Hey, Atheists...

[Bradskii]

It's fascinating to me that some form of the golden rule shows up in most major religions and a number of philosophical outlooks.

Yeah, it's everywhere. Jesus didn't say that hey, this is my suggestion for living a moral life. He was reminding us of it.

 

[public hermit]

Yeah, it's everywhere. Jesus didn't say that hey, this is my suggestion for living a moral life. He was reminding us of it.

That's a great way to put it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Atheists are generally modernists, and in that tradition self-preservation and social compact is the basis of morality. Deviations from this are ephemeral, and are usually based on the vestiges of Christian culture.

Kant, Plato, and even Aristotle tend to be too "transcendent" for modern atheistic tastes. Hobbes is really their cornerstone. The only rigorous case for naturalistic ethics in recent history comes from R. M. Hare, but that line was largely not taken up. Rawls is culturally important, but he really collapses back into Hobbes.

Edit: See, for example, Shelly Kagan's contractarianism (9:40).

As far as I remember from college classes, Rawls was a Kantian. He and his "original position" provided an interesting thought experiment, but I found my reading of R.M. Hare to be more interesting still.

 

[zippy2006]

As far as I remember from college classes, Rawls was a Kantian.

In what sense would you argue that he was a Kantian? He was surely influenced by Kant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In what sense would you argue that he was a Kantian? He was surely influenced by Kant.

Rawls was a Kantian in the sense that he posited that one has to attempt a transcendental apprehension of grounds for supplying the ethical imperative. Rawls differed, then, in how he substantiated the premise by which to apprehend the imperative for social agreement. (See Joseph Grcic (2007)).

​

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26495063_Hobbes_and_Rawls_on_Political_Power

However, if all we want to say with Jan Niklas Rolf (2016) is that both Rawls and Hobbes were social contractarians, then I'd agree with your basic premise that Rawls "folds back into" Hobbes. But being that Rawls formed his Original Position via Kantian terms, then I think his metaethical and ontological reasoning differs.

Regardless, I'm not a fan of either philosopher, so...............before getting too deep here in time wasting mud with these two particular ethicists, I'll just say I'd rather apply more complex and extensive study to Ethics and look further afield than upon what either Hobbes or Rawls can provide. This is one reason I mentioned R.M. Hare in my previous post. I rather like his little book, Sorting Out Ethics, where he posits that ethics can take on shades of an amalgamation of both utilitarianism and deontology, as odd that that may sound.

Then too, as I consider R.M. Hare's taxonomic form of ethical analysis, I also jump on over and do a dance with Carol Gilligan and use her ethical thought as an additional modernized ethical component by which to frame and express my already heavy investment with Jesus' (and Peter and Paul') moral teachings.

But Hobbes and Rawls I leave to the side. To me, modern social contracts are just a cheap excuse to try to prompt and convince ourselves (or others) "to do" what we so often try to excuse ourselves from having to do (i.e. all that which Jesus would want us to do for others.)

References

Grcic, Joseph. "Hobbes and Rawls on political power." (2007).​

​

Hare, R. M. "Sorting out ethics." (1997).​

​

Rolf, Jan Niklas. "The fool and the franchiser: formal justice in the political theories of Hobbes and Rawls." Ethics & Global Politics 9, no. 1 (2016): 30042.​

 

[zippy2006]

Rawls was a Kantian in the sense that he posited that one has to attempt a transcendental apprehension of grounds for supplying the ethical imperative. Rawls differed, then, in how he substantiated the premise by which to apprehend the imperative for social agreement.

We agree that Rawls and Hobbes are both social contractarians, and we also agree that Rawls is more Kantian than Hobbes. But I'm not convinced that Rawls' grounds draw very near to Kant. As I understand Rawls, he bootstraps his ethical reasoning at the level of cultural intuitions, and does not attempt to transcend those cultural intuitions. That is, he does not attempt to offer a cross-cultural ethical program. I could try to substantiate this, but maybe we're not so interested in this topic.

This is one reason I mentioned R.M. Hare in my previous post. I rather like his little book, Sorting Out Ethics, where he posits that ethics can take on shades of an amalgamation of both utilitarianism and deontology, as odd that that may sound.

Yes, and that may be a more fertile resource for atheists and naturalists. I just haven't seen it being given much attention at a popular level.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

How about we talk about a non religious source of morality? Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret). But what golden rule do you use? something like categorical imperative? utilitarianism? How do you decide what laws are needed?

I think the issue you’re having is an apparent belief that people cannot be moral without a directive telling them how to be moral or avoid immorality, less you get a punishment.

Just because atheists can’t point to a rule book doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of making intentionally moral decisions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We agree that Rawls and Hobbes are both social contractarians, and we also agree that Rawls is more Kantian than Hobbes. But I'm not convinced that Rawls' grounds draw very near to Kant. As I understand Rawls, he bootstraps his ethical reasoning at the level of cultural intuitions, and does not attempt to transcend those cultural intuitions.

On this point you're essentially correct. But do keep in mind that Rawls specifically defines his "theory of justice" as following in the tracks of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In fact, even though he doesn't articulate his theory of "The Original Position" in terms that express a specific Kantian sort of transcendentally tempered idealism, i.e. a seeming necessary inference toward Moral Divinity in order to provide the conceptual collateral his theory needs, Rawls does posit the abstract concept of "The Veil of Ignorance" as a [supposedly] natural, rational rule of arbitration to bank and regulate his theory of justice.

.............. needless to say, I don't think it works, and for the reason that both you and Rawls' later critics have pointed out and applied to Rawls' theory.

That is, he does not attempt to offer a cross-cultural ethical program. I could try to substantiate this, but maybe we're not so interested in this topic.

I agree, and that is one of the primary gripes his critics have had of his Theory of Justice-----that his theory of justice is still "too Western" in nature. And that's about a deep as I want to go in discussing Rawls here. So yeah, I'm not so interested in this topic and we can set Rawls to the side.

Yes, and that may be a more fertile resource for atheists and naturalists. I just haven't seen it being given much attention at a popular level.

That's true. R.M. Hare's moral "Prescriptivism" probably doesn't engender the sort of moral intuitions that appeal to the masses of atheists who live out there in Ex-Christian land. Today, folks like to think they can decide for themselves which ethical formula from a dozen they're going to follow. Plus, I'm sure that if some Secular folks find out that R.M. Hare is Catholic, and that he posits his religious belief as an ambiguous "blik," they think he comes off as being too speculative and fails to meet their more evidentially and evolutionary constructed demands.

But for my own part, I can honestly say R.M. Hare is one of the tributaries that has fed into and informed my own Ethical viewpoint.

 

[durangodawood]

Well as many atheist come from a religious background. The answers they give will still be tainted from their past Biblical background.​

Religion is the repository of, and enforcement element for, many moral facts that are so sensible that they persist across cultures, times, faiths.

If religion goes away, these moral facts remain sensible. But we've lost an important tool for overcoming peoples overly self-centered impulses.

 

[durangodawood]

I think the issue you’re having is an apparent belief that people cannot be moral without a directive telling them how to be moral or avoid immorality, less you get a punishment.

Just because atheists can’t point to a rule book doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of making intentionally moral decisions.

I dont think its the rule book itself that keeps religious people in line so much as the formalization of the "higher witness" side of yourself in the person of God.

I think we all have this capacity to see ourselves honestly, observe our own motivations, check whether or not intention and action align with moral facts. (These moral facts may be culturally or biologically conditioned, personally intuited, written on our hearts by a creator, whatever). But this "witness" is easily overwhelmed by drives to affirm, assert, and satisfy ones self.

Monotheism, and especially Christianity, is expert at taking this capacity for self reflection and formalizing it into an "always on" figure who exists outside our own tendencies to ignore the quiet inner voice. The technologies of religion continuously cultivate awareness of this figure - with the goal being that I become aware of a watcher of the state of my heart at every decision point.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I dont think its the rule book itself that keeps religious people in line so much as the formalization of the "higher witness" side of yourself in the person of God.

I think we all have this capacity to see ourselves honestly, observe our own motivations, check whether or not intention and action align with moral facts. (These moral facts may be culturally or biologically conditioned, personally intuited, written on our hearts by a creator, whatever). But this "witness" is easily overwhelmed by drives to affirm, assert, and satisfy ones self.

Monotheism, and especially Christianity, is expert at taking this capacity for self reflection and formalizing it into an "always on" figure who exists outside our own tendencies to ignore the quiet inner voice. The technologies of religion continuously cultivate awareness of this figure - with the goal being that I become aware of a watcher of the state of my heart at every decision point.

Christians do not have the corner on the market that is self-reflection. I don’t know why you’d think that because one is atheist they don’t have the capability to examine themselves and lives.

 

[d taylor]

Religion is the repository of, and enforcement element for, many moral facts that are so sensible that they persist across cultures, times, faiths.

If religion goes away, these moral facts remain sensible. But we've lost an important tool for overcoming peoples overly self-centered impulses.

-
​

What would have passed for morality without religion. Would have only been able to be established, only if religion would have never existed in the first place.

 

[durangodawood]

Christians do not have the corner on the market that is self-reflection. I don’t know why you’d think that because one is atheist they don’t have the capability to examine themselves and lives.

I dont believe I said or implied that. In fact I literally said the opposite.

I just noted how monotheism has a great tool for helping self reflection.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I dont believe I said or implied that. In fact I literally said the opposite.

I just noted how monotheism has a great tool for helping self reflection.

So if you get how one can be atheist and be a moral person…

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So if you get how one can be atheist and be a moral person…

... but who gets to define what either a "moral" or an "immoral" person is? Without an absolute set of values for morality, it's kind of difficult to discern if and when another person is objectively being fully moral or not.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think the issue you’re having is an apparent belief that people cannot be moral without a directive telling them how to be moral or avoid immorality, less you get a punishment.

Just because atheists can’t point to a rule book doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of making intentionally moral decisions.

But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?

 

[Tinker Grey]

But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?

If you do "good" (or abstain from "bad") because of a rule book, you are not moral, just obedient. In fact, you don't even know if you're moral; you just know you are obedient.

If you have determined that rule book has moral value, then it is you who have decided what is moral.

 

[durangodawood]

So if you get how one can be atheist and be a moral person…

Im just saying religious people have a great tool to help with this, especially monotheists - I think.

I do wonder if the tool really gets used tho, given publicly visible behaviors.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you do "good" (or abstain from "bad") because of a rule book, you are not moral, just obedient. In fact, you don't even know if you're moral; you just know you are obedient.

If you have determined that rule book has moral value, then it is you who have decided what is moral.

I think we need more than just a subordinating conjunction to fully elaborate on and explain "why" any one person would think a rule book should be followed in the first place.

Glossing this over with a prepositional phrase fails to get at the gist of the causation and personal motivation for anyone's obedience.

So, if I decide to refrain from that special sin because a rule book I respect tells me to, even though my personal fancy would wish to do otherwise, I think it's safe to say I count as a "moral" agent at that moment, however imperfectly permeated my will is when making the right moral choice.

 

[zippy2006]

Religion is the repository of, and enforcement element for, many moral facts that are so sensible that they persist across cultures, times, faiths.

If religion goes away, these moral facts remain sensible. But we've lost an important tool for overcoming peoples overly self-centered impulses.

If they are so sensible then why do they require a repository and enforcement mechanism?

I dont think its the rule book itself that keeps religious people in line so much as the formalization of the "higher witness" side of yourself in the person of God.

Now I think you've been listening to Jordan Peterson.

If you do "good" (or abstain from "bad") because of a rule book, you are not moral, just obedient.

So how do I become moral?