Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[Abaxvahl]

I think most people should know what a backstop is. You can call it an absolute limit if you like, a red line that must never be crossed, a behaviour that is always prohibited, or a value that is non-negotiable to the extent that removing the restriction is not even debatable.

Thank you for a definition. Having had a while to think I do believe I found one example of a backstop mentioned in Scripture, I will look for even more. I may have to revise my previous answer in the thread as I consider the matter more deeply, here it is from 2 Cor 5:14-15:

"For the love of Christ constrains us; because we judge thus, that one died for all, therefore all died. He died for all, that those who live should no longer live to themselves, but to him who for their sakes died and rose again."

I think also a verse above may be related: "Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are revealed to God, and I hope that we are revealed also in your consciences."

More prayer and study are needed to rightly interpret, but perhaps this suggest that there can be constraints on a person, or a certain knowledge given which while one may possibly go against it you can never change it, for instance Satan knows what he does is evil but willfully does evil anyway. In one sense the restriction in his conscience is not at all moved he just violates it. Would you consider having definite knowledge of what is good and what is evil to be a backstop, even if you cross it?

And this is not to even mention that by grace God can prevent people from wrongdoing and keep them righteous freely, so that is another angle to consider it from.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't think it's a very difficult concept, so I'm puzzled at the requests for clarification. And as I previously explained, I considered an earlier request for examples of Biblical backstops as likely to lead to a thread derail.

I think most people should know what a backstop is. You can call it an absolute limit if you like, a red line that must never be crossed, a behaviour that is always prohibited, or a value that is non-negotiable to the extent that removing the restriction is not even debatable.

Hope that helps.

There are a couple of problems with the concept of an absolute red-line limitation.

First - as individuals we don't know what we're capable of doing depending on the circumstances. I'm sitting happily in the sunshine on a full stomach in a safe liberal democracy where I am financially secure. It's easy to imagine things I would "never do" but if circumstances change I can offer no guarantees that my red line won't shift based on need, desperation, threat etc. etc. Whether you accept it or not you are no different to me.

This brings me to the second point. I know what humans are capable of. Child sacrifice, burning people, cannibalism, rape, exposure of infants, wanton slaughter, extreme torture have all been accepted practices within past and present societies. Even now many people regard abortion as murder while others accept it as a women's right. In my country capital punishment is considered barbaric while in the US it's a legitimate cost of crime. In the Middle East they blow each other up. A few decades back they were doing the same thing in Ireland.

This range of behaviours clearly demonstrates that the concept of what is moral varies enormously. Morality is relative to the culture and circumstances in which you live. If your circumstances change your red line (or 'backstop') will also shift.

To claim that you or I or anyone has some ultimate moral boundary is contrary to the realities of human behaviour.

OB

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Please note, I'm not asking whether Atheists possess moral and ethical values. I'm asking whether there are any backstops that prevent atheists from deciding that behaviours that are currently considered immoral and unethical, are now morally and ethically acceptable.

The backstop for this atheist is the facts of reality. What is moral is determined by our nature as rational beings. What's moral is determined by nature but has to be discovered by man's mind.

 

[Abaxvahl]

The backstop for this atheist is the facts of reality. What is moral is determined by our nature as rational beings. What's moral is determined by nature but has to be discovered by man's mind.

What is the nature of humanity, and what moral facts have you discovered?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What is the nature of humanity, and what moral facts have you discovered?

Man's nature is that of a living organism that has reason as it's means of suvival. Every living organism has a means of survival. Eagles live by swooping down and catching rabbits or fish with their amazing eyesight and sharp talons. Elephants live by foraging on plants. Man lives by means of his ability to think. This is a moral fact, i.e., a fact relevant to his life. Man requires freedom in order to think and act
on what he discovers. There's another moral fact. Freedom means freedom from coercion, e.g., threats, violence, fraud. It does not mean doing anything one wishes.

There are many facts pertaining to man's nature and life that are discoverable. Reason is the how of discovery. Logic is the how of integration. The two combine as a means of knowledge, including the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Man's nature is that of a living organism that has reason as it's means of suvival. Every living organism has a means of survival. Eagles live by swooping down and catching rabbits or fish with their amazing eyesight and sharp talons. Elephants live by foraging on plants. Man lives by means of his ability to think. This is a moral fact, i.e., a fact relevant to his life. Man requires freedom in order to think and act
on what he discovers. There's another moral fact. Freedom means freedom from coercion, e.g., threats, violence, fraud. It does not mean doing anything one wishes.

There are many facts pertaining to man's nature and life that are discoverable. Reason is the how of discovery. Logic is the how of integration. The two combine as a means of knowledge, including the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

I see, different definition of moral facts. I had thought that you meant something that ought to be done. Thank you for explaining.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I see, different definition of moral facts. I had thought that you meant something that ought to be done. Thank you for explaining.

A moral fact is not the same thing as an ought. The bridge between facts and oughts is purpose. There are only two fundamental purposes: to live or not to live. It is the purpose of life that gives one a standard on which to judge facts and derive the oughts. If one wants to grow a garden one must discover and integrate facts pertaining to the nature of plants and their needs and what one ought to do if one wants to have a successful garden. If one wants to live then one must discover and integrate facts pertaining to man's life and its needs and derive from these facts and purpose, principles by which to live.

 

[Petros2015]

I wonder what your Jesus would say of so uncharitable an attitude.

Probably something along the lines of Matthew 23.
As I recall, he had more to say against hypocrisy than atheism.
It wasn't the atheists that called for him to be crucified.

but you will never know since you don't read the Bible.

But you'd have to read the bible to know that.

 

[zippy2006]

Your request looked like the start of a thread derail attempt, and it was somewhat off topic. Many Christians reject some Bible teachings because they don't fit with modern liberal values. Let's leave it there.

My request was quite natural and on-topic. When you ask, "Do atheists have a moral backstop," you are obviously contrasting atheists with their complement: theists. Someone who asks that question obviously believes that theists have a backstop, so I asked for a definition of 'backstop' and examples of (Christian) theist backstops. I didn't say anything about the Bible. You brought up the Bible.

For example, if someone says, "Can women do construction work?," they would obviously be including an assumption about whether men can do construction work, else their question would make little sense. If they didn't have an opinion about men they should have asked, "Can anyone do construction work?" And lots of posters were confused about this, even beyond those who explicitly asked about it, for many claimed that you can't have a backstop whether you are an atheist or a theist.

But I see that you finally answered my question in post #58. Apparently by "backstop" you mean categorical prohibitions. I thought you meant a safety net or a second layer of insulation in the sense that the morality was reinforced by a second layer of normativity, for that is what a backstop actually is. It is a second safeguard in case something makes it past the first safeguard.

Sure, atheists can derive categorical prohibitions. Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas, and Shelly Kagan are just a few who have offered such moral systems. Even St. Paul says that unbelievers have the law written on their heart. Other possible examples can be found at this post in Is there Objective Morality?

 

[JustSomeBloke]

My request was quite natural and on-topic. When you ask, "Do atheists have a moral backstop," you are obviously contrasting atheists with their complement: theists. Someone who asks that question obviously believes that theists have a backstop, so I asked for a definition of 'backstop' and examples of (Christian) theist backstops. I didn't say anything about the Bible. You brought up the Bible.

All the Abrahamic religions have rules. And I'd guess that most, if not all, non-Abrahamic religions also have rules. I've already explained my reasons for not wanting to discuss Christian backstops, and I haven't changed my mind on that.

But I see that you finally answered my question in post #58. Apparently by "backstop" you mean categorical prohibitions. I thought you meant a safety net or a second layer of insulation in the sense that the morality was reinforced by a second layer of normativity, for that is what a backstop actually is. It is a second safeguard in case something makes it past the first safeguard.

Many Western societies have laws based on Judeo-Christian values and behaviours. From that point of view, if society liberalises, and decriminalises behaviours that are forbidden to observant Jews and Christians, then religion is the backstop. That is why I used the word backstop, although other words and descriptions could also be applied.

Sure, atheists can derive categorical prohibitions. Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas, and Shelly Kagan are just a few who have offered such moral systems. Even St. Paul says that unbelievers have the law written on their heart. Other possible examples can be found at this post in Is there Objective Morality?

Those people you listed are philosophers, aren't they? From that point of view, their values and behaviours can be re-assessed and modified, either by themselves, or another philosopher. Therefore, I do not consider anything they come up with to be a true backstop.

 

[VirOptimus]

All the Abrahamic religions have rules. And I'd guess that most, if not all, non-Abrahamic religions also have rules. I've already explained my reasons for not wanting to discuss Christian backstops, and I haven't changed my mind on that.


Many Western societies have laws based on Judeo-Christian values and behaviours. From that point of view, if society liberalises, and decriminalises behaviours that are forbidden to observant Jews and Christians, then religion is the backstop. That is why I used the word backstop, although other words and descriptions could also be applied.


Those people you listed are philosophers, aren't they? From that point of view, their values and behaviours can be re-assessed and modified, either by themselves, or another philosopher. Therefore, I do not consider anything they come up with to be a true backstop.

History and our world show us that religion is no ”backstop”.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you don't know what a moral and ethical backstop is, you might find it difficult to participate in this thread.


This thread was born out of curiosity. I didn't wake up yesterday and think 'what can I do today to rattle the atheist's cages'. The topic of moral and ethical backstops has been on my mind for quite a few months. Eventually I decided I might as well create a thread and see what people have to say about it.


The Old Testament has been around for a while.


Do all Atheists consider themselves to be Humanists?


Your request looked like the start of a thread derail attempt, and it was somewhat off topic. Many Christians reject some Bible teachings because they don't fit with modern liberal values. Let's leave it there.


Atheism is the belief that there is no God. From that point of view it could be argued that Atheism is a religion with a singular belief.

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

You seem loathe to accept that you made up the
"Fact" about other cultures about which neither you
nor anyone can possibly know. Same as "jews always..."
that you cannot know.

You go on to speak of atheists as some cohesive
group (a stereotype) who might think alike on
child abuse.

I find it a horrible crime that deserves the
harshest penalties. As surely any decent person does.

It does not uplift anyone to make claims that others
are not as good and moral as they.

In general, it has a "protest too much" air to it.

You have some good points to make? Say it straight
and we will consider it.

All I can go by is Wikipedia on the ancient world, and in particular Rome and Greece. It mentions Israel. Also I have a friend who is a historian.

I really try to refer to atheists who are into philosophy and scientism. Wikipedia is structured philosophically, and is full of philosophy. In the debates if you like surrounding God's existence and the universe... They seem to be anti-theists. But overall they are not unified, even though they have atheists conferences.

Atheists don't think alike on child abuse I agree. Just thinking of the ancient people and pre-Christian and Judaism free thinking. Some atheists refer to Socrates... Point being, it is Christianity that made child abuse disliked. How long will a secular world still hold to Christian values?

I prefer balanced penalising over always the harshest. Penalties can be blunt instruments to make people just. Faith and salvation or even science could be better. Those paedophile priests give Christianity a poor name in regards to caring for the vulnerable in the church and in regards to Jesus' power as saviour of the faithful, should be the salt of the Earth.

 

[VirOptimus]

All I can go by is Wikipedia on the ancient world, and in particular Rome and Greece. It mentions Israel. Also I have a friend who is a historian.

I really try to refer to atheists who are into philosophy and scientism. Wikipedia is structured philosophically, and is full of philosophy. In the debates if you like surrounding God's existence and the universe... They seem to be anti-theists. But overall they are not unified, even though they have atheists conferences.

Atheists don't think alike on child abuse I agree. Just thinking of the ancient people and pre-Christian and Judaism free thinking. Some atheists refer to Socrates... Point being, it is Christianity that made child abuse disliked. How long will a secular world still hold to Christian values?

I prefer balanced penalising over always the harshest. Penalties can be blunt instruments to make people just. Faith and salvation or even science could be better. Those paedophile priests give Christianity a poor name in regards to caring for the vulnerable in the church and in regards to Jesus' power as saviour of the faithful, should be the salt of the Earth.

Christianity has not the same values and morality today as it had when it was established, even less (of course) then it had when judaism was founded.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Christianity has not the same values and morality today as it had when it was established, even less (of course) then it had when judaism was founded.

How is this the case?

 

[Astrid]

Probably something along the lines of Matthew 23.
As I recall, he had more to say against hypocrisy than atheism.
It wasn't the atheists that called for him to be crucified.



But you'd have to read the bible to know that.

The hypocrisy of being "Christian" and speaking so il
of others is why I brought up what He might say.


You think I have not read the bible?

 

[Ken-1122]

Man's nature is that of a living organism that has reason as it's means of suvival. Every living organism has a means of survival. Eagles live by swooping down and catching rabbits or fish with their amazing eyesight and sharp talons. Elephants live by foraging on plants. Man lives by means of his ability to think. This is a moral fact, i.e., a fact relevant to his life. Man requires freedom in order to think and act
on what he discovers. There's another moral fact.

Those may be facts, but they have nothing to do with morality. In order to be a moral fact, morality has to be involved.

 

[Astrid]

Those may be facts, but they have nothing to do with morality. In order to be a moral fact, morality has to be involved.

Of course morality is involved in MORAL facts.

From overstating the obvious you go straight to
denying the obvious.
Moral facts are about how morality relates to reality,
ie, relevant facts.- the things you say have nothing to
do with morality!

 

[Astrid]

All I can go by is Wikipedia on the ancient world, and in particular Rome and Greece. It mentions Israel. Also I have a friend who is a historian.

I really try to refer to atheists who are into philosophy and scientism. Wikipedia is structured philosophically, and is full of philosophy. In the debates if you like surrounding God's existence and the universe... They seem to be anti-theists. But overall they are not unified, even though they have atheists conferences.

Atheists don't think alike on child abuse I agree. Just thinking of the ancient people and pre-Christian and Judaism free thinking. Some atheists refer to Socrates... Point being, it is Christianity that made child abuse disliked. How long will a secular world still hold to Christian values?

I prefer balanced penalising over always the harshest. Penalties can be blunt instruments to make people just. Faith and salvation or even science could be better. Those paedophile priests give Christianity a poor name in regards to caring for the vulnerable in the church and in regards to Jesus' power as saviour of the faithful, should be the salt of the Earth.

All you can do? Surely you have the capacity to admit that
thousands of cultures around the world existed at the time
in question, and you simply made it up that only the Jews
were down on child abuse.

Citing wiki and "a friend" only underlines the obvious
falsity of your claim.

Atheists-
You did not refer to some tiny group of people who happen to
be atheists, "philosophers, scientism(ists)?"
You spoke of atheists, again as with world cultures, taking a
tiny slice and pretending it's the whole.
Some of us call that negative stereotyping, and find it to
be a moral fact that it's wrong, immoral.

I don't think the Bible even addresses child abuse. Does it?

The claim that Christianity made child abuse " disliked"
rings hollow, for one, I dont think Jews are Christians,
for another, you again make the claim that all other
cultures thought it was ok..

Now you are tossing in " secular" people worldwide yet more
people to malign.


What Chridtian values you are promoting with such
calumny and falsehood is not clear to me. Perhaps you can explain.

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course morality is involved in MORAL facts.

So why did you mention the human living by means of his ability to think, as a moral fact, when it has nothing to do with morality?

From overstating the obvious you go straight to
denying the obvious.

What did I deny?

Moral facts are about how morality relates to reality,
ie, relevant facts.- the things you say have nothing to
do with morality!

Your first point and your second point appear to have nothing to do with each other. You lost me on that one bro.