Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

Well, not everyone has a moral sense. If atheism is true that is as much as can be said for altruism. IF you like it - if you're into altruism - then great. But if you hate it, then, well, you have no reason to be altruistic.

Yeah, and those people are called sociopaths, because they lack at least a part of the moral module in their brain which gives off certain signals to your conscious mind when you think about the outcome of a specific act. If you will, the moral circuitry is actually 'instructing' you too be more likely to go for a certain outcome because picking the incorrect one will send the wrong signal, or the signal to think about the other outcome will not reveal itself at all. The moral agent is a part of the sub-conscious circuitry of the brain itself.

See this article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/29/sc...ty-center/
We are hardwired to think a certain way. Turning off certain portions of the brain literally causes people to lose their morality. Scary, but true.

And maybe it is just that we do not have the freedom to think in a non-moralistic way, at least most of us.

There is no one instructing us to think a certain way.

We feel the outcomes as wrong since our brain does effect our entire body as well. We are hardwired to think a certain way therefore our morality is hardwired as well.

We don't just judge altruism to be altruism. We judge it to have moral goodness. It is that feature that I am wondering about.

We judge something to have moral goodness because we are hardwired to think that way.

Are you a moral nihilist? There's a difference between being hardwired to sense that something is the case, and it actually being the case.
What if a sense of god was found to be hardwired into some people? Would you say 'ah, well we've discovered that god does exist'?? No, of course not. So, if our moral sense is just a quirk of our brain chemistry that allowed our ancestors to breed more successfully (which is all it would be if atheism is true) then morality does not exist, does it? There's a sense of external instructions, but no actual external instructions just brain chemistry.

[paulpablo]

Yeah, and those people are called sociopaths, because they lack at least a part of the moral module in their brain which gives off certain signals to your conscious mind when you think about the outcome of a specific act. If you will, the moral circuitry is actually 'instructing' you too be more likely to go for a certain outcome because picking the incorrect one will send the wrong signal, or the signal to think about the other outcome will not reveal itself at all. The moral agent is a part of the sub-conscious circuitry of the brain itself.

See this article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/29/sc...ty-center/
We are hardwired to think a certain way. Turning off certain portions of the brain literally causes people to lose their morality. Scary, but true.

And maybe it is just that we do not have the freedom to think in a non-moralistic way, at least most of us.

There is no one instructing us to think a certain way.

We feel the outcomes as wrong since our brain does effect our entire body as well. We are hardwired to think a certain way therefore our morality is hardwired as well.

We judge something to have moral goodness because we are hardwired to think that way.

Are you a moral nihilist? There's a difference between being hardwired to sense that something is the case, and it actually being the case.
What if a sense of god was found to be hardwired into some people? Would you say 'ah, well we've discovered that god does exist'?? No, of course not. So, if our moral sense is just a quirk of our brain chemistry that allowed our ancestors to breed more successfully (which is all it would be if atheism is true) then morality does not exist, does it? There's a sense of external instructions, but no actual external instructions just brain chemistry.

Why does morality have to be external instructions?

[Inigo]

What is in dispute is what it would for altruism to have moral goodness. We don't just judge altruism to be altruism. We judge it to have moral goodness.

When you say "we" who are you addressing in this statement, and do the people who you are addressing always see altruism as moral goodness no matter who it is directed at?

I don't always judge altruism to be moral goodness, there are some people who I think don't deserve as much concern or charity but who do get it, and I think it's totally wrong.

I've already mentioned this. Of course altruism is not always right. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it is supererogatory, sometimes it is subererogatory, sometimes it is permissible.
THe point, though, is that this is beside the point. When altruism is or is not a virtue is a matter in normative ethics. What we are talking about here is what morality 'is', not what it tells us to do and be.

---

Why does morality have to be external instructions?

If it was an internal instruction (an instruction you issue to yourself) you would lack inescapable reason to comply with it.

[simplexity]

@Inigo

It exists as a concept and in our own minds, which I have no problem with. Why do you need morality to be a an immaterial yet truly existing 'thing' or, even a physical agent? It's not a problem for most people that some things are abstract. Obviously, by your definition of whether something exists or not, I don't believe it exists. So what. My definition of what exists resides in the abstract world as well. It's not that difficult.

And maybe it is external. It does not mean this agent has to be intelligent, just that it gives the required output for you to have a sense of.

[Psykhronic]

If it was an internal instruction (an instruction you issue to yourself) you would lack inescapable reason to comply with it.

Because... you said so?

[paulpablo]

When you say "we" who are you addressing in this statement, and do the people who you are addressing always see altruism as moral goodness no matter who it is directed at?

I don't always judge altruism to be moral goodness, there are some people who I think don't deserve as much concern or charity but who do get it, and I think it's totally wrong.

I've already mentioned this. Of course altruism is not always right. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it is supererogatory, sometimes it is subererogatory, sometimes it is permissible.
THe point, though, is that this is beside the point. When altruism is or is not a virtue is a matter in normative ethics. What we are talking about here is what morality 'is', not what it tells us to do and be.

---

Why does morality have to be external instructions?

If it was an internal instruction (an instruction you issue to yourself) you would lack inescapable reason to comply with it.

What inescapable reasons are there for abiding by the external instructions which you say morality consists of?

[Inigo]

If it was an internal instruction (an instruction you issue to yourself) you would lack inescapable reason to comply with it.

Because... you said so?

Er, no. I've argued why umpteen times. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over your interests in an afterlife would be ones we'd always have reason to comply with whatever she wished us to do. Moral instructions are instructions we have reason to comply with whatever it instructs us to do. So far as I can see, then, that's the only way something with all the characteristics of a moral instruction can exist: it requires a god.

---

I've already mentioned this. Of course altruism is not always right. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it is supererogatory, sometimes it is subererogatory, sometimes it is permissible.
THe point, though, is that this is beside the point. When altruism is or is not a virtue is a matter in normative ethics. What we are talking about here is what morality 'is', not what it tells us to do and be.

---

If it was an internal instruction (an instruction you issue to yourself) you would lack inescapable reason to comply with it.

What inescapable reasons are there for abiding by the external instructions which you say morality consists of?

Instrumental reasons.

---

@Inigo

It exists as a concept and in our own minds, which I have no problem with. Why do you need morality to be a an immaterial yet truly existing 'thing' or, even a physical agent? It's not a problem for most people that some things are abstract. Obviously, by your definition of whether something exists or not, I don't believe it exists. So what. My definition of what exists resides in the abstract world as well. It's not that difficult.

And maybe it is external. It does not mean this agent has to be intelligent, just that it gives the required output for you to have a sense of.

If you accept that morality does not really exist if atheism is true, then you agree with me. YOu accept that no acts are really right or wrong if atheism is true.

[paulpablo]

You're saying that the reason why you know god exists is because there are morals, which are external instructions which are inescapable, and they are inescapable because they are instructions from a god, is that not circular logic? You believe morals are from god because they are from god? Because they are instructions from someone who has our interests in the afterlife as a concern?



Instrumental reasons such as?

[Inigo]

Instrumental reasons such as?

Instrumentalism about practical reason is the view that you have a reason to do something if doing it would serve some end of yours.

So, you desire a cup of coffee. You have a reason to make yourself a cup of coffee.

Instrumentalism is the view that all real reasons are like this.

[paulpablo]

Instrumental reasons such as?

Instrumentalism about practical reason is the view that you have a reason to do something if doing it would serve some end of yours.

So, you desire a cup of coffee. You have a reason to make yourself a cup of coffee.

Instrumentalism is the view that all real reasons are like this.

So what end would it serve to abide by the external instructions that morality consists of?