Atheism and morality

[_Keno_]

Mike- I brought up the improbability to show ID has scientific argument, therefore should be taught in schools.

Just wondering, but you can post the names/quotes of a few "notable scientists" that have claimed these improbabilities? I've seen people ask you, and you avoid them. The only proof so far is that some guy in a video says he knows of some notable scientists that claimed those certain probabilities.

 

[GwJ]

In regards to ID being an improbability and thus scientifically possible, that doesn't make sense.

Plenty of things could be argued with scientific theories. Just the fact that something has a scientific arguement, doesn't mean we should accept it as possible.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

replace "morals" and "moral code" with "skin color," "hair color" or any other genetic trait and you'll see why what you just said sounds completely ridiculous in a naturalist view.

What do you mean by that? That comparison is not even relevant. Morals =/= skin colour. They're not even related except in a very distant way.

That's not even a rebuttal. All you've done is turned my statements into gibberish by switching some words around.

I acknowledge that my moral code lacks significance, but it's the only I've got and as an individual, I'm going to have to make moral judgements of myself and of others.

 

[DanteFox]

I acknowledge that my moral code lacks significance, but it's the only I've got and as an individual, I'm going to have to make moral judgements of myself and of others.

that's not the point of my argument. My point is that, in a naturalistic viewpoint, morality is nothing more than the result of evolutionary adaptation. As such it has no objective basis and is as "true" as the color of one's skin or hair or eyes or w/e.

Another way to put it is: Who's to say our morality has evolved for its truth value? At best it can be explained as a survival mechanism. Your morality is subject to the unguided, blind processes of natural selection, so how can you tell me what I'm doing is truly wrong?

 

[Mike]

My point is that, in a naturalistic viewpoint, morality is nothing more than the result of evolutionary adaptation. As such it has no objective basis and is as "true" as the color of one's skin or hair or eyes or w/e.

But if you examine where morality came from, you'll find that it couldn't have started unless someone said "something isn't fair". Our capacity to imagine morality came from our evolution, but that doesn't mean morality can't have truth value the same way "if ___ then ___" statements do. For example, if you accept that the purpose of morality is to reduce unwanted interactions between subjects (and I haven't heard of a reason one would define it otherwise), then a strict and objective moral system can be built.

 

[DanteFox]

But if you examine where morality came from, you'll find that it couldn't have started unless someone said "something isn't fair". Our capacity to imagine morality came from our evolution, but that doesn't mean morality can't have truth value the same way "if ___ then ___" statements do. For example, if you accept that the purpose of morality is to reduce unwanted interactions between subjects (and I haven't heard of a reason one would define it otherwise), then a strict and objective moral system can be built.

what happens when I disagree with your if statement? Then I can commit moral atrocities and no one can say I'm wrong.

 

[_Keno_]

If I set bears upon children (which then tear them to pieces) for making fun of an old man's baldness, it should be morally okay according to the Bible, yet I suspect almost every Christian would consider it to be wrong. Moral atrocities can be committed even under "divinely" contrived objective codes. And why is a moral code I write down on paper any less agreeable than the codes found in the various holy books? I see no difference, people can disagree with both.

As for secular morality, if you define ideas (good, bad, well-being, the purpose of morality, etc) in such a way like Mike has said, an objective standard can be made from the logic that follows. It doesnt matter if people dont agree with it (certainly a religious person might insist that his/her God has the only objective code that should be followed), it only matters if people can handle it. I disagree with the current moral code of my quite religious community, yet I am able to deal with the faults of it daily. I would think that most people can, at the very least, deal with an objective code that promotes the well-being of all people.

 

[Mike]

what happens when I disagree with your if statement? Then I can commit moral atrocities and no one can say I'm wrong.

Of course. But you would then have to completely reject any system of morality.

 

[DanteFox]

Of course. But you would then have to completely reject any system of morality.

This is besides the point of my OP, but I'm curious, why would I then have to completely reject any system of morality?

 

[Mike]

Morality was created to mediate undesired interaction between two subjects. So if you accept any system of morality, you must accept that its purpose is to minimize this type of interaction. Ethical systems such as Utilitarianism and Kant's Theory do not attack the issue at its root, so they are 'incomplete' ideas.

 

[DanteFox]

Morality was created to mediate undesired interaction between two subjects. So if you accept any system of morality, you must accept that its purpose is to minimize this type of interaction. Ethical systems such as Utilitarianism and Kant's Theory do not attack the issue at its root, so they are 'incomplete' ideas.

You're getting into pretty heavy social theory but first of all I disagree that morality was created for that purpose, nevermind that the statement itself is so vague that I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[Mike]

Then for what purpose does morality serve at the fundamental level? How would morality even be conceivable if it weren't for the existence of undesired interactions?

 

[DanteFox]

I'm not clear on what you mean by "undesired interactions." "Subjects" isn't the most precise word either.

 

[Mike]

Haha, sorry I wasn't being clear at all...

By undesired interactions I mean interactions between two (or more) people where at least one of them objects to at least a part of the interaction between them. An example would be if two kids were playing baseball and one of them aims the ball at the other's stomach.

A subject is any individual capable of feeling dissatisfaction.

 

[DanteFox]

my point is that even if you have a morality that seems perfectly reasonable, if you're a naturalist, you have to assume that the person agrees with you in order to say their wrong. Forget the theoretical origins of morality for a minute, how can a naturalist say to someone else "you shouldn't have done that"? "Right" and "Wrong" depend on an absolute standard, just like in math ( I realize that math is just a series of tautologies constructed by humans, but my point is that you need a standard to judge something by in order to say that it's right or wrong).

 

[Mike]

I understood that part. What I'm saying is that IF you accept morality at all, then there is only one reasonable moral system that you can follow.

And by reasonable, I mean consistent with logic and not consisting of ad hoc ideas.

 

[GwJ]

Why is everyone acting like morality is a system that can be mediated? It's not.

 

[_Keno_]

Care to elaborate?

Regardless of whether or not it is a system that becomes official, it would only affect laws. Although, it would definitely be something that people should generally try to follow (and hopefully give insight to the ignorant).

What I think you're talking about though, is that every single person has their own moral opinions. This will always be true regardless of what is accomplished by breakthroughs in morality.

 

[DanteFox]

I understood that part. What I'm saying is that IF you accept morality at all, then there is only one reasonable moral system that you can follow.

And by reasonable, I mean consistent with logic and not consisting of ad hoc ideas.

That's only true when you define morality as you have. I for one do not agree with your definition of morality, and so I believe my system of morality is perfectly reasonable.

and by the way, every system of morality can be boiled down to at least one ad hoc idea, so even your system isn't "reasonable" by that definition.

 

[Mike]

What other purpose does morality serve if not the one I mentioned?

 

[DanteFox]

I don't know, depends who you're asking. There are different moralities in this great big world.

 

[Mike]

You must be able to list at least one of them..

 

[DanteFox]

everyone on earth has their own morality, many of them similar with subtle differences.

there's the christian morality, utilitarianism, the morality of islam, judaism, the morality of hitler, etc.

 

[Mike]

And you will find that all of those fail at evaluating things fairly. Utilitarianism throws away the rights of others as long as an overall larger happiness can amount from it. The other ones don't even need to be elaborated on. For all of these moral systems, you will find either an internal contradiction or a scenario that will amount to many valid complaints. But if you base a moral system off the idea that its purpose is to minimize these complaints, there would no longer be a valid reason to complain. And these complaints are the entire reason morality exists. If everyone were ALWAYS content with the way they treat each other, there would be no need for a moral system. Morality wouldn't even be a conceivable idea!

 

[DanteFox]

Again, you're invalidating ideas based on what YOU define morality to be. Not everyone agrees that morality's purpose is to minimize complaints. How can you say your morality is right and theirs isn't?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Dante you keep dodging critical questions and arguing with vague dismissive comments that provide nothing to forward the debate

I have questions for you. What is morality?
How exactly would you define it?
What do you consider its purpose to be?


You dismiss Mike's points as invalid because they are HIS definitions, yet in your OP, your first premise is derived from none other than your own definition of morality.

1. Without God there is no reason to believe in absolute morality

How can you say your morality is right and theirs isn't?

 

[DanteFox]

I guess I assumed people would know what I meant in my OP when I said "absolute morality." Let me be more precise: "morality" in general is the belief that certain actions are right and certain actions are wrong. "Absolute Morality" is the idea that there is an absolute, unchanging, objective, universal standard regarding what is right and wrong.

My argument in the OP centers around the latter idea and why naturalists have no reason to believe in such an idea other than by pure faith. When I made the comment "How can you say your morality is right and theirs isn't?" I'm talking about his definition of morality in general, that is, the morality every person holds that has no bearing on whether there is or isn't an absolute moral standard.

 

[Mike]

Moralities based on religion, "inherent respect", etc. are ad hoc. They are unreasonable moral codes. What I claim to be the purpose of morality has a clear observable behind it, and this observable gives a reason to label something as "right" or "wrong" (in the form of fair or unfair). It cannot be accepted as a truth in the way the speed of light can, but if one were to accept morality, the system derived from this purpose must also be accepted.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

so you're arguing for a god-given standard of absolute morality?

well then how do you account for changes in culture over the centuries that have affected morality? How do you account for different civilizations having different codes of ethics?

a few hundred years ago people thought owning slaves was perfectly okay (the slave trade dates way further back than the Civil War, fyi)

many cultures still believe it to be not only okay but compulsory to treat women like ****

it was not always unethical to kill either i.e. slaves who were not even seen as human

the point is that there is no such thing as absolute morality. different codes of ethics around the world and over time point to the development of morality as a means of benefiting society as a whole. therefore as society changes, that society's morals will change with it.

In the OP, you're right that atheists have no reason to believe in an ABSOLUTE good because there is no such thing. Good and bad are relative words with standards set over several millennia of cultural and technological development. Theists may believe in an absolute standard, perhaps the myriad of rules set forth in the Bible, but ask yourself how much of the laws stated in the Bible are relevant in today's society.

Before you respond, note that there is a difference between an eternal absolute good/bad and a good/bad set forth by the human tendency to sympathize (the origin of the Golden Rule). For example, I imagine the rule that killing is wrong to be human nature because we tend to sympathize with those we interact with. Thus serial killers who do not sympathize with their victims do not feel anything wrong when they murder another being. Slave-owners don't feel bad after starving and beating their slaves to death either because they do not sympathize with the slaves, as they are not seen as human. Therefore it can be said that even "thou shalt not kill" is not really an absolute moral either.

The eternal absolute good, perhaps et forth by a God or whatever, is, in my opinion, a myth. There is no reason to believe it exists unless you believe in God. If you believe in God, you also believe that he set forth a standard of absolute morality via the 10 Commandments or whatever. If you do not, then the origins of morality can be explained through sociological and psychological means.

Really this debate is just another veiled "do you believe in God" debate.

i

 

[ballin4life]

The problem with saying that morality is objective and comes from God is that this prevents you from ever compromising or even understanding another's position.

If group A says "our morality is objectively right" and group B says "no, our morality is objectively right", then the two groups have no choice but to come into conflict. Each believes that only its own morality is correct, and therefore it is wrong to follow any other morality. This is the source of many conflicts.

I don't think it can ever be shown that a certain moral code is objectively right. I do think though that it is objectively right when two parties interact in a way that satisfies both of their moral codes. I take this observation as the basis for my own individual morality, which states primarily that people ought to cooperate when they agree and leave each other alone when they disagree.

 

[1048576]

This is how wars start.

A: 'I'm unconditionally right *points to circumstantial, after-the-fact, unscientific "evidence."'
B: 'No, I'm unconditionally right *points to circumstantial, after-the-fact, unscientific "evidence."'
A: 'You have insulted my honor. We must kung-fu fight'
B: 'Hi-yaaah'

But seriously, learn what evidence is.

Either your moral code includes forcing your deity down everyone's throat, (I think I'll pass) or atheists can hold the same moral code as you.

Look guys, 7 pages and nobody's made an inch of progress.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

it's all about the 40ppp son.

 

[DanteFox]

Moralities based on religion, "inherent respect", etc. are ad hoc. They are unreasonable moral codes.

calling a morality ad hoc says nothing of its truth value. It's basically an ad hominem, but aimed at the idea itself.

What I claim to be the purpose of morality has a clear observable behind it, and this observable gives a reason to label something as "right" or "wrong" (in the form of fair or unfair). It cannot be accepted as a truth in the way the speed of light can,

I don't see why we should take your definition of the purpose of morality to be truth. how do you know the purpose of morality? how do we even know morality has a purpose?

but if one were to accept my definition of morality, the system derived from this purpose must also be accepted.

I fixed this statement for you in order to make it logically consistent, otherwise you have yet to show us how the original conclusion logically follows from the original premise.

so you're arguing for a god-given standard of absolute morality?

nope. As a Christian, I believe in an absolute moral standard, but that's not part of the argument I'm making in the OP. My argument centers around atheism as a belief and what logically follows, and what doesn't follow from that belief.

well then how do you account for changes in culture over the centuries that have affected morality? How do you account for different civilizations having different codes of ethics?

those have absolutely no bearing on whether or not there is absolute good or evil. As an analogy, people not believing that e=mc^2 or changing their beliefs about it doesn't make it any less true.

another example: If I have a vault which may or may not have something inside, people's changing beliefs on the matter would have no effect on whether or not there was actually something inside the vault.

In the OP, you're right that atheists have no reason to believe in an ABSOLUTE good because there is no such thing. Good and bad are relative words with standards set over several millennia of cultural and technological development.

you're right that words and their meanings are made and defined by people based on the historical context in which those people lived. I'm not talking about words. I'm talking about ideas. The idea that I'm talking about is the idea that there is an absolute moral standard.

Theists may believe in an absolute standard, perhaps the myriad of rules set forth in the Bible, but ask yourself how much of the laws stated in the Bible are relevant in today's society.

again this has nothing to do with whether or not such an absolute standard exists or not.

Before you respond, note that there is a difference between an eternal absolute good/bad and a good/bad set forth by the human tendency to sympathize (the origin of the Golden Rule). For example, I imagine the rule that killing is wrong to be human nature because we tend to sympathize with those we interact with. Thus serial killers who do not sympathize with their victims do not feel anything wrong when they murder another being. Slave-owners don't feel bad after starving and beating their slaves to death either because they do not sympathize with the slaves, as they are not seen as human. Therefore it can be said that even "thou shalt not kill" is not really an absolute moral either.

thou shalt not kill is a commandment based on a moral principle, namely that killing is wrong ( btw there is debate on whether it should be translate "kill" or "murder", but that's another topic). I don't see how people's emotions during the act of killing affect the moral principle's truth value, at least unless you introduce other principles into the mix.

There is no reason to believe it exists unless you believe in God.

hey what a coincidence, that's exactly what I argue in my OP! so we agree!

Really this debate is just another veiled "do you believe in God" debate.

not at all. as evidenced by your agreement with my OP, we don't have to agree on the issue of the existence of God in order to agree on my argument.

 

[Dre89]

To those arguing that morality only exists with God, is this only the case because there may be conseqeunces for moral behaviour?

Are you arguing that morality only exists if there is punishment for immoral behaviour?

 

[Mike]

calling a morality ad hoc says nothing of its truth value. It's basically an ad hominem, but aimed at the idea itself.

You misunderstand. I said an ad hoc system cannot be reasonable. This doesn't imply anything about its truth value.

I don't see why we should take your definition of the purpose of morality to be truth. how do you know the purpose of morality? how do we even know morality has a purpose?

I'm not advertising my purpose of morality as "the truth". I am advertising it as a requirement for a reasonable moral system. All other purposes for morality are either ad hoc. The only exception to this that I can think of is Utilitarianism, but it's impossible to apply both in philosophy and in practice. It's a broken theory.

I fixed this statement for you in order to make it logically consistent, otherwise you have yet to show us how the original conclusion logically follows from the original premise.

I made my claim: The only reasonable purpose to morality is to minimize undesired interaction between subjects. Can you come up with another reasonable purpose?

 

[DanteFox]

You misunderstand. I said an ad hoc system cannot be reasonable. This doesn't imply anything about its truth value.


I'm not advertising my purpose of morality as "the truth". I am advertising it as a requirement for a reasonable moral system. All other purposes for morality are either ad hoc. The only exception to this that I can think of is Utilitarianism, but it's impossible to apply both in philosophy and in practice. It's a broken theory.


I made my claim: The only reasonable purpose to morality is to minimize undesired interaction between subjects. Can you come up with another reasonable purpose?

well I guess what I need to know is what your definition of reasonable is.

 

[Mike]

And by reasonable, I mean consistent with logic and not consisting of ad hoc ideas.

quoted from the previous page

 

[DanteFox]

so the first qualifier isn't the one that makes your system the only "reasonable" one since there are other moral systems that are logically consistent. So i guess what i need to know is what you mean by "ad hoc."

 

[Mike]

Ad hoc is something like a "just because". There's no reason behind an ad hoc claim other than to prevent another from being falsifiable.

 

[DanteFox]

every single moral system can be boiled down to a "just because" claim that cannot be proved logically. There's always a value judgement made that can't be logically justified. The value judgement in yours -- that it is better to minimize unwanted interactions between subjects -- is that these subjects have a worth to them that merits their complaints being valued.