Questions

[Captain Scarlet]

Morality is made mysterious by theists who often ask were it came from. Its casusitry I'm afraid. There is a lot of evidence that we have to behave well to one another in order to survive as a species. Just a simple thought experiment: what happens to a society who believe murder is always acceptable? They die out, therefore only societies who do not think murder is always acceptable survive. But it runs deeper than that, a more detailed sketch of human morality without the need for god can be seen in the contractairan model. It is by no means a full explanation, but is no worse than the god model and it is simpler in that it does not need to invoke a diety.

1. Survival is not the only object of evaluation regarding shared values so any moral theory based on survival is false (does not consider all values). Survival based morality also requires that anything that is contrary to survival is morally wrong (unless a sub-criteria is established) making even willing death (suicide and euthanasia) morally wrong. All recreational activities that carry risk of death are also contrary to survival values.

2. Social contracts do not exist, political contracts are a 'best representation' and not a 'mutual agreement' - it is not necessarily majority either in some nations either, more like 'largest minority' and even if it was the majority or unanimous it would still be an argument from popularity: "It is true that P (moral proposition) because the majority believe that P".

Besides, Contractarianism would conclude that rape is morally right should the group in question mostly agree to it, so really it's moral relativism + a piece of paper (contract).

Can't have made my point clearly enough contextually then. My point isn't that survival is an important factor nor that contractarianism is correct (it is one of a number of views held by ethicists. My point is that you do not need god to get you to objective morality, that there is no such thing as absolute morality, and that god is a more complicated explanation than natural ones.

---

2) if god has set the moral standards, what is the objective moral truth on same sex marriage, coveting wealth and atheism; all of which are condemned explicilty in the bible but all of which seem to be something that a free society should allow

Damn I just realized that the New Testament condemns in many sections greed, which is actually a good thing in moderate quantities. Not to mention drives economic and technological development.

Quite right emulation is a significant force for growth in a free society. Nothing wrong with that.

Its a pity catholics and other churches don't practice what their heros teach. "...eye of a needle...", "...don't covet your neighbours donkey..." etc. The catholic church is SO wealthy it has its own bank, the Church Commission in England is the UKs biggest landowner. Could it just be that they know full well that we have just one life, so no point in practising poverty like Jesus?

The other thing I find bizarre is how anyone could take it seriously. The supposed creator of 400bn galaxies each with billions of stars, actually doesn't want you looking enviously at your neighbours donkey, but is OK with child abuse and slavery. Now that is one enlighted creator

[norbie]

Hello. This is my first official post (besides my introduction post ), so I apologize if I have asked something that another thread has answered.

I just became an Atheist maybe six months ago. Anyway, I have a friend who is devoutly Christian, and he has asked me some of the following questions, which I haven't been able to answer. I am hoping to find those answers here.

1.) If someone is an Atheist and believes in materialism, how do they account for thought? Is human thought just a chemical reaction?

2.) If someone is an Atheist how do they define morality? Christianity's moral system is irrelevant to an Atheist, so how do they define what is right and wrong? Is there even a difference between right and wrong to an Atheist? If there is no creator of the universe, then there is no truth, so there can be no right and wrong for an Atheist, which means that an Atheist believes that cold blooded murder is just fine.

These are some of the things he asks me, and I am not able to defend an Atheist point of view very well. How do y'all account for human thought and morality? Thanks!

(first time poster be gentle with me)


1. I believe we are always unconsciously absorbing information. I think we are a combination of this flood of sensory information. Other factors that shape who we are is our genetics, the food we choose to eat, pollution in our enviroment, the drugs we take, sex, the physical traumas our bodies experience...things that we see as so irrelevant to who we are in fact play a great deal in how our brain responds to any given situation and thus helps defines who we become. I think we're amalgams of the things we experience in our lifetime...from the time we're small children we're constantly absorbing information that we tuck away to access later. We're like computers...garbage in garbage out...the things we've experienced form our actions whether we're aware of it or not. I don't have a soul that will live forever...when my brain dies I die. When my brain undergoes severe trauma my personality...the thing that makes me ME is fundamentally altered. Everything in the universe is based on entropy...everything falls away. We're not meant to be spirits living forever in heaven living out some sort of wish fullment fantasy for eternity...wish fullment can't sustain you for enternity...I reject heaven because it is purposeless...there is no greater good for yourself or for anyone else that you're really working towards...you're just there wasting time. I think we atheists (myself included) fall into the trap that there is no point to life...life is only pointless if you let it be. Our job is to find that purpose for ourselves. We may not believe there is a God with a meaningful purpose who created the universe but that means we have more of a challenge when it comes to finding our own individual purpose in this life. I'm guessing everyone here thinks they're fairly smart...we need to rise to the occassion and use those smarts for some purpose worthy of such a gift instead of giving into moral absolutism, despair and depravity.

2. I believe as atheists it is our responsibility to show that we can be moral because there is always the misconception that we are not moral. I may not be christian but I don't have a problem with a moral framework...because you know I don't think we should kill, or steal or commit adultery...not because God tells me it's wrong but because *I* know it is wrong. To me religion without morality is fanaticism. Atheism without morality is Nihilism.

I think we all have to some sort of code of morality to function in the real world...there are plenty of believers and non believers alike crowding our jail cells who never learned this lesson. I don't think Atheism gives you carte blanche to be a dick. I hate religion because I think it's a millstone around the neck of people with that spark of greatness that really can change this world for the better...it's a tool to keep the masses in check. The problem is...a lot of the masses need to be kept in check. There seem to be more and more crazy people these days.

[theVOID]

Can't have made my point clearly enough contextually then. My point isn't that survival is an important factor nor that contractarianism is correct (it is one of a number of views held by ethicists. My point is that you do not need god to get you to objective morality, that there is no such thing as absolute morality, and that god is a more complicated explanation than natural ones.

I agree with all of that

Ultimately there is either one objective theory of morality or there are none, it all hinges on what values are and whether or not the things that are (or give rise to) values can be evaluated outside the attitudes of person(s). I'm fairly certain that all values are relational properties and are the products of desires, not only can you phrase any value statement as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects, but they automatically account for intention (they are the only reason for action that exists) and they are brain states (downstream from the dopamine 'motivation/reward' system), so there are scientific truths to be known about desires. We have empirical evidence for the claim that you always act to fulfil the most/strongest from competing sets of desires.

If it can be true or false that desires are good and bad for an individual relative to it's ability to fulfil other desires (because this necessarily has more value than the alternatives that fulfil less/weaker desires) then it is also true that in terms of shared values (what is good and bad for 'us') that which is morally good is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires (the only thing that has changed is the sets encompass all value).

This means that there is no need to build a case for a particular thing like pleasure as the thing to be maximized (which always eventually collapses on intuition - 'pleasure seems to be good' or 'we like pleasure'), you get a theory of value that doesn't need to limit the object of evaluation to pleasure, pain, happiness etc and you don't need to justify maximising value as it follows that the most value is better than less value. You get utilitarianism by conclusion.

It accounts for intention perfectly by examining desires. A desire to save lives is a good desire even in circumstances where the outcome is bad. The outcome doesn't effect the desire, for instance killing a million people is bad, but if it is necessary to save a billion then it is the action - If you desire to save the most lives then killing the least number of people (thwarting the least/weakest set of desires) is the best choice in the dilemma.

Euthanasia is amoral as the desire to die is stronger than the desire to live and the desire to be killed when you do not want to live is one that promotes more and stronger desires than it thwarts.

Etc.

I hope that makes sense, it's quite different from other takes on morality, but I think it works perfectly.

[Captain Scarlet]

Can't have made my point clearly enough contextually then. My point isn't that survival is an important factor nor that contractarianism is correct (it is one of a number of views held by ethicists. My point is that you do not need god to get you to objective morality, that there is no such thing as absolute morality, and that god is a more complicated explanation than natural ones.

I agree with all of that

Ultimately there is either one objective theory of morality or there are none, it all hinges on what values are and whether or not the things that are (or give rise to) values can be evaluated outside the attitudes of person(s).

Indeed objective morality to me seems to me to need careful definition. Absolute morality,which is surely what theists are actually saying when they talk about morality, is meaningless. Clearly we have apprehended acts, deeds etc which make us feel disgusted or elated etc, but these are not universally held through time and space. Objective morality as something which naturally occurs as a result of social biological development isn't meaningless, but is subject to revision as society progresses, changes or even regresses. Does that make it subjective? Yes over the long term, but no not necessarily as a point in time snap shot.

[theVOID]

It's not necessarily subjective 'over time' - It doesn't even make sense to say something becomes subjective over time really unless you can think of a way where the evaluation is first not grounded in the opinion of persons and at a later time becomes grounded in the opinion of persons.

Situations can change and objective evaluations of moral value can remain a constant method. An example:

Situation 1. A tribe lives in a desert, there are low supplies of water. Because water is needed for hydration it is moral to promote an aversion to bathing. Bathing wastes the resources necessary for continuing to live, thus bathing is an immoral act despite the hygiene and aesthetic issues.

Situation 2. The same tribe travels a way and comes upon a great lake. Hydration is no longer a concern. The aversion to bathing that was previously morally good now results in an unnecessary level of poor heath and death from bad hygiene making it morally bad.

In each situation good and bad were determined by the same method (relative to any of greatest suffering, desires or survival) but the circumstances changed. It is still an objective moral theory.