We should take the Moral Highground

[DeistPaladin]

While I remain hopeful that reason could find a definitive basis for morality, I do not think a compelling refutation of nihilism has yet been presented.

Why is that required for the purpose of this thread? Secular morality is superior to religious morality if for no other reason than its relative clarity on the matter (or lack of conflict of interest).

[Tempus]

---

I'm not familiar with Aristotle at all (I know who he is though of course). Did he acknowledge that the thing that 'ought' to be done (pursuing happiness) was an assumption? If so, I agree. If he thought it was some sort of self-evident truth I totally disagree.

---

---

To paraphrase the Nichomachean Ethics, "Happiness is the good that all men desire." From there he goes on to give examples showing that the pursuit of pleasures, money and fame are sought because people believe those things will make them happy. His general approach is empirical, but you still get the impression that Aristotle thought of it as self-evident.

---

After all who would want to be unhappy.

Some people desire strange things which fulfil psychological needs. Satisfaction can be derived from being upset, ignored, etc. Not that I'm suggesting these people are a majority or anything. But even if all people desire happiness that doesn't establish it as 'good' or 'right'. I disagree with Aristotle on that matter. Nothing is self-evident in my opinion. It's important to make as few assumptions as possible, but when they're made they should be acknowledged.

To me all sentient beings are afforded rights because of their ability to suffer. These things are not arbitrary and are related to human nature and biology.

Sentient beings are afforded rights by society. Rights disappear when there's no society to grant them or system to enforce them. That humans share a common sense of morality is not arbitrary, no. But assuming something is innate, and therefore good is arbitrary. Our sense of morality is "good" for survival. Phrases like "X is good" are meaningless to me, but phrases like "X is good for..." are useful. "Good" without context (such as "good for" or "good at") is a totally vacuous word. Still, I agree with the conclusion that we ought to give rights because I think they're good at increasing overall happiness.

Nature seems indifferent to suffering. The strong prey on the weak.

Nature isn't sentient so it is necessarily indifferent. You might say it's in nature's nature to be indifferent As for the strong preying on the weak (akin to the saying "survival of the fittest") that's not always the case. It's more accurate to say "the most well adapted survive". Throw a lion in the middle of an ocean and see how long it lasts.

[mediamogul]

Once we find that we are capable of reflecting upon our actions, of choosing to act any any manner other than what comes naturally and consider the consequences of those actions - we find ourselves looking for a guide to act according to. Our instincts and drives do favor a particular direction for this guide, but they do not completely determine it. I'd say that if we are to have any morality at all, it should be based on reason, not instincts or divine command.

While I remain hopeful that reason could find a definitive basis for morality, I do not think a compelling refutation of nihilism has yet been presented. Maybe it lies somewhere halfway between Aristotle and Kant, I don’t know. In the meantime, reason alone seems more like a means for searching and not the final product.

What is the basis for nihilism absent the existence of god? I was wondering if maybe you Chad or someone else could offer a rational basis for nihilism or at least a clear description of the logic behind this sentiment. It could give a clearer picture of what a refutation would look like. I take nihilism to be the belief that there are no positive values in the sense that one lacks belief that any anything could be deemed as either moral or immoral.

---

---

I'm not familiar with Aristotle at all (I know who he is though of course). Did he acknowledge that the thing that 'ought' to be done (pursuing happiness) was an assumption? If so, I agree. If he thought it was some sort of self-evident truth I totally disagree.

---

---

To paraphrase the Nichomachean Ethics, "Happiness is the good that all men desire." From there he goes on to give examples showing that the pursuit of pleasures, money and fame are sought because people believe those things will make them happy. His general approach is empirical, but you still get the impression that Aristotle thought of it as self-evident.

---

After all who would want to be unhappy.

Some people desire strange things which fulfil psychological needs. Satisfaction can be derived from being upset, ignored, etc. Not that I'm suggesting these people are a majority or anything. But even if all people desire happiness that doesn't establish it as 'good' or 'right'. I disagree with Aristotle on that matter. Nothing is self-evident in my opinion. It's important to make as few assumptions as possible, but when they're made they should be acknowledged.

To me all sentient beings are afforded rights because of their ability to suffer. These things are not arbitrary and are related to human nature and biology.

Sentient beings are afforded rights by society. Rights disappear when there's no society to grant them or system to enforce them. That humans share a common sense of morality is not arbitrary, no. But assuming something is innate, and therefore good is arbitrary. Our sense of morality is "good" for survival. Phrases like "X is good" are meaningless to me, but phrases like "X is good for..." are useful. "Good" without context (such as "good for" or "good at") is a totally vacuous word. Still, I agree with the conclusion that we ought to give rights because I think they're good at increasing overall happiness.

Nature seems indifferent to suffering. The strong prey on the weak.

Nature isn't sentient so it is necessarily indifferent. You might say it's in nature's nature to be indifferent As for the strong preying on the weak (akin to the saying "survival of the fittest") that's not always the case. It's more accurate to say "the most well adapted survive". Throw a lion in the middle of an ocean and see how long it lasts.

I am not arguing for an "innate sense" of ethics but instead from the ideas of happiness and suffering, which are both self-evidence claims. Basing ethics on facets of human nature and reason are not arbitrary as they are precisely based upon the reason and human nature!

ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective: 1.Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

As you can see this system of ethics is not simply arbitrary but in fact a direct refutation of the idea.

A person has a right to pursue something if it neither impinges upon the reasonable ability of another to pursue their own happiness or causes the unwarranted suffering of another sentient creature (a being that is capable of suffering). A person can pursue "weird" things, S+M for instance, provided it is a consensual act between those of sufficient agency to consent to such acts and provided they do not use others as a means to their own ends. This is rights theory in a nutshell.

The last objection I believe is the strongest. It is Hume's argument abou the "is" "ought" gap. Just because something IS the way it is doesn't mean it OUGHT to be that way.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What is the basis for nihilism absent the existence of god?

We can and do deem things as moral or immoral. The question lies in who or what serves as the ultimate standard or arbiter for determining which is which. In the absence of an ultimate standard or arbiter, each person is left on their own. The individual then becomes their own ultimate authority, each with equal claim for what is right and wrong, rational or irrational. While I could appeal to ideals like human dignity and ‘the golden rule’, another could deny both, and there would be no common thing to which either of us could point to prove the other wrong. The alternative is to assert the existence of some transcendent authority, principle or standard that applies to all individuals. Absent that true morality does not exist. No one has the ‘right’ to demand others behave in a particular way, because right do not exist. Appealing to reason is also insufficient. Saying that everyone should follow reason is just another unfounded assertion. Why should anyone be rational? This leaves power as the only ultimate authority. I call that nihilism.

[DeistPaladin]

We can and do deem things as moral or immoral. The question lies in who or what serves as the ultimate standard or arbiter for determining which is which.

I've mentioned the social contract before as you do later in this post.

In the absence of an ultimate standard or arbiter, each person is left on their own. The individual then becomes their own ultimate authority, each with equal claim for what is right and wrong, rational or irrational. While I could appeal to ideals like human dignity and ‘the golden rule’, another could deny both, and there would be no common thing to which either of us could point to prove the other wrong.

Anyone who denies the social contract is committing hypocrisy. How can you condone the treatment of another that you would not tolerate on you? Being unrepentantly evil toward our fellow sentients is logically inconsistent.

The alternative is to assert the existence of some transcendent authority, principle or standard that applies to all individuals.

Actually, appealing to or asserting the existence of God does nothing to elucidate either our understanding of what is moral or what morality is. All it does is move the problem back a step and provide a needless factor in the problem.

In sum: GodWillsIt is just as unsatisfying to our need to understand ethical dilemmas as GodDidIt is unsatisfying to our need to unravel scientific mysteries.

If God decides on morality, as a celestial lawgiver, this is still arbitrary and subjective morality by definition. Appeals to God's authority in such matters is the essence of might-makes-right that you are trying to avoid. No matter how wise, powerful or trusted God may be, if God decides what is or isn't moral, this is not an objective standard by definition.

If God determines what is moral, as a celestial arbiter, then morality exists outside of God and can be discovered by our own inquiries. That which is right and wrong would continue to remain so even if God went away, changed Its mind or turned out never to have existed in the first place.

Christians, aware of this dilemma, are known to babble about how it's both and neither one. The babble usually goes something along the lines of "the essence of goodness is grounded in the very nature of God and so God neither decides what is moral nor discovers it but simply is." If I'm not quite representing the attempted escape clause correctly, please forgive me but I think that's the jist. The problems with this apologetic drivel are legion:

1. WTF does it even mean? "Essence of goodness"? Is it a substance in the body of a deity? Are there goodness molecules? This bare assertion borders on the incoherent.
2. It's a bare assertion.
3. It's prone to circular pitfalls. How do we know Yahweh is good? Because Yahweh is good. And that's how we know that Yahweh's will is good because goodness is Yahweh's will. Yahweh wills what he wills and so his will is always good because goodness is bound into his will.
4. It's a contrived definition to arrive at the desired conclusion.
5. It only moves the dilemma one step back. Does Yahweh decide what his nature is? If so, it's arbitrary. If not, goodness exists as a standard outside of Yahweh.

Absent that true morality does not exist. No one has the ‘right’ to demand others behave in a particular way, because right do not exist. This leaves power as the only ultimate authority. I call that nihilism.

I call that the false dilemma fallacy.

[mediamogul]

---

I'm not familiar with Aristotle at all (I know who he is though of course). Did he acknowledge that the thing that 'ought' to be done (pursuing happiness) was an assumption? If so, I agree. If he thought it was some sort of self-evident truth I totally disagree.

---

---

To paraphrase the Nichomachean Ethics, "Happiness is the good that all men desire." From there he goes on to give examples showing that the pursuit of pleasures, money and fame are sought because people believe those things will make them happy. His general approach is empirical, but you still get the impression that Aristotle thought of it as self-evident.

---

After all who would want to be unhappy.

Some people desire strange things which fulfil psychological needs. Satisfaction can be derived from being upset, ignored, etc. Not that I'm suggesting these people are a majority or anything. But even if all people desire happiness that doesn't establish it as 'good' or 'right'. I disagree with Aristotle on that matter. Nothing is self-evident in my opinion. It's important to make as few assumptions as possible, but when they're made they should be acknowledged.

To me all sentient beings are afforded rights because of their ability to suffer. These things are not arbitrary and are related to human nature and biology.

Sentient beings are afforded rights by society. Rights disappear when there's no society to grant them or system to enforce them. That humans share a common sense of morality is not arbitrary, no. But assuming something is innate, and therefore good is arbitrary. Our sense of morality is "good" for survival. Phrases like "X is good" are meaningless to me, but phrases like "X is good for..." are useful. "Good" without context (such as "good for" or "good at") is a totally vacuous word. Still, I agree with the conclusion that we ought to give rights because I think they're good at increasing overall happiness.

Nature seems indifferent to suffering. The strong prey on the weak.

Nature isn't sentient so it is necessarily indifferent. You might say it's in nature's nature to be indifferent As for the strong preying on the weak (akin to the saying "survival of the fittest") that's not always the case. It's more accurate to say "the most well adapted survive". Throw a lion in the middle of an ocean and see how long it lasts.

I am not arguing for an "innate sense" of ethics but instead from the ideas of happiness and suffering, which are both self-evidence claims. Basing ethics on facets of human nature and reason are not arbitrary as they are precisely based upon the reason and human nature!

ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective: 1.Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

As you can see this system of ethics is not simply arbitrary but in fact a direct refutation of the idea.

A person has a right to pursue something if it neither impinges upon the reasonable ability of another to pursue their own happiness or causes the unwarranted suffering of another sentient creature (a being that is capable of suffering). A person can pursue "weird" things, S+M for instance, provided it is a consensual act between those of sufficient agency to consent to such acts and provided they do not use others as a means to their own ends. This is rights theory in a nutshell.

The last objection I believe is the strongest. It is Hume's argument abou the "is" "ought" gap. Just because something IS the way it is doesn't mean it OUGHT to be that way.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I've mentioned the social contract before as you do later in this post....Anyone who denies the social contract is committing hypocrisy. How can you condone the treatment of another that you would not tolerate on you? Being unrepentantly evil toward our fellow sentients is logically inconsistent.

Any 'social contract' requires both agreement and enforcement. What if I don't agree? Who's going to make me obey? Suppose, my only goal is to get what I want and evade punishment. I do not care about the well-being of anyone but my self. Sure that makes me a hypocrite. But why is it inherently wrong to be duplicitous? I don't believe in evil so what am I supposed to repent. You say I have to be logical, because it's the right thing to do. What makes it right?

I would like to remind you that the OP is about athesim having the high moral ground. If you want the high moral ground, then you must do more that show theism to be inadequate. You must present a valid non-theistic basis for morality and demonstrate that it is superior. Otherwise, atheism is utlimately amoral. Or at least not inherently any more moral than theism

[DeistPaladin]

Any 'social contract' requires both agreement and enforcement. What if I don't agree?

Then you should either live as a hermit outside of society or you would be a hypocrite.

Who's going to make me obey?

Society. Specifically, law enforcement.

I would like to remind you that the OP is about athesim having the high moral ground. If you want the high moral ground, then you must do more that show theism to be inadequate. You must present a valid non-theistic basis for morality and demonstrate that it is superior.

I've already done this. "Conflict of interest" ring any bells? I have yet to hear any refutation from you.

Otherwise, atheism is utlimately amoral. Or at least not inherently any more moral than theism

Atheism itself is a lack of a belief, not a belief. It would have to be something to be amoral. What I have demonstrated is that not only is theism not helpful, it's actually harmful to our understanding of morality. Hence, secularism is morally superior.

[Faith No More]

Actually, appealing to or asserting the existence of God does nothing to elucidate either our understanding of what is moral or what morality is. All it does is move the problem back a step and provide a needless factor in the problem.

In sum: GodWillsIt is just as unsatisfying to our need to understand ethical dilemmas as GodDidIt is unsatisfying to our need to unravel scientific mysteries.

To expand on this, I have seen two methods offered for how god dictates morality. One is divine revelation which as we've seen with how many ways people can interperet the bible means what is derived as morality from the bible actually stems from what is already inside of us. The second method is that god instills with an innate sense of morality, which as DP as pointed out, does nothing to understand our knowledge of what comprise these morals and what they rely on. Even if god did dictate in morality this way, we must still search for what this innate sense of morality actually means, and brining god into the equation does nothing to further the discussion of what is moral.

In short, regardless of whether you believe we evolved morals or god instilled them, they still stem from our own desires and wishes. Be they objective or subjective morals, divine will or evolution at work, they are filtered through our own interperetations of the world. This filter is what we should be striving to understand.

[Reforged]

If my brothers asks for me money I let him have it, if a friend needs help I'll give it my all, if I see a poor guy I'll give him a pound or two.
That doesn't mean I have some omnipotent being showing me the "righteous path". It simply means I'm not a dick.
The people who find it repulsive to do this stuff are often unpleasant to be around due to their unpleasant nature. Someone who repels others doesn't help himself by doing so.

In-short; co-operation is preferable to isolation.