Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:58 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheist moral code
#11
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Survival of the fittest hardly qualifies as a moral principle.

Perhaps, go and study some biology and find out where empathy and social structures originate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operatio...olution%29
Reply
#12
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Survival of the fittest hardly qualifies as a moral principle.

In all the time you've spent on atheist forums, I know you know the difference between accepting evolution as a biological mechanism and accepting its tenets as moral principles. Just because the moral conscience was a result of evolution does not mean it has to follow evolution's guidelines.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#13
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 11:47 am)Faith No More Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Survival of the fittest hardly qualifies as a moral principle.

In all the time you've spent on atheist forums, I know you know the difference between accepting evolution as a biological mechanism and accepting its tenets as moral principles. Just because the moral conscience was a result of evolution does not mean it has to follow evolution's guidelines.

Is it that hard to understand?
Reply
#14
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 11:51 am)Alex K Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 11:47 am)Faith No More Wrote: In all the time you've spent on atheist forums, I know you know the difference between accepting evolution as a biological mechanism and accepting its tenets as moral principles. Just because the moral conscience was a result of evolution does not mean it has to follow evolution's guidelines.

Is it that hard to understand?

I'm sure if you really, really, don't want to even consider the possibility that human empathy and reason are evolutionary, it's very, very, hard to understand. Wink
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#15
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 11:51 am)Alex K Wrote: Is it that hard to understand?

No, but apparently it is too tempting to use as a strawman.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#16
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 11:42 am)FreeTony Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Survival of the fittest hardly qualifies as a moral principle.

Perhaps, go and study some biology and find out where empathy and social structures originate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operatio...olution%29

I will grant you that I have only a layman’s understanding of biology gained from popular books on the market, such as Robert Wright’s “The Moral Animal” and summaries of the work by E. O. Wilson. Scientists have done much good research into how humans gained the capacity for moral behavior. How this new and unique feature of our species came to be and how it affects behavior falls fully within the scope of scientific inquiry. Making value judgments about our inherited dispositions, social structures, and individual behaviors does not. Knowledge of evolutionary processes do not by their own conjure up moral imperatives.

Here is an interesting thought problem: Assume that humans and Neanderthals co-existed for a period of time, which I think has been shown to be the case. Here we have two sentient species each engaged in their own battle for their own survival. Does one or both have moral responsibilities to the other? What if the other species is entirely different, like the Formics in Ender’s Game?
Reply
#17
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 4:05 am)robvalue Wrote: It is entirely to each individual atheist to decide on their moral code.
Basically, moral relativism.

Only insofar as, say, fans of Metallica, or owners of a certain brand of refrigerator, could also be accused of moral relativism: like those two issues, atheism is a position on a single concept, not an overarching framework around which one builds their views. If you wouldn't say that people who like the Avengers are moral relativists because of the diversity of their moral views, you can't do the same to atheism.

Quote:And from where does the conscience come? Survival of the fittest hardly qualifies as a moral principle.

Our survival niche is community and group building, and an excellent way to ensure that those groups remain cohesive despite being diverse, is a sense of empathy, the conscience. Those of us who can consider moral propositions with greater complexity, who can imagine ourselves in the shoes of others, have a better chance of surviving than those that do not, within the context of the human species. It bears mentioning that "survival of the fittest" doesn't just mean strongest; it's a context sensitive phrase, where "fittest" means different things depending on the survival niches of the organism you're applying the phrase to. Fittest, with regards to humans, means those of us better able to leverage our group dynamics, which our conscience has developed to limit disruptions to.

Quote:Confirmation bias.

How so? Just naming a fallacy isn't a magic spell, you know. You need to go into a bit of detail.

Quote: Here is an interesting thought problem: Assume that humans and Neanderthals co-existed for a period of time, which I think has been shown to be the case. Here we have two sentient species each engaged in their own battle for their own survival. Does one or both have moral responsibilities to the other? What if the other species is entirely different, like the Formics in Ender’s Game?

I'm actually really glad you mentioned the Formics, because that's a really good example of how I would answer this question. Spoilers for Ender's Game, here. Tongue

At the end of the novel- I haven't seen the movie- we hear the Formic queen's side of the story; the Formics are hive-minded, and killing individual drones is akin to clipping a hangnail, to them. They, mistakenly, thought that they share this property with humans, leading them to kill human beings because they didn't see a problem with it from their perspective. When they found out that humans work differently to them, they stopped killing humans and withdrew, actually performing a type of ritualized suicide as penance for their mistakes.

Although I stop short at the ritual suicide part, I think this is a good example of how radically different species should approach each other: the Formics considered the morality of how they interacted with humans based on the context of how humans operated, and were able to make a moral choice that applies to humans but not to Formics. This kind of consideration is ideal; you observe the realities of how the other species lives, and construct your moral considerations regarding them based on that.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#18
RE: Atheist moral code
An honest question, why not consider all other sentient species and existential threat to humanity. Is there a moral reason, based on natural selection, for not sending Von Neumann berserker machines out as a preemptive strike against potential threats.
Reply
#19
RE: Atheist moral code
No, because natural selection provides no moral guidance.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#20
RE: Atheist moral code
(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 4:05 am)robvalue Wrote: It is entirely to each individual atheist to decide on their moral code.
Basically, moral relativism.

It's possible to have purely secular morality that is not relative.

We all live in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws, with more or less the same brains and bodies.

The chances that what I want/need to survive, thrive, be healthy and happy are pretty much what the vast majority of humanity also wants/needs. Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, freedom is preferable to slavery, etc.

From the above, I can evaluate every situation that requires a moral action to try to get the best overall outcome for the most people, and to minimize the worst outcome for the most people.

For example, slavery is always wrong, and it always has been. You know how you can tell? Ask the slaves how they feel about it.

(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 4:05 am)robvalue Wrote: In general, people get their morality from their conscience, …
And from where does the conscience come? Survival of the fittest hardly qualifies as a moral principle.

Survival of the fittest does not mean, for social species, the most aggressive, meanest, selfish bastard is the fittest to survive. Human's survival strategy is not the same as tigers.

Or morality is derived, to a large extent, specifically from our being a complex social species.

(March 4, 2015 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 4:05 am)robvalue Wrote: Funnily enough, I've noticed a far more consistent set of general morals from atheists than I have from theists.
Confirmation bias.

Not exactly.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html

The most atheistic countries in the world (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland) are considered the best places to live. They have lower crime rates, lower poverty, better health care, better education rates, lower infant mortality, lower political corruption, than most of religious countries, including the US.



.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 7393 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Moral universalism and theism Interaktive 20 1756 May 6, 2022 at 7:23 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The code that is DNA Yukon_Jack 922 61077 January 14, 2020 at 12:45 am
Last Post: SteelCurtain
  Religion stifles Moral Evolution Cecelia 107 14834 December 4, 2017 at 2:37 pm
Last Post: Astreja
  Does religion expose the shortcomings of empathy based moral systems henryp 19 2354 December 2, 2017 at 7:54 pm
Last Post: henryp
  Creationist Moral Panic Amarok 15 5570 June 13, 2017 at 10:42 am
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  The Moral Argument for God athrock 211 36539 December 24, 2015 at 4:53 am
Last Post: robvalue
  General question about the possibility of objective moral truth Michael Wald 63 12572 September 15, 2015 at 10:28 am
Last Post: TheRocketSurgeon
  Moral Compass Lakul 40 7921 April 6, 2015 at 8:28 am
Last Post: Spooky
  Atheists only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"? Tsun Tsu 326 63652 February 25, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)