Atheist morality.

[James T]

I actually view it as the only reasonable kind. After all an atheist has no higher authority to fall back on and so must justify a moral position with reason.

It disturbs me to encounter the application of dogmatic beliefs in morality. People need to actually consider the position based on the facts and the identification of real harm. Real harm does not include the offense sticky-beaks take when poking their nose into affairs where they disapprove.

 

[nadroj1985]

It is not really "reasonable" to avoid harm.

How is your belief that moral judgments should be based on the principle "thou shalt do no harm" not dogmatic?

 

[James T]

It is not really "reasonable" to avoid harm.

How is your belief that moral judgments should be based on the principle "thou shalt do no harm" not dogmatic?

Did you fail to consider the result if people went around causing harm?

Hardly a dogmatic consideration, more pragmatic I would say.

Unlike Kant I think determining these things by the universalist test is incorrect, however if a lot of people did them the results would be a society I didn't like.

 

[trying_ 2B_wheat]

i find it difficult to discern morality from religious overtones. i mean, religion seems to be what morality gets its ideas from.

 

[David Gould]

Did you fail to consider the result if people went around causing harm?

Hardly a dogmatic consideration, more pragmatic I would say.

Unlike Kant I think determining these things by the universalist test is incorrect, however if a lot of people did them the results would be a society I didn't like.

I agree with Nadroj. For instance, you discuss this pragmatism in terms of a society that you didn't like.

What is it about such a society that you would not like?

On what logical premises are your dislike of these things based?

My point here is that likes and dislikes are not logical. We like and dislike things completely without reason. For example, I like chocolate. Why?

Morality is simply personal preference, after all, and there is no rationale behind personal preference.

 

[James T]

On what logical premises are your dislike of these things based?

It's a bit pointless trying to justify everything logically, trynig proving induction for instance.

My point here is that likes and dislikes are not logical. We like and dislike things completely without reason. For example, I like chocolate. Why?

I would never suggest they were.

Morality is simply personal preference, after all, and there is no rationale behind personal preference.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

 

[David Gould]

It's a bit pointless trying to justify everything logically, trynig proving induction for instance.

I would never suggest they were.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Not particularly. You are claiming that atheist morality is more rational than theist morality. I am suggesting that all moralities are personal preference, and there is no basis, rational or otherwise, for personal preference.

 

[James T]

Not particularly. You are claiming that atheist morality is more rational than theist morality. I am suggesting that all moralities are personal preference, and there is no basis, rational or otherwise, for personal preference.

I am claiming it is more reasonable than theist morality because an atheist immediately avoids the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

 

[David Gould]

I am claiming it is more reasonable than theist morality because an atheist immediately avoids the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

I suppose. But isn't the atheist simply substituting, 'This is what God prefers' with 'This is what I prefer'?

 

[Stuco]

What is atheist morality?

 

[David Gould]

What is atheist morality?

Eat babies.
Eat more babies.
Just eat those babies already!


An atheist morality is a morality constructed without reference to a deity.

 

[Stuco]

Eat babies.
Eat more babies.
Just eat those babies already!


An atheist morality is a morality constructed without reference to a deity.

Well I gueesed that. But could you give me a basis please?

 

[Stellar Vision]

i find it difficult to discern morality from religious overtones. i mean, religion seems to be what morality gets its ideas from.

So did I to some extent, but that is because we always hear them mentioned contemporaneously. Yet if morality had to be derived from religion, then all non-religious people would apparently be amoral and unable to tell right from wrong. However there does not seem to be any correlation between a person's religious beliefs and their morality or ability to discern right from wrong. So in that respect I think they are separate ideas.

 

[James T]

I suppose. But isn't the atheist simply substituting, 'This is what God prefers' with 'This is what I prefer'?

Did you miss the original point???

Why you ask an atheist why, the atheist cannot use the cop-out that it's because god said. They may well still have irrational biases but these are not excused by a party who cannot front to justify their position.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well I gueesed that. But could you give me a basis please?

Apparently you won't get one from David Gould aside from "personal preference", but then he doesn't believe in free will, and so he's likely to talk about morality in descriptive rather than prescriptive terms anyway.

While I agree that many people simply do express emotional preferences in making moral decisions, the wise person's "preferences" are based on some intelligent understanding of what is good to achieve, e.g. an evaluation of the relationship between various courses of action and one's personal flourishing.

 

[Corey]

Well I gueesed that. But could you give me a basis please?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or to put it bluntly...expect reciprocity eventually.

Oh...and to the poster who said religious morality is an argumentum ad verecundium fallacy, you're misapplying the fallacy. It's an appeal to [false] authority. Insomuch that someone believes in their god, that authority is "real."

 

[levi501]

I agree... morality that ignores the idea of a deity appears to be more rational and consistent, because it's set on advancing the needs of the people instead of some supernatural entity.

 

[Ledifni]

I actually view it as the only reasonable kind. After all an atheist has no higher authority to fall back on and so must justify a moral position with reason.

It disturbs me to encounter the application of dogmatic beliefs in morality. People need to actually consider the position based on the facts and the identification of real harm. Real harm does not include the offense sticky-beaks take when poking their nose into affairs where they disapprove.

For myself, I think it's unwise to accept morality dogmatically rather than reasoning it out, but it disturbs me only when those who do so decide that I shouldn't be allowed to reason my morality. When somebody dogmatically accepts a system of morals and then forces it down my throat, then I'm disturbed, because the way I live my life is then subject to somebody else's purely random, wild, flailing-around-in-the-dark speculation about what might possibly be best.

 

[Ledifni]

I suppose. But isn't the atheist simply substituting, 'This is what God prefers' with 'This is what I prefer'?

Perhaps. But it is quite possible to look within oneself and learn what one prefers. It's quite a different matter to look into God and find out what he prefers.

 

[Zaac]

I actually view it as the only reasonable kind. After all an atheist has no higher authority to fall back on and so must justify a moral position with reason.

It disturbs me to encounter the application of dogmatic beliefs in morality. People need to actually consider the position based on the facts and the identification of real harm. Real harm does not include the offense sticky-beaks take when poking their nose into affairs where they disapprove.

Atheist morality? How can such a thing exist? Wouldn't such a moral code be based completely on someone's OPINION. Morality should not be subjective, but absolute.