What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Pyrrho]

---

I don't think that morality is a question of what is best for society so that our species survives.  But if it were, it would mean that you Catholics should stop breeding like rabbits because overpopulation is a serious problem.  It is YOUR morality that is a problem.  Atheism is not a source for such immorality.

You might want to look back at what I stated earlier that you previously seemed to like.

It may also be worth mentioning that atheism is not a doctrine, it is the lack of a belief in a god (or, for strong atheism, it is the belief that there is no god).  There is no universal agreement among atheists about morality, and I certainly would not endorse the idea that morality must further the survival of the species (which must, in any case, be a futile thing, as humanity will eventually perish regardless of what anyone does).

Now, it may be that evolution gave rise to empathy, but it does not follow from that that empathy has a specific goal.

If god is added to the equation, it changes nothing as far as morality is concerned.  People who believe that morality is merely following what god says are grossly mistaken.

---

Hi Pyrrho.

I have read a couple of posts here claiming that morality is based on what is good for society so that our species can survive. So what I was saying was, how will this change if overpopulation ever becomes a big problem? If morality is based on our need to survive as a species, and the need to survive becomes more about being sure we have enough resources in a world with way too many humans, does that mean that we would no longer have a moral obligation to be sure others didn't get killed, etc?

It means that people should stop having so many children.  This means that we should embrace birth control for everyone who wants it.  And encourage people to use it, and teach them about it, in a realistic manner, making no pretense about how effective each option is.

Now, you might want people to just stop having sex.  But you know that is not realistic; people are going to have sex.  And so we need to deal with this fact, rather than pretend otherwise.  To have a solution for overpopulation, the solution must actually work.  Otherwise, it is useless, and if it prevents actions that would work, it is worse than useless, it is then detrimental.  Real problems need real solutions, not wishful thinking.

There is a homely old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is very true for overpopulation.  The best approach is to not produce too many people, not to kill the extras.

And this means that we need to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.  You yourself acknowledge that having so many children is a problem, and yet you support an organization that actively works to make the problem worse.  Every time you put money in the offering plate, you are helping to pay for advertising and political activity that actively tries to make the problem worse, by trying to eliminate access to birth control and to tell people that it is immoral to use birth control.  You should stop doing that, as your voluntary contribution works against what you know to be right.


But you are right about the fact that overpopulation does tend to make life cheap.  Right now in China, they have way too many people, and so a human life is not worth much there.  That, and worse, is our future if things keep going as they are.  If we do not get serious about birth control being readily available for all, then the future is going to be very grim.

I know none of this applies to you at all, since you never said this was what morality is based on, and you wrote a well thoguht about post about morality earlier. I just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from when I made that statement.

I also wanted to address one thing regarding you statement above, and something one of those pictures said. In your statement above, you said "atheism is not a doctrine, it is the lack of a belief in a god."

I agree with you there. All atheism means is that you don't believe in God. That's it. So then why does that last picture say "learn more about atheism?" If atheism is just "I don't believe in God", then what is there to learn?

What there is to learn is that morality does not depend on the existence of a god.  Killing people for fun is wrong, regardless of whether there is a god or not.  A god changes nothing for how one ought to live one's life.

The divine command theory of morality is morally bankrupt, a simple 'might makes right' mentality, that one must obey god or get punished.  This could also be called the "bully theory of morality," where one is to obey or get beat up.  That is not morality.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a horrible story of gross immorality.  A man is ready to kill his son just because he is told to do it.  And god is happy that Abraham is willing to be immoral when told to be immoral.  This is a very bad message, and shows how corrupting of morality religion often is.  So not only is religion not the source of morality, it is often the source of immorality.


You and I agree that overpopulation is a problem.  Notice, your belief in a god and my lack of such belief does not alter this.  It is irrelevant whether there is a god or not for such matters.  I am sure that there are many other things about morality about which we agree.

It does seem sometimes, ironically enough, that some atheists will treat their non-belief in God as a religion. Obviously, there is no God involved so it's not really a religion, but sometimes it just seems like it gets treated that way by atheists themselves. And what I mean by "like a religion" is that sometimes it seems like atheism is a "group" of people with the same set of philosophical ideals who like to talk about how wrong everyone else is and about how they hold the right answer. And while that's ok, it just seems strange to me because all atheism is supposed to be is just a disbelief in God, and yet it seems like more than that sometimes.

No one is just an atheist.  Atheists, like other people, have other ideas.  And their other ideas are relevant to what you are stating.  Of course, atheists do not form a monolithic group, and have substantial disagreements with each other.  There are plenty of atheists with false ideas about a lot of things.

They do, of course, all have in common that they don't believe in a god.  And many have many other things in common.  Just like you and I have in common our opinion about overpopulation being a bad thing.

Also, the story of Abraham (and others of a like nature) does explain why some atheists have a great zeal about trying to get people to stop being religious, as religion is a source of great immorality.  That zeal can seem religious.  So I certainly understand your comments on that.

And I'm really sorry if that last paragraph came out sounding rude. I do not mean to be rude or condecending at all. It's just that this has been my observation and I wanted to share it with you here and see what your thoughts are.

It is not rude, or at least I have not taken it that way, so no worries on that.




Looking at posts since this one (this thread grows very fast), I think you might want to take a look at Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian."  It is a short essay in which he explains, among other things, defects in Jesus' character.  You can read it online for free:

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html