Why be good?

[Iroscato]

I can't be arsed to go through nine pages, but I have to say this.  Every time someone asks, "Why be good without God?" I hear the person saying, "I only do good for a reward."

Then you're not really listening to the question.

And you have apparently been ignoring the answers.

[c172]

FNM is spot on. So, Randy my man, the man with the plan, what was the question again?

[Randy Carson]

Can atheists justify, according to atheist principles, why they believe it is "wrong" to pollute oceans, cut down rain forests, or hack into someone’s bank account and steal their life savings? If the stronger members of the human species engage in such behaviors in their pursuit of dominating the weaker members, and if there is no God and therefore no transcendent, prescriptive moral law given by God to guide us into knowing what is right and what is wrong, then on what grounds can atheists legitimately oppose such behaviors?

You really like strawmen don't you.  There is no such thing as atheist principles.  Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is a state of being in which a person does not believe in a god or gods.

Individual atheists myself included might have various reasons for why they believe theft and murder are wrong.  Some may also be environmentalists, but not all. 

I personally believe somethings are wrong and somethings are right out of a combination of gut instinct (evolution is at work there I'm sure), empathy for others (evolution again), social training, and reason.   If I were to state my operating rule when in doubt it would be this:  choose that course of action which you would have required if you were able to write the rules for humanity before your sex, race, nationality, abilities, etc. were known.

The justification is simple.  Morals are there to allow people to live together in the most mutually advantageous way possible.

Doing so would be intolerant and would have the net result of the atheist forcing his morality on others -- the very thing atheists object to in the first place.

First of all, once again not all atheists object to religious morality.  That generally isn't why atheists are atheists.  (hint it's that little matter of the complete lack of evidence for god).

So what is the justification for imposing my morality on others?  None, I don't and I can't.  But society can enforce it's morality and does so in the form of laws and social interactions.  In democracies those laws enacted based upon societies common sense of morality.  When one religious group attempts to take control of this process the results tend to be bad for society as a whole.  Secular morality is therefore preferable.

And, as it happens, I do object to strictures imposed by religious persons when the only justification for it is my god says so. Let me give you an example.  Thou shalt not kill is pretty much universally accepted as a good rule, advantageous to society as a whole. Thou shalt not eat pork is not.  Nor is thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain or thou shalt have no other gods before me. My objections come in the form of political participation and/or appeal to the First Amendment.

Jenny-

If you Google the terms "theory of evolution' and "natural selection", you can read about the "survival of the fittest".

The reason we know about certain cultures such as the Spartans, the Visigoths, the Mongols, etc. is because they dominated those around them and survived. And within those "small groups", the alpha male led the group and passed on his genes through the offspring of the females he wanted. 

Now, in this thread, you can see how eager many are to backpedal away from this fact of nature because of its implications. But the lacuna is the transition from "survival of the fittest" to feeling warmth and empathy toward the weak and less fortunate members of the group. After millions of years of dominating and even killing off of the weak, are we to believe that we have recently begun looking out for others - even at our own expense? I'm not saying that does not happen in isolated cases, but it does not serve the long-term interests of the group to do so.

So, given that evolution is a presupposition in most atheists' belief system, then I am interested in hearing an explanation for the obvious incoherence resulting from holding simultaneously that:

1. any species that evolves does so on the basis of natural selection and survival of the fittest, and
   
2. man has evolved in a different manner such that being "good" is now more beneficial to the group/species than the dominance of the weak by the strong.
   

Thanks.

[Simon Moon]

So, given that evolution is a presupposition in most atheists belief system, then I am interested in hearing an explanation for the obvious incoherence resulting from holding simultaneously that:

1. any species that evolves does so on the basis of natural selection and survival of the fittest, and
   
2. man has evolved in a different manner such that being "good" is now more beneficial to the group/species than the dominance of the weak by the strong.
   

Thanks.

Evolution is not a presupposition to atheism. My atheism is not dependent on evolution being true. My atheism is dependent on the case for the existence of a god, as presented by theists, not meeting its burden of proof. 

Almost 80% of Christians in Europe accept evolution as being true. Because, after all, it is.

Atheism dates back thousands of years before evolutionary theory.

Humans have not evolved in a different manner. Every social species values members of its own group over others. Cooperation, kin selection , reciprocity is seen in every single social species. That is why they are classifies as a social species. 

Bonobo chimps, our closest genetic cousins, have the following behaviors: share food with other members of their group even when in short supply, protect weaker members even at risk to their own safety, adopt orphaned babies and treat them like their own, punish violent members of the group, show sadness when a member of the group dies. And much more similar behaviors. 

Doesn't the above bonobo behavior sound an awful lot like morality to you?

[Randy Carson]

Jenny-

If morality is purely a social construct, would you have a problem with a society that requires that widows be burned on their dead husband's funeral pyres like the Hindus required? Would you object to Muslim society in which little girls are subjected to genital mutilation?

These practices were/are agreed to by the majority if not unanimity of these cultures. Who are we to impose our values on them?

You forget that I live in and have been educated in a particular society and largely share that societies morality.  So yes I have strong objections to both genital mutilation and burning widows on funeral pyres.  But the people who live in those countries might not, yet they consider themselves to be moral.  Obviously the standard is subjective.

However, a subjective standard does not mean one can't argue that one set of morals is better than another.  It's just the the appeal can't be made to a higher authority such as god.  By the way, you do realize that both of these objectionable practices are at their roots religious practices.

Jenny-

Let's broaden this a bit just for a moment.

Suppose an alien race arrives on our planet with a completely different set of values. 

They immediately rape all earth women in order to impregnate them while killing off all earth males. )BTW - Rape is considered a good thing on their planet because females should be honored to be the recipient of the males attention and seed. You won't mind that now that you can see their point of view, will you?)

Oh, and the reason they've come to earth is to begin farming us for food. So, your offspring, cute little mutants (you'll be bearing a litter, actually), will be consumed by the male who mated with you.

Now, remember, in their culture, rape is not wrong. Nor is the subjugation and consumption of humans.

So, why should this alien race be "good" when it is in their best interest to do otherwise?

Have they evolved differently? Or not at all? Or is evolution really not such an adequate process by which to develop "good" and "bad" behavior?

[Cyberman]

Piranhas.

They are known for their voracious flesh-rending attack behaviour, overwhelming their victim with speed and strength of numbers. They do not, however, as a rule, prey on each other, despite the obvious advantages that would suggest and which you have been postulating throughout this thread. Why is that? Are they closet xtians? Or do they have an inbuilt moral sense analogous to ours? Or is there possibly some other reason?

[Simon Moon]

Piranhas.

They are known for their voracious flesh-rending attack behaviour, overwhelming their victim with speed and strength of numbers. They do not, however, as a rule, prey on each other, despite the obvious advantages that would suggest and which you have been postulating throughout this thread. Why is that? Are they closet xtians? Or do they have an inbuilt moral sense analogous to ours? Or is there possibly some other reason?

Yep. I use the piranha example often.


I go surfing several times a week in waters that quite possibly have sharks on any given day. If a shark ate me, it is not behaving immorally. 

 

[Esquilax]

I can't be arsed to go through nine pages, but I have to say this.  Every time someone asks, "Why be good without God?" I hear the person saying, "I only do good for a reward."

Then you're not really listening to the question.

Oh, so you can see a reason to be moral that isn't just "god says!"? And you feel that this would escape us... why?

If you Google the terms "theory of evolution' and "natural selection", you can read about the "survival of the fittest".

Yes, you absolutely can! And surprising absolutely fucking nobody, your strawman is not what we find. 

Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8] In the punctuated equilibrium model of environmental and biological change, the factor determining survival is often not superiority over another in competition but ability to survive dramatic changes in environmental conditions, such as after a meteor impact energetic enough to greatly change the environment globally. The main land dwelling animals to survive the K-Pg impact 66 million years ago had the ability to live in underground tunnels, for example.

In 2010 Sahney et al. argued that there is little evidence that intrinsic, biological factors such as competition have been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. Instead, they cited extrinsic, abiotic factors such as expansion as the driving factor on a large evolutionary scale. The rise of dominant groups such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds occurred by opportunistic expansion into empty ecological niches and the extinction of groups happened due to large shifts in the abiotic environment.[8]

That's the section on survival of the fittest from a biological perspective, by the way. There's a section on the way creationists use it too, I think you might find it interesting:

Critics of theories of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[11] However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour – co-operating with others and treating them well – might improve evolutionary fitness.[9][12] This however does not resolve the is-ought problem.

You shot yourself in the foot on this one. The big question remaining is whether, now that your own suggestion to do some research has so wonderfully showed that you have done none yourself, you'll let go of this infantile and increasingly dishonest strawman, or whether you'll continue to lie to us by persisting, in the process showing how little you, personally, care for your supposed transcendent moral laws.

[Jenny A]

---

You really like strawmen don't you.  There is no such thing as atheist principles.  Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is a state of being in which a person does not believe in a god or gods.

Individual atheists myself included might have various reasons for why they believe theft and murder are wrong.  Some may also be environmentalists, but not all. 

---

I personally believe somethings are wrong and somethings are right out of a combination of gut instinct (evolution is at work there I'm sure), empathy for others (evolution again), social training, and reason.   If I were to state my operating rule when in doubt it would be this:  choose that course of action which you would have required if you were able to write the rules for humanity before your sex, race, nationality, abilities, etc. were known.

The justification is simple.  Morals are there to allow people to live together in the most mutually advantageous way possible.

---

First of all, once again not all atheists object to religious morality.  That generally isn't why atheists are atheists.  (hint it's that little matter of the complete lack of evidence for god).

So what is the justification for imposing my morality on others?  None, I don't and I can't.  But society can enforce it's morality and does so in the form of laws and social interactions.  In democracies those laws enacted based upon societies common sense of morality.  When one religious group attempts to take control of this process the results tend to be bad for society as a whole.  Secular morality is therefore preferable.

And, as it happens, I do object to strictures imposed by religious persons when the only justification for it is my god says so. Let me give you an example.  Thou shalt not kill is pretty much universally accepted as a good rule, advantageous to society as a whole. Thou shalt not eat pork is not.  Nor is thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain or thou shalt have no other gods before me. My objections come in the form of political participation and/or appeal to the First Amendment.

---

Jenny-

If you Google the terms "theory of evolution' and "natural selection", you can read about the "survival of the fittest".

And I and many other sure wish you would actually do that because survival of the fittest doesn't mean what you think it does.

Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest to the ripest old age.  It means survival of genes in future generations either through direct parenthood, or through the promotion of those closely related.

Killing other members of the same species is a way in which some individuals achieve this end, but it is hardly the only method.  Nor is it likely to lead to success for the species as a whole.  If the whole species is decimated then no one's genes carry forward.  Not surprisingly therefore, in most species competing males do no kill each other nor do females kill of each others offspring.  Once one male is determined to be stronger, the fight is at an end.  Females in many species, not just ours, help other raise their offspring.  In some species there is no fight at all, just a courtship dance or other display.  And the extent of the display is limited by biological cost.

Other species rely on shear numbers of offspring.  Most insects and many, many fish fit this catagory.  Plants too. Don't forget about plants.  

In social mammals like humans and many other primates, getting along in the group and wooing are a large part of reproduction and child rearing requires much time effort peace and cooperation.  Humans are enormously successful mammals.  That success is based upon successful specialization and cooperation.

The reason we know about certain cultures such as the Spartans, the Visigoths, the Mongols, etc. is because they dominated those around them and survived. And within those "small groups", the alpha male led the group and passed on his genes through the offspring of the females he wanted. 

Actually the reason we know about them is because other surviving more literate cultures wrote about them.  The Spartans were never a world power.  They didn't even conquer Greece. The Spartans were annihilated by the Romans after being weakened by the revolt of their lower, non warrior class the helots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta

The Visigoths and the Mongols didn't fair well in the long run either.  But I should add that internally, all three cultures thrived on social cooperation. None of them would have been remotely successful if they had not cooperated extensively with each other within their individual cultures.  This is true of all successful nations.

Now, in this thread, you can see how eager many are to backpedal away from this fact of nature because of its implications. But the lacuna is the transition from "survival of the fittest" to feeling warmth and empathy toward the weak and less fortunate members of the group. After millions of years of dominating and even killing off of the weak, are we to believe that we have recently begun looking out for others - even at our own expense? I'm not saying that does not happen in isolated cases, but it does not serve the long-term interests of the group to do so.

We have been looking out for others at our own expense for a very long time.  Frankly, it's something parents have been doing for the survival of their children as long as there have been people.  Nor are we the only species that behaves this way.  Evolution rewards those with surviving children.  If the group as a whole does not survive no ones children survive.

So, given that evolution is a presupposition in most atheists' belief system, then I am interested in hearing an explanation for the obvious incoherence resulting from holding simultaneously that:


[*]any species that evolves does so on the basis of natural selection and survival of the fittest, and
[*]man has evolved in a different manner such that being "good" is now more beneficial to the group/species than the dominance of the weak by the strong.

[*]

If you are really interested in learning rather than merely putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah" I suggest the following:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you...e-empathic

http://cogprints.org/3392/1/lovempat.htm

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125382470366238705

More is just a google search away.

[Randy Carson]

Since you haven't responded to my previous post, I'll try again.

Do you try to show up for work on time every day because if you don't you might get fired or lose a pay raise? We ALL act out of fear of the stick sometimes, don't we? Not always, but sometimes?

Sometimes yes. It's the 'Sometimes, no' that you should be paying attention to though because it means that there are reasons other than fear of authority which motivate ethical behaviour.

So, I have to steer it back this way: if (hypothetically) if someone is going to scratch and claw his way to the top of the company ladder or get elected president or seduce the hottest woman in the room, etc., and these things are in his best interest, why shouldn't he prove or exert his dominance by taking that job, that woman, etc. regardless of how he does it?

Once again, you've already been given the answer to this. I'm starting to wonder if you're reading the posts. It's because we don't act solely out of self-interest. Humans (most of us) have empathy, it's a result of our evolution as a social species. So we act with an awareness of the impacts our actions will have on others and, as equally important, the impact that others' actions have on ourselves.

Don't the strongest survive and weakest die off?

No. That's completely wrong. The 'fittest' survive. That means 'the most suited'. Darwin himself provided clarification that he observed it was generally 'the most adaptable' rather than 'the most specifically adapted' who survived.

And if it is in the best interest of the strongest individual or society or nation, etc, to subjugate another individual or nation in some manner, so what? 

It's not necessarily the case. Although history gives us plenty of examples where conquerors ruled by subjugation, there are as many examples where cooperation was the cause of social success. Humanity as a whole would not have reached the level it has if people, generally, acted solely out of self-interest and eschewed cooperation.

Why be good when outweighed by the advantages of being bad?

If you really think that being 'bad' is a more successful survival strategy than being 'good', then I'm glad you have a mechanism, however erroneous, that prevents you from acting on those psychopathic impulses. I hope you realise that psychopathies are experienced by a tiny minority of humans. The rest of us get the whole 'empathy' thing instinctively.

Ben-

You asked if I'm reading the posts. 

I am.