Atheism and evil

[quatona]

The question of the moment for subjectivists is how they then relate to those whose system differs.

I suspect that a main difference between you and me is: You are concerned with their systems, whereas I - as a pragmatist - am concerned with their actions. IOW, I don´t consider morality an end in itself. To me, it serves a purpose.
While I certainly have some core guidelines and paradigms, I do not think approaching morality by means of establishing a fixed "system" is particularly helpful. Every situation has its particularities, and the complexity of human interaction and psychology can´t be covered by cut in stone "moral truths". I do understand, though, why a simple solution appears to be attractive to some.

As for your question: How I relate to people who act in ways I disapprove of depends largely on the degree their behaviour affects me or others.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I hope I am not being rude by commenting upon the posts in this thread while not being myself an atheist.

From what I have seen here objectivity to some means the same as subjectivity does to others. For instance I see objectivity as being immutable. A thing is what is not because of the way I perceive it but just because it is what it is. I can objectively paint a picture on someone's fence and i might think it good while someone else might find it evil. What if the owner of the fence likes the picture and does not wish to remove it at all. Seems like a subjective decision to me to call that either good or evil. Then we have the strange idea that it is objective rather than subjective to make the welfare or the survivability of one's own species as the standard of morality. Or the idea that the individual well being of a being is good but the individual harm of a being is evil. Yet the same action might be to the benefit of one being while being detrimental to another. How is that action objectively either evil or good, doesn't it solely depend upon one's subjective POV?

 

[Resha Caner]

So do you think the law (or people who have the power to stop something) should stop adulterers? Pornographers? Baked potato fetishists? Drinkers? Smokers? Pot smokers? Polyamorists? Antivaxxers? Creationists? Psychics?

We may draw the line in different places, but I didn't say I thought the principle wrong.

In summary, you have said morals are for each person to determine. That one then attempts to persuade those who differ, which in some cases may escalate to the use of force. In other cases, a person may decide not to use force even if immoral acts could be stopped. However, if force is used, the recepient of that force, even though they feel they've been wronged, has no justification.

I find it interesting because God is often accused of acting in exactly that manner: deciding His own moral laws, using force to insure His will when people can't be persuaded, and yet sometimes not acting to stop what He has declared to be immoral even if He could. So, people may feel wronged by that, but have no justification.

When a person with maximal power says he is going to act (or not act), how does one go about persuading him to a different course of action?

 

[Resha Caner]

I think, Resha, that that is the wrong definition in this context. Objective in this context would pertain to things in the outer world (objects of consciousness) vs. personal preferences or feelings (subjects of consciousness). Things discovered by introspection are subjective while things discovered by extrospection are objective. Man's nature, being a fact of reality, is objective. That you need food to survive is an objective fact. If I take all your food away that would be objectively harmful to you. If I paint my name on your nice clean fence that is objectively harmful to you because you will have to spend some of your finite time and money to fix it. Does that make more sense?

If I imagine painting my name on your nice clean fence but don't actually do it, that would be subjective and would not harm you. I could imaging tearing down your house with a bulldozer but that does not harm you. If I go get one and do it that would then be an objective harm to you. You would have lost all the time and money that you put into it and then also your piece of mind.

That all sounds nice, but I don't think it justifies your actions any better than subjectivism. Giving food to someone who wants to die - forcing them to live a life they find unbearably painful - could be considered harm. Taking food from the one who has it and giving it to the one who doesn't could be considered harm to the one who had food. And so, giving or taking food becomes dependent upon personal biases as to whether the people involved think it has or hasn't caused harm.

Thinking about vandalizing my property is likely to come out in the way you relate to me. Someone thinking they can completely compartmentalize seems a fantasy.

 

[Resha Caner]

This distinguishes liberals (more or less) from other political styles. Many types of illiberal politics treat statecraft as soulcraft, and assume that government exists to use force to improve the moral character of the citizenry. In contrast to that, liberals may take the view that it is a free society that does the best job at nourishing the development of moral character, since the honest intent to be virtuous cannot be compelled. In any case, government in their view has a different purpose.

Per one usage of "liberal" yes. But not per the way the term is currently used in American politics. In the U.S. a liberal is simply someone who uses the government to force things that are different from what conservatives force. And that seems to be the end result all ideas of government. Eventually people use force to get what they want.

 

[Resha Caner]

I hope I am not being rude by commenting upon the posts in this thread while not being myself an atheist.

No problem. Join the discussion.

From what I have seen here objectivity to some means the same as subjectivity does to others. For instance I see objectivity as being immutable. A thing is what is not because of the way I perceive it but just because it is what it is. I can objectively paint a picture on someone's fence and i might think it good while someone else might find it evil. What if the owner of the fence likes the picture and does not wish to remove it at all. Seems like a subjective decision to me to call that either good or evil. Then we have the strange idea that it is objective rather than subjective to make the welfare or the survivability of one's own species as the standard of morality. Or the idea that the individual well being of a being is good but the individual harm of a being is evil. Yet the same action might be to the benefit of one being while being detrimental to another. How is that action objectively either evil or good, doesn't it solely depend upon one's subjective POV?

I agree, and said basically the same thing in my reply to Scotsman.

 

[Resha Caner]

I suspect that a main difference between you and me is: You are concerned with their systems, whereas I - as a pragmatist - am concerned with their actions. IOW, I don´t consider morality an end in itself. To me, it serves a purpose.

I'm sure my views come through in the way I phrase my questions, but my intentions are not quite as pointed as many seem to think. For example, essentialsaltes also objected to the word "evil". Fine, I'll use "moral" instead.

Further, I would agree morality is meant to serve a purpose, and that moral situations can become very complex. But it is for that reason I think moral laws also serve a purpose. In another thread I said I wouldn't steal to end my own starvation. The person asking the question thought I was choosing a principle over life, but that's not really what I was saying. I was saying that stealing implies harm done to the person I'm stealing from. So, given the complexity of the situation and my inability to foresee all the ramifications, I default to the moral law against stealing.

For me, a very interesting case in that regard is Bonhoeffer's decision to give false information to the Nazis during interogation. It's interesting because it really happened, and he wrote about the situation. Given the duress he was under (they eventually took his life), few would question his decision. I would probably crack under that pressure.

But the fascinating part is that he wrote about it. After doing something few would fault him for, he agonized over whether giving false information to the Nazis was a lie. His conclusion was that the Nazis were so far outside moral boundaries that they had no right to the truth, and so moral laws of lying did not apply. I'm still turning that one over in my head.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I find it interesting because God is often accused of acting in exactly that manner: deciding His own moral laws, using force to insure His will when people can't be persuaded, and yet sometimes not acting to stop what He has declared to be immoral even if He could. So, people may feel wronged by that, but have no justification.

Yes, the god of the Bible behaves like a person.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, the god of the Bible behaves like a person.

Ha! A nicely loaded statement, but I'll leave it alone. Does that mean you're not interested in answering the question in that post?

 

[Eudaimonist]

But not per the way the term is currently used in American politics.

I agree that today's progressive liberals are only quasi-liberals. I tend to think of them as soft social democrats.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

I suspect that a main difference between you and me is: You are concerned with their systems, whereas I - as a pragmatist - am concerned with their actions. IOW, I don´t consider morality an end in itself. To me, it serves a purpose.
While I certainly have some core guidelines and paradigms, I do not think approaching morality by means of establishing a fixed "system" is particularly helpful. Every situation has its particularities, and the complexity of human interaction and psychology can´t be covered by cut in stone "moral truths". I do understand, though, why a simple solution appears to be attractive to some.

As for your question: How I relate to people who act in ways I disapprove of depends largely on the degree their behaviour affects me or others.

Very well stated Q!

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree that today's progressive liberals are only quasi-liberals. I tend to think of them as soft social democrats.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I wouldn't put everyone of them into a neat little box. People that call themselves "liberal" run the gamut from classical liberals( not many of these but a few still exist that hold to that philosophy though some call themselves conservative, quite ironic. ) to fervent totalitartians ( unfortunately many of these hold positions of power in governments both national and local. ) and all kinds of shades in between. IMO, just like objective and subjective there seems no real agreement upon just what the phrase "politically liberal" means. Many people do not like to be called by a name that describes more appropriately what they would like done by government so they call themselves liberal or conservative depending upon which they find to be less likely to cause people to question them further on what they think or which they believe people will think they are because of what they might happen to think about certain key issues. I will tell people I am conservative because I tend to trend toward a more libertarian attitude without being an actual libertarian across the board on all issues, but I actually would be closer to a classical liberal than a modern neo conservative and certainly nothing like a classical conservative. I suppose this tangent is not really interesting to those that wish to discuss the OP so I apologize for it but I just could not help myself.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ha! A nicely loaded statement, but I'll leave it alone. Does that mean you're not interested in answering the question in that post?

'When a person with maximal power says he is going to act (or not act), how does one go about persuading him to a different course of action?'

How does one persuade anyone? With whatever arguments one has.

 

[quatona]

I'm sure my views come through in the way I phrase my questions, but my intentions are not quite as pointed as many seem to think. For example, essentialsaltes also objected to the word "evil". Fine, I'll use "moral" instead.

I just try to find out why so many of your questions do not really make a lot of sense, in my view of things - in that they are probably founded in paradigms I do not share.

Further, I would agree morality is meant to serve a purpose, and that moral situations can become very complex. But it is for that reason I think moral laws also serve a purpose.

Well, if we can agree on the purpose, we will have a comparably solid foundation for a meaningful discussion.
Then again, I don´t know that there are "moral laws".

In another thread I said I wouldn't steal to end my own starvation. The person asking the question thought I was choosing a principle over life, but that's not really what I was saying. I was saying that stealing implies harm done to the person I'm stealing from. So, given the complexity of the situation and my inability to foresee all the ramifications, I default to the moral law against stealing.

Yes, you are thinking in terms of "moral laws", and I am not.
On another note, I personally don´t subscribe to the mainstream idea of what makes something someone´s property, so "theft" is also a term we might have different ideas about.

For me, a very interesting case in that regard is Bonhoeffer's decision to give false information to the Nazis during interogation. It's interesting because it really happened, and he wrote about the situation. Given the duress he was under (they eventually took his life), few would question his decision. I would probably crack under that pressure.

But the fascinating part is that he wrote about it. After doing something few would fault him for, he agonized over whether giving false information to the Nazis was a lie. His conclusion was that the Nazis were so far outside moral boundaries that they had no right to the truth, and so moral laws of lying did not apply. I'm still turning that one over in my head.

To be honest, I don´t even understand how or why that would be such a big deal. I don´t think there is a "moral law" against lying (I wouldn´t know which purpose it would serve, to begin with - since in my experience "speaking the truth" often doesn´t serve a purpose I subscribe to).
So, to me, it´s a bit absurd how he gets tangled up in these "laws" I don´t believe in, just to find loopholes and rationalizations why he needn´t obey them.
To me it´s quite simple: I don´t want those people be killed, so I won´t help to kill them.

 

[Resha Caner]

How does one persuade anyone? With whatever arguments one has.

Circumstances make a difference. Making an argument that trees are a precious resource goes differently for someone living in northern Michigan than it does for someone living in Germany ... an experience I've actually had.

 

[Resha Caner]

I just try to find out why so many of your questions do not really make a lot of sense, in my view of things - in that they are probably founded in paradigms I do not share.

Probably so.

Well, if we can agree on the purpose, we will have a comparably solid foundation for a meaningful discussion.

I always thought understanding would be a good place to start rather than trying to drive to agreement, which never seems to happen.

To me it´s quite simple: I don´t want those people be killed, so I won´t help to kill them.

I thought we had agreed such things can become quite complex. But I do see how dismissing the concerns of others simplifies the situation.

 

[quatona]

I thought we had agreed such things can become quite complex.

Yes.

But I do see how dismissing the concerns of others simplifies the situation.

Whose and which concerns specifically are you referring to as being dismissed, here?

 

[Resha Caner]

Whose and which concerns specifically are you referring to as being dismissed, here?

You indicated Bonhoeffer's consideration of lying was "absurd" and trivial. The first word is one you yourself used. The second word is my condensation of your comment that it isn't a "big deal". I interpret that as a dismissal of his concern for lying.

But, just my interpretation. Feel free to clarify. Though I'm not sure what I can extract from any attempt to clarify since you feel no need to speak the truth unless it serves your purposes - whatever those might be.

 

[quatona]

You indicated Bonhoeffer's consideration of lying was "absurd" and trivial. The first word is one you yourself used. The second word is my condensation of your comment that it isn't a "big deal". I interpret that as a dismissal of his concern for lying.

The first mistake you constantly make, Resha, is to treat our immediate behaviours and our way of thinking about what to do (the meta-level, as you will) as if they were the same. That´s irritating to say the least.
I have never had any direct interaction with Bonhoeffer, so I couldn´t dismiss anything he had in mind or did. He could act freely on his concern for lying, uninhibited by me.
I justtold you what I am concerned and not concerned with. I told you what my way of approaching these questions is and isn´t (as opposed to Bonhoeffer´s).
Pretending I had some sort of relationship or interaction with Bonhoeffer is a category error. There wasn´t even an opportunity for me to interfere with Bonhoeffer´s way of thinking and dealing with the issue, and even if there had been, I had made no statement about how I would have dealt with him and our different ways of thinking.
In the same way you can say I "dismissed his concerns" you could say he "dismissed my concerns" or you "dismissed my concerns". So that´s obviously not a fruitful way to talk about our different approaches in an attempt to understand.

In short: I have offered you my way of approaching such questions. Quite obviously, it is different than that of other people. That´s the nature of presenting our views.

But, just my interpretation. Feel free to clarify.

I am not quite sure what there´s to clarify. You didn´t even address what I had said. You immediately turned it into something different. Sometimes I have problems believing you are following the idea of "understanding first".

Though I'm not sure what I can extract from any attempt to clarify since you feel no need to speak the truth unless it serves your purposes - whatever those might be.

Nice little low blow.

Now, if you want this discussion to have this low level:
I don´t know what to extract from Bonhoeffer´s elaborations - after all, he could have considered his audience is so so "far outside moral boundaries that they had no right to the truth".

Of course, being the "understand first" guy you like to think of yourself as, you could have asked first what my main purposes of morality are - but unfortunately you were more interested in launching your little attack (involving subtle insinuations) than in understanding first.

 

[Resha Caner]

Pretending I had some sort of relationship or interaction with Bonhoeffer is a category error. There wasn´t even an opportunity for me to interfere with Bonhoeffer´s way of thinking and dealing with the issue, and even if there had been, I had made no statement about how I would have dealt with him and our different ways of thinking.

I never meant to imply anything of the kind, so maybe I meant something else in saying you dismissed his concern.

I am not quite sure what there´s to clarify. You didn´t even address what I had said. You immediately turned it into something different. Sometimes I have problems believing you are following the idea of "understanding first".

In another thread, you said you were OK if I wasn't interested in replying to you - even if it's my OP. Such was the case here. If you will note, of your multiple initial posts, I only replied to one - the one where you were speculating on my concerns. In that reply I asked you no questions. I only commented on those concerns of mine about which you speculated.

Of course, being the "understand first" guy you like to think of yourself as, you could have asked first what my main purposes of morality are - but unfortunately you were more interested in launching your little attack (involving subtle insinuations) than in understanding first.

Are you saying I misrepresented you? Well, again, even though you are "not quite sure what there´s to clarify", feel free to explain your statement:

I wouldn´t know which purpose it [a "moral law" against lying] would serve, to begin with - since in my experience "speaking the truth" often doesn´t serve a purpose I subscribe to).

I repeat it here for you, but if you choose to explain, please avoid asking me questions if at all possible. I'm not really interested.