Atheism and morality

[Rahul]

I also like to see others benefit from my actions at no positive gain of my own. But technically speaking, I wouldn't say I'm altruistic, because seeing others happy *is* my reward, and thus, "altruism" as we know it in its purest form, doesn't apply to me (or others I'd argue, unless they're indifferent to the positive outcome their actions had).

*sighs* Ok, I think the disconnect we are having in this discussion is that you are coming from human based psychology.

I never really cared for that. I had to take a class or two in college but it never really interested me. Don't get me wrong, I understand the benefits to humanity by exploring it. But I feel the same way about advanced mathematics. Very important, not my thing.

My personal interest that I study as a hobby is evolution. I've read a TON of books, studies, papers about evolution. While reading all I can find about evolution I've encountered, quite a bit, discussions about evolutionary psychology.

So I'm coming from a different starting point.

In evolutionary psychology "altruism" is something that an animal does that contributes to the survival of another animal with either a potentially detrimental affect on their own survival or no increased survival benefit at all.

Evolutionary psychology doesn't go into "feelings". So from that aspect, if I give food to a hungry person, or money to a homeless person, I'm deducting my own personal resources to give to another human/animal with no apparent benefit to my own potential survivability or the survivability of my close kin.

If we start talking about human psychology, sure, let's start talking about emotions and feelings.

Feelings don't really crop up when we are talking about why one Rhesus monkey shared food with some other, non related Rhesus monkey with no obvious benefit to itself.

In human psychology I think the literal definition of altruism is just as improbable as the definition of "perfection". It's an abstract concept that doesn't really exist.

[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?

[Whateverist]

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.

To be honest, aren't you just pulling all this crap out of your ass and then weaving a story around it. You challenge us to respond to your 'argument' but since your argument revolves around something whose existence is fundamentally in question, of course there is no way to challenge your shit. Here it is better to just note how full of shit you are, and move on. No one can win an argument over the nature of a thing which likely does not exist but which you seem to make up as you go.

[Inigo]

This just gets more fun as time passes.

Nothing like watching a 'philosopher' paint themselves into a corner.

I'm not in a corner. Do you get the impression I'm having any difficulty answering anyone's concerns/objections? Nobody has raised any serious concerns yet. I'm just painting. I'm right by the door, painting away. No problems.

---

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.

To be honest, aren't you just pulling all this crap out of your ass and then weaving a story around it. You challenge us to respond to your 'argument' but since your argument revolves around something whose existence is fundamentally in question, of course there is no way to challenge your shit. Here it is better to just note how full of shit you are, and move on. No one can win an argument over the nature of a thing which likely does not exist but which you seem to make up as you go.

You don't refute a position by calling its proponent a shit. And that's all you're doing.

[max-greece]

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.

---

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.

If God's morality (enforcement if you prefer) can change with time then you lose all ability to judge another's morality. If it can change with time it can change with each and every individual all the time. The man that goes out and murders prostitutes can argue that is what his morality told him to do - and you can't prove he didn't get that from God.

Usually people argue a morality from God position as it is easier to make judgements on another's morality that way. Your inconsistent God makes that impossible.

You are now missing the point entirely with regard to the wallet story. One person makes the moral decision to return the wallet, not for reward but simply for the pleasure it gives them. Another may choose to do otherwise. That's morality for you - not consistent. Morality is constantly at war with other emotions, thoughts and feelings - self interest being a common one.

The thing that you don't understand is that I made the decision to return the wallet simply because it was in my self interest to do so. The money or benefit I might have gained was worth less to me than the warm feeling doing the right thing provided.

Heaven doesn't come into it. I cannot imagine I have any chance of getting into heaven as an atheist - so being moral has no inducements from outside. As explained above, fortunately, they are not required.

Frankly having seen your arguments they carry so much that smacks of religion I have huge doubts you were ever atheist. You are far to ready to allocate good things to God and only evil to man.

The idea that people only behave morally through threat of punishment from God is a nauseating one that permeates Christianity.

[downbeatplumb]

By your logic the way to find out what is right or wrong is to consult a sociologist and ask them what the prevailing norms of one's society are! Want to find out whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Just do a survey of your society.

Now you're getting it.
We are social animals.
Born helpless we, more than any other animal, learn our behaviour from other people.
Without culture we would be like chimps. No more no less.

for more on this watch this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03..._us_Human/

[Inigo]

Figures, and typical.

The 'philosopher' can't, or won't, answer a simple, logical question.

So from this point forward, until my questions are answered, I'm going to sporadically post recipes for blueberries.

Because as annoying as it might be, at least it accomplishes something.

My presumption is that this 'philosophy' is one of those 'what is the sound of one hand clapping' ones. Which is easily dismissed as complete bullshit. So if the 'philosopher' wants to prove me wrong all he has to do is answer my simple, logical questions.



Original recipe makes 1 pie Change Servings

3/4 cup white sugar

3 tablespoons cornstarch

1/4 teaspoon salt

1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon

4 cups fresh blueberries

1 recipe pastry for a 9 inch double crust pie

1 tablespoon butter

Check All Add to Shopping List
Directions

Preheat oven to 425 degrees F (220 degrees C).
Mix sugar, cornstarch, salt, and cinnamon, and sprinkle over blueberries.
Line pie dish with one pie crust. Pour berry mixture into the crust, and dot with butter. Cut remaining pastry into 1/2 - 3/4 inch wide strips, and make lattice top. Crimp and flute edges.
Bake pie on lower shelf of oven for about 50 minutes, or until crust is golden brown.

What you mean is that until the 'philosopher' gives me answers I like, I will trot out ghastly recipes.
You do realise there are shops where you can buy pies that have already been made for you in factories dedicated to doing so? What else do you do - make your own shoes?

---

By your logic the way to find out what is right or wrong is to consult a sociologist and ask them what the prevailing norms of one's society are! Want to find out whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Just do a survey of your society.

Now you're getting it.
We are social animals.
Born helpless we, more than any other animal, learn our behaviour from other people.
Without culture we would be like chimps. No more no less.

for more on this watch this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03..._us_Human/

I would watch that, but for entirely different reasons.

So you think an act is right if and only if it is approved of by one's society? That's clearly false and only someone incompetent with moral concepts would think it.
When 'society' disapproved of giving women the vote that didn't make it morally right to deprive them of it, did it?

[fr0d0]

So Inigo, what are your thoughts so far? Have your thoughts developed or adapted since you started your dialogue here?
We seem bereft of philosophy students at this moment in time, who could perhaps challenge you in that arena (apart from apoplexia of course). Have you raised the question on those type of fora?

[downbeatplumb]

So you think an act is right if and only if it is approved of by one's society? That's clearly false and only someone incompetent with moral concepts would think it.
When 'society' disapproved of giving women the vote that didn't make it morally right to deprive them of it, did it?

It did at the time.

Queen Victoria was shocked by women trying to demand the vote. She knew that morally men were the masters, (the bible said so). So trying to gain the vote was immoral.

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."

http://blog.biographyonline.net/2007/10/...omens.html

But societies changed, morals improved.

As a result people are more moral now than at any point in history.

[Inigo]

If God's morality (enforcement if you prefer) can change with time then you lose all ability to judge another's morality. If it can change with time it can change with each and every individual all the time. The man that goes out and murders prostitutes can argue that is what his morality told him to do - and you can't prove he didn't get that from God.

Usually people argue a morality from God position as it is easier to make judgements on another's morality that way. Your inconsistent God makes that impossible.

Why on earth do you think I prefer 'enforcement'?
And I have already said, quite clearly, that talk of 'god's morality' just demonstrates a failure to grasp what is being said. I don't know what you mean when you talk of a 'god's morality'. Do you mean a god's moral beliefs? Or what? You're conceptually confused. Morality just 'is' a god's instructions and favourings. the god doesn't 'have' a morality, morality isn't something you 'have'. (Would you like anything with your coffee, sir? yes please, I'll have some morality with it if you've got any)

My view allows that what is right or wrong can alter over time. It does not entail that it has changed, just that it can. You seemed to think my view implied morality was fixed over time (and that this was a problem). I explained that it had no such implication and wondered why on earth you thought it did. You provided no answer. I explained that my view allows that right and wrong can alter over time, and now you consider THAT a problem. Odd. Seems you think morality is, and is not, fixed! More evidence that you're fundamentally confused.

But anyway, there is no problem if morality turns out to be fixed over time, and no problem if it isn't. My view allows that morality can alter over time. There is no problem here. No contradictions are generated. And it does not imply that if you sense that something is wrong that everyone else senses is right then it must be wrong for you and right for everyone else. If I sense that it is wrong for YOU to x and you sense that it is right for you to x we are disagreeing. It can't be right and wrong for you to x.