Atheists have no morals... prison populations

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

No... but if an atheist truly thinks what he thinks, and believes his conclusions. That makes everything permissible. Subjective Morals have NOTHING to do with it because they are illusions.

For an Atheist, everything is permissible because they do not need to have a moral code.

Child Rape
Molestation

The works...

The statements that people need to be told what to do, do be moral, says more about you than atheists.

 

[Danhalen]

I know... whether it's true or not will determine the value of their morals after death.

First assuming that said God exists.

Assuming God exists has no bearing on the subjective nature of morality. If we must wait until we are dead to determine our moral value, then moral choice in life is subjective. The assumption one makes, concerning the objective nature of an action, is what is subjective.

Yes... a lot of people do follow it out of fear. That's just the way things are. Others follow it because they feel compelled to have subjective morals that line up with the morals that... if a God exists... this transcendent being has set.

Your concession of the subjectivity of morality is independent of how close one believes their morals are to God's. Subjective morals are, by definition, subjective no matter how close we think they are to the objective bull's eye.

Because even if they believe they're following the Universal moral code... they still subjectively believe in this Universal code they're following. And thus it is open to subjective interpretation. Whether or not their interpretations are right will remain to be seen.

If it is open to interpretation it can not be objective. That is my point. You are defeating moral objectivity without my help.

I know it's irrelevant because everyone has there own code of ethics that they follow subjectively. Some people believe they are lining their morals up with a Universal code is all I'm saying.

Yes people will act within their code of ethics. Agreed...

How can you believe there is an objective morality if you agree people follow their own subjective code of ethics? How does one thinking they are lining up their subjective code with the objective code make it any less subjective?

What if someone's system of Morality involves child-rape, murder, and molestation.

I would ask them how they would justify it. In a system of ethics moral action needs to be justified. If it cannot be justified it is ammoral.

Are you going to tell him he's wrong?

Yes.

Why?

Because it is counter-intuitive to my own personal code of ethics. I would want them to know that I disagree with them.

Sometimes... not always.

I don't believe you. I think everyone wants to be happy all the time (unless there is some kind of mental defect). This is not to say we are not okay with being sad. There are times when being sad is called for, but when we are sad we wish to be happy again. When I mourn the death of a loved one, I do so because I miss the happiness that person brought to me and those around me. I want to be happy again, and so I mourn.

 

[Lokmer]

No... but if an atheist truly thinks what he thinks, and believes his conclusions. That makes everything permissible. Subjective Morals have NOTHING to do with it because they are illusions.

Methinks your are confusing atheism with nihilism (and a rather radical, existentialist form of it too). Non-theistic morality and ethics are built upon the same foundation that theistic morality and ethics are: Social contract. While it's true that, without any big daddy in the clouds ready to spank you with a thunderbold and throw you into an eternal bonfire things like ethics are less strident, the fact remains that we have to live this life and we want to enjoy it. Now, there are two ways to enjoy life: 1) at the expense of others, and 2) with the participation of others. Enjoying life at the expense of others results in a few people having a great time, and the rest of the people living in relative misery. If everyone attempts to live by #2, anarchy (followed by tyrrany) quickly ensue, leaving nobody better off for it. Our current egalitarian social ethic - both political and moral - grows out of a recognition that the rising tide lifts all boats. Jesus was not the first man to say "love your neighbor as yourself" and set it as a high law - this principle had been uttered (and recorded) long before him, and will continue to be recapitulated long after we're all dead. You take a gamble materially when you put the good of another before yourself, but usually (not always) that gamble is repaid in kind either by the object of your kindness or by others who see what you've done and wish to reward you (people who do that, after all, are valuable to the community).

The subjective/objective dichotomy is a false one when dealing with questions of ethics, and it's a false one from a Christian perspective. Christian ethics throughout the New Testament are *radically* situationalist: putting one's own needs above the law (Jesus and the Sabbath), putting the genuine sensibilities of others ahead of your own freedom (meat sacrificed to idols), etc. New Testament Chrsitianity is characterized by a profound *LACK* of an objective moral code. And, to be honest, I think that that's one of its greatest strengths.

Morality and ethics arise naturally in any social system.

For an Atheist, everything is permissible because they do not need to have a moral code.

Wow...sounds like you're radically rejecting Paul's notion that, for a Christian, all things are permissible but not everything is profitable. Christian morality is based on such maxims, and by and large they are wise. Are you insinuating that, somehow, the wisdom uttered by your prophets, apostles, and god is inadequate to the formulation of ethics?

-Lokmer

 

[Eudaimonist]

Methinks your are confusing atheism with nihilism (and a rather radical, existentialist form of it too). Non-theistic morality and ethics are built upon the same foundation that theistic morality and ethics are: Social contract.

Actually, atheism admits to many more possibilities than social contract.

 

[Lokmer]

Good point - atheism certainly does admit other formulations.

But have any other formulations actually been successfully put forth? That's a more interesting question. Probably one of the best alternate non-social-contract oriented ethical systems is that of the Superman as elucidated in Thus Spake Zarathustra and The Will to Power (which has a lot to recommend it in spite of the low esteem it inherited from its use by Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria and his protoge`s, including Hitler). Among the less successful alternate ethical formulations (in my view) are those of Ayn Rand, who attempted to build an ethical system around greed and reason in opposition to irrationaility (but never recognizing that greed itself is often quite irrational).

Even these other systems, though, must at some point formulate a version of the social contract in order to compete in the marketplace of ideas, so while the notion isn't foundational to them they never did get away from it. Do you have any particulars in mind that I'm overlooking?
-Lokmer

 

[Lokmer]

Tell me why you need a moral code if there is no objective truth, and no standard by which justice can be dealt.

This is called begging the question. As soon as you admit that there is anything in the universe besides your own mind, you have admitted that there is objective truth. Whether that truth is breathed into existence by a being or simply "is" by another means is hardly material. Since you claim to believe in a religion that fancies itself as predicated upon objective reality, I assume that you are not advocating solipsism. By the same token, you are committing a severe category error by assuming that all atheists are solipsists. In fact, if I recall correctly, solipsism's first coherent articulant was Soren Kierkergaard - a Christian.

Once any sort of objective reality has been stipulated or posited, the next logical question is "is objective truth knowable, and, if so, by what means and how reliably?" This is where epistemology comes into play.

Everything is permissible, and thus you are more free then I would ever like to be.

Ah, but do you not have that kind of freedom in Christ? Is that not more or less the point of Protestant and also of Pauline Christianity?

-Lokmer

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good point - atheism certainly does admit other formulations.

But have any other formulations actually been successfully put forth?

As judged by who? You? Other formulations have been put forth and been found convincing, at least as possibilities, by others. That's enough.

Among the less successful alternate ethical formulations (in my view) are those of Ayn Rand, who attempted to build an ethical system around greed and reason in opposition to irrationaility (but never recognizing that greed itself is often quite irrational).

Ayn Rand never advocated "greed" in the popular sense of the term.

Even these other systems, though, must at some point formulate a version of the social contract in order to compete in the marketplace of ideas, so while the notion isn't foundational to them they never did get away from it. Do you have any particulars in mind that I'm overlooking?
-Lokmer

No, there is no need for a "social contract". People can do what they believe to be right because they believe it to be right, and not because they think other people will play along. Socrates went against moral norms, not with them. Also, I'd bet that much morality originated at the point of a sword, rather than some voluntary agreement. There are plenty of possibilities here.

 

[Lokmer]

As judged by who? You? Other formulations have been put forth and been found convincing, at least as possibilities, by others. That's enough.

Good heavens - there's no need to escalate this into rancor.

"Successfully formulated" - as in actually systematized and held up for discussion and debate. Moved out of the larval stage. Whether I or anyone else thinks they hold water is hardly germaine to the point of whether the formulation is successful. I think that Maoism is a travesty in nearly every way - doesn't change the fact that it's a well-articulated philosophy.

Ayn Rand never advocated "greed" in the popular sense of the term.

Ayn Rand argued that all property was private (that there was no such thing as community or public ownership), and that the best destiny of the rational person was in the pursuit of wealth via means of reason and enlightened self-interest. She then defined enlightened self-interest in a way that suited her personal tastes, and a cult grew up around her that resulted in further distortions to her notion of self-interest into something that looked very like common greed and self-aggrandizement.

I am not saying that Rand didn't have anything valuable to say - far from it! Her voice came at a time when it was much needed, when individualism was under attack from both the left and the right. She articulated well a philosophy of personal responsibility and the supremacy of reason.

None of this, however, changes what she became or what her philosophy, in its full flower, became. Her lack of nuance and restraint with regards to her own self-interest turned her movement into something truly monstrous. But I would never try to dissuade someone from reading Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, and from thinking long and hard on the valuable lessons that both books present.

No, there is no need for a "social contract". People can do what they believe to be right because they believe it to be right, and not because they think other people will play along.

You are completely misapprehending what a social contract is. The term "social contract" describes the unwritten law that exists between people and their neighbors in *every culture and society in human history.* Generally speaking, the larger and more metropolitan the society, the more liberal the social contract is. This has nothing to do with only doing the right thing if other people play along. Social Contracts are descriptive, nor prescriptive. Social revolutions change the terms of the contract all the time.

The question underlying all of this is "why do people believe to be right what they believe to be right?" And the answer is far more sophistocated than "it's just so."

Socrates went against moral norms, not with them. Also, I'd bet that much morality originated at the point of a sword, rather than some voluntary agreement. There are plenty of possibilities here.

All societies emerge at the point of the sword - so I hardly see how this is relevant. The fact is that people behave in the way that minimizes their friction in life (thus, voluntary agreement) unless they get a burr under their saddle about something. Humans manifestly have the capacity for moral outrage and revolution, and engage in these pursuits frequently - - these are, in fact, the very means by which social contracts develop, evolve, and are overwritten.

Your criticisms seem very unfocused, but perhaps that is because you took social contract to mean something other than I had in mind. I hope that my meaning is clearer now. The question I had for you is "Can you point me towards any ethical philosophies that are unconnected to a social contract of some sort?" I have never seen one, and I've been doing ethical philosophy for nearly a decade now. I am, however, happy to be proven wrong.

Oh, a point in your column on this one, though is that sociobiology and neuropsychology (Pinker, Wilson, et.al.) are forcing the notions of the starting point for ethical philosophy to be adjusted and rewritten, giving the social contract a biological basis rather than a purely social one. The fun and interesting part comes in the wide variance that is built upon the common biological bed.

-Lokmer

 

[GraceInHim]

no Christian should judge anyone at all, love all no matter what is what we are taught - I consider myself when I was living in pure sin daily as a devil.

people are not to be judged for thier beliefs - we as Christians were no better before we came to Christ, and I might add there are many Christians who still sin, you are no higher. let pride down and show love rather then judging.

peace to all

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good heavens - there's no need to escalate this into rancor.

There's no rancor. I'm simply asking pointed questions.

"Successfully formulated" - as in actually systematized and held up for discussion and debate. Moved out of the larval stage.

As judged by who?

Ayn Rand argued that all property was private (that there was no such thing as community or public ownership), and that the best destiny of the rational person was in the pursuit of wealth via means of reason and enlightened self-interest.

Please don't embarrass yourself further. You've already stated one serious misconception of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and in the first sentence. Let's just drop this particular subject.

You are completely misapprehending what a social contract is. The term "social contract" describes the unwritten law that exists between people and their neighbors in *every culture and society in human history.*

So by social contract you simply mean "norms"? I must have been thinking of a different ethical theory. My mistake. (This time, I embarrassed myself.)

Oh, a point in your column on this one, though is that sociobiology and neuropsychology (Pinker, Wilson, et.al.) are forcing the notions of the starting point for ethical philosophy to be adjusted and rewritten, giving the social contract a biological basis rather than a purely social one. The fun and interesting part comes in the wide variance that is built upon the common biological bed.

If you are talking about descriptive ethical philosophy, you have a good point here.

 

[levi501]

and?

I'll let you connect your own dots.

 

[Lokmer]

As judged by who?

The person holding it up for debate, I would expect.

Please don't embarrass yourself further. You've already stated one serious misconception of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and in the first sentence. Let's just drop this particular subject.

If you like. Although I think "misconception" is a bit inaccurate - inadequate characterization probably would be very accurate, similar to voicing an objection to Calvanism on the doctrine of predestination. Calvinism is far more than predestination, but the predestination in the mix of his theology is both vital to understanding his framework and is a poison that taints the mix. The point I was struggling to make (and it's beside the main issue of this thread anyhow) was that, in my view, Rand's philosophical approach to property and ownership functions in Objectivism in much the same way as Predestination does in Calvanism (though, being that you're an objectivist and I'm not, I doubt this is something we'll agree on. I expect your understanding of Rand is more nuanced than mine in any case - I'm happy to acccept correction on this point as there is much about objectivism that I find both admirable and worthy of serious engagement).

So by social contract you simply mean "norms"? I must have been thinking of a different ethical theory. My mistake. (This time, I embarrassed myself.)

Not quite as simple as "norms." "Social Contract" describes the complex tradeoff of power between individuals in a society - expressed through social norms, political systems, economic arrangements, and power structures. Each institution or norm fills a role and performs a function that is (or was at one time) valuable to the individuals in the society and to the culture as a whole. By talking about it in terms of a "social contract" rather than simply as "mores" or "norms," one makes available the actual mechanics of cultural interplay for deconstruction and analysis (one of the great enduring strengths of John Locke's philosophy was his ability to describe *why* feudal society functioned how it did in terms of social contract, noting that even Kings ruling by "divine right" derive their authority from the tacit consent of those they govern).

Please understand also that by speaking of morality in terms of social contract, I am not advocating collectivism. I am attempting to describe the process by which moral and ethical systems are socially constructed (though, as previoulsy acknowledged, the construction is only partly social) and how they impact the social fabric when applied. I am not attempting to advocate mob rule, or majority caprice, or anything of the sort.

-Lokmer