll end on the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is still something that you theists have never been able to answer properly: Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral? If it's the former, then morality to you is just fiat command and is useless. If it's the latter, then morality is external to god and does not require him to be discovered and used.

Have fun with that.

But what if I ( as a rational human being ) don't care about society? I just want what I want and I want to kill redheads, and will try to get away with it. Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?

You've missed the point of the veil of ignorance, but that's hardly surprising. You seem intent on missing every point that isn't just "because maaaagic!"

The veil of ignorance forces the participants in it to consider moral choices from purely moral standpoints, without self interest or bias interfering, because there is no self to be interested or biased until the moral choices are made. Simply put, you cannot make moral decisions from behind the veil in such a way that they benefit you, because you don't know what you'll be until the veil is lifted. It has nothing to do with society, really; as a rational human being behind the veil you cannot make the decision to make killing redheads moral, because once the veil is lifted you yourself could be a redhead.

Besides, I literally explained this in the post you're responding to: if you, as a "rational" human being, don't care about society and just want to do whatever you want, then you aren't making a rationally tenable decision because you're using special pleading to make your moral decision. In sort, you aren't a rational human being if you make that decision, especially when you factor in that the chances of getting caught and punished are higher that way. Stop asking me to consider scenarios that I've already explained to you are malformed and pointless, it just makes it seem like you've already decided to disagree with me before you started reading, and so aren't paying much attention.

I don't think it was by accident that Thomas Jefferson invoked the creator in the Declaration of Independence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Full stop. All other opinions are subordinate to that ultimate endowment. No more "why that" questions.

Except there is another why question, you just don't want anyone else to be thinking about it, which is why you're stressing that there aren't any so hard: why does "creator says so," endow one with anything, let alone unalienable rights? Why does creator's opinion matter at all?

Can you answer that question, without resorting to a tautology like every other theist I've asked it to?