Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[VirOptimus]

Unfortunate for them, doesn't apply to me though, I agree with all of God's Law. So I see that by value change you were not saying all Christians but only some, which is fair. I agree that many have changed values. Unless you meant something else not made clear here.

You condone slavery?

 

[zippy2006]

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.

The ability to revise one's positions is a human thing, not a philosopher thing. It applies to Christians as well as anyone else. No one has a "backstop" that is impossible to abandon.

 

[Abaxvahl]

You condone slavery?

My position precisely: "radical forms of slavery that deprive human beings of all personal rights are never morally permissible, but more or less moderate forms of subjection and servitude will always accompany the human condition."

My "moderate" I mean "what the God allows" and by "radical" I mean "beyond what God allows" (for instance kidnapping in order to enslave people [or in general] is forbidden in the Law with a death penalty, so I wouldn't support kidnapping).

Yes.

 

[VirOptimus]

My position precisely: "radical forms of slavery that deprive human beings of all personal rights are never morally permissible, but more or less moderate forms of subjection and servitude will always accompany the human condition."

My "moderate" I mean "what the God allows" and by "radical" I mean "beyond what God allows" (for instance kidnapping in order to enslave people [or in general] is forbidden in the Law with a death penalty, so I wouldn't support kidnapping).

Yes.

So slavery should be legal like it was in biblical times?

 

[MehGuy]

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.

Hmmm.. not sure what you mean by backstops? I will try to answer your question the best way I can.

I would consider the sensations of guilt and shame to be backstops. Of course they vary and are often expressed from the whims of culture. For example I would feel horrible owning human beings as property, yet if I were born 2,000 years ago in ancient Roman times I would probably have little emotional qualms about it. Things like empathy are riddle with biases due to evolution.

Another major backstop for me that has less to do with emotions and more the realities of wanting to live in a productive and successful society. Which is why I disapprove of things like cheating and stealing, and try my best to avoid doing these things myself. While these things do not have to be major deals by themselves, once you reach a certain threshold it can have devastating consequences for a community.

I hope I am making sense. I do like Stevil's (post #114) answer. Perhaps I might be a moral nihilist myself? Life would be nice if we could objectively pin point what is moral and what isn't moral or that such a thing exists in a concrete way. Sadly I do not see this coming from a most likely sandbox universe. Or even how much it would matter given we live in a sandbox universe.

An honest and respectful person could get into a car accident and suffer brain damage to the pre-frontal cortex, and start acting more dishonest and cruel. We've slaves of biology and culture. Things like empathy, guilt and shame have some explanatory power, but our brains are probably hardwired in other ways we do not yet have terms for. We're a social species, psychopaths and leeches exist.. but statistically there can only be so much of them before they become a detriment.

 

[zippy2006]

Hmmm.. not sure what you mean by backstops?

He is wondering whether atheists can have prohibitions on behavior that hold no matter what. It's not really a backstop, but that's what he means:

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.

 

[Abaxvahl]

So slavery should be legal like it was in biblical times?

It doesn't have to be, but I'd not consider it a moral violation if that or something like it were legal. As freedom is better (and the Bible itself says this) I wouldn't advocate for it, but that is not the same as being against it (what is in the Bible), which I am not.

 

[VirOptimus]

It doesn't have to be, but I'd not consider it a moral violation if that or something like it were legal. As freedom is better (and the Bible itself says this) I wouldn't advocate for it, but that is not the same as being against it (what is in the Bible), which I am not.

I see.

Well, luckily most christians have moved on from slavery.

 

[zippy2006]

As a Christian, I would say, for me, love is supposed to function as an absolute in the sense that it can override other commands but itself cannot be overridden. Love always seeks what is to the benefit of those involved. Sometimes lying, for instance, can be overridden by love. If the Nazis knock looking for the Jews in my basement, I should lie according to the law of love.

That's me, but I'm sure many Christians would disagree, lol, so it's not an obvious absolute if it is one, and it's not a backstop. I have done some things that are not very loving, to my shame. I wish it were a backstop or whatever.

It seems to me that if love is not complemented by a concrete notion of the good then it can be used to justify almost anything.

That is, if we take Aristotle's definition of friendship love, "To will another's good," we have in hand a very flexible motive given that conceptions of "another's good" differ widely. In metaethical terms, schools like Situational Ethics are forms of intentionalism.

In post #58 the OP explained "backstop" as "a behaviour that is always prohibited." Apparently love prohibits intentions, not behaviors. If that is right then I'm not sure it could function as a moral "backstop."

 

[public hermit]

It seems to me that if love is not complemented by a concrete notion of the good then it can be used to justify almost anything

Sure, there are times what is good and needed in a given moment is a mystery. But more often than not we know. It's just not always what we want. We don't need a handbook to know how to treat others with kindness and dignity, taking into account their needs and interests, taking into account that they need and want the same basic things we need and want. Love your neighbor as yourself is not a mystery most of the time. If someone wants to justify some horrendous act by saying it was love, that's on them and we usually can tell it's off. The only real mystery is why we wouldn't live in love from the get-go.

In post #58 the OP explained "backstop" as "a behaviour that is always prohibited." Apparently love prohibits intentions, not behaviors. If that is right then I'm not sure it could function as a moral "backstop.

If one lives by love it will prohibit behaviors that are not loving. The problem with the idea that a set of rules can function as a backstop is that not every situation fits the rules. Most probably do, but certainly not all. Love causes no harm (pace Paul), and when able to act in a non-paternalistic way (again Paul -love is not forceful), love contributes to the good of others. That covers the whole territory, even the gaps left by the set of rules, if faithfully lived out. When the Nazi knocks on the door, you lie or whatever; you don't keep the truth-telling rule since a much greater good is at stake. But, yeah, it takes attention and true concern for others, which rules or backstops also can't provide.

 

[Bradskii]

Atheists don't think alike on child abuse I agree.... Point being, it is Christianity that made child abuse disliked.

What? Just...what?

 

[zippy2006]

Sure, there are times what is good and needed in a given moment is a mystery. But more often than not we know. It's just not always what we want. We don't need a handbook to know how to treat others with kindness and dignity, taking into account their needs and interests, taking into account that they need and want the same basic things we need and want. Love your neighbor as yourself is not a mystery most of the time. If someone wants to justify some horrendous act by saying it was love, that's on them and we usually can tell it's off. The only real mystery is why we wouldn't live in love from the get-go.

Well my objection is not that love suffers from epistemic limitations. Of course it does, but no more than anything else.

So again, the claim is that love is not substantive and sufficient in itself without an adequate notion of the good. In this post you include various notions of the good, such as the idea that others want the same things we want and that they should get what they want, or that they should not be harmed, or that they should not be coerced, etc. But if someone does not agree with you about what is good then they could love while, say, harming. Love in itself is a very thin notion that is primarily about one's intention. In a society where the good is commonly agreed upon we can use the word without thinking about it, but that is because we have a shared notion of the good, and this is not always true.

If one lives by love it will prohibit behaviors that are not loving. [...]. Love causes no harm (pace Paul), and when able to act in a non-paternalistic way (again Paul -love is not forceful), love contributes to the good of others. That covers the whole territory, even the gaps left by the set of rules, if faithfully lived out.

Again, I don't think it will definitively exclude hardly any behaviors. For example, you say that "love causes no harm" (which is a rule, by the way: a roundabout way of saying 'do not harm'). Yet when faced with the Trolley Problem you have claimed that murder is sometimes morally necessary. There can be no doubt that murder is harmful, and yet you defended your position on the basis of love.

Now it may seem strange to hear someone say that sometimes to be loving means to be a murderer, but I don't find it strange at all. When people talk about what is "loving" they are generally just talking about what they think is best, and in your case you see consequentialism as best or most loving, which includes justifiable murder. In the end these moralities based on "love" seem to be quite flimsy, and they don't seem to be any different from any other morality. I don't see any difference between a consequentialist and a love-consequentialist (and maybe the "love morality" is just a fancy way of dressing up intuitionist consequentialism).

The problem with the idea that a set of rules can function as a backstop is that not every situation fits the rules. Most probably do, but certainly not all. [...] When the Nazi knocks on the door, you lie or whatever; you don't keep the truth-telling rule since a much greater good is at stake. But, yeah, it takes attention and true concern for others, which rules or backstops also can't provide.

Well this is a big topic, but you are essentially saying that sometimes rules are inapplicable and therefore we should focus on love. I like the Aristotelian approach. According to Aristotle prudence is required to apply the various rules, and the guiding principle is primarily justice, not love. The basic problem is that rules are never dispensed with. In the Nazi example you are merely substituting a rule against murder (or cooperating with murder) for a rule against lying, and claiming that the murder rule takes precedence. That's fine, but the operative principle is prudence in knowing how to apply the correct rule and knowing the hierarchy of rules. It's not an anti-rule approach.

 

[Ken-1122]

So a bro is like a woke redneck.

No, bro is another word for brother; IOW a friend as close to you as your brother

 

[Kylie]

It doesn't have to be, but I'd not consider it a moral violation if that or something like it were legal. As freedom is better (and the Bible itself says this) I wouldn't advocate for it, but that is not the same as being against it (what is in the Bible), which I am not.

Let me get this straight: You believe that in certain situations, it is morally acceptable to own a person. Like property.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Let me get this straight: You believe that in certain situations, it is morally acceptable to own a person. Like property.

Yes.

From the end of Lev 25 for one example: "As for your slave and your slave woman who are yours, from the nations that are all around you, from them you may buy a slave or a slave woman. And you may buy also from the children of the temporary residents who are dwelling with you as aliens and from their clan who are with you, who have children in your land; indeed, they may be as property for you. And you may pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you to take possession of as property for all time—you may let them work. But as for your countrymen, the Israelites, you shall not rule with ruthlessness over one another."

 

[Bradskii]

Yes.

From the end of Lev 25...

There's quite a lot in Leviticus that seems nonsensical and some that appears to be truly barbaric. How do you decide which is morally correct?

 

[Bradskii]

Let me get this straight: You believe that in certain situations, it is morally acceptable to own a person. Like property.

How would you counter the possible claim that slavery is wrong whatever anyone thinks? And is therefore objectively wrong?

 

[Abaxvahl]

There's quite a lot in Leviticus that seems nonsensical and some that appears to be truly barbaric. How do you decide which is morally correct?

I don't think any of God's Laws are nonsensical or barbaric personally. I do not pick and choose from them which is morally correct, I think the whole of God's Law (eternal, natural, divine in all Covenants, just human Laws founded on virtues He has established for us, etc) is aptly described in the 18th Psalm (19 in Hebrew):

The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls: the testimony of the Lord is faithful, giving wisdom to little ones.
The justices of the Lord are right, rejoicing hearts: the commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is holy, enduring for ever and ever: the judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves.
More to be desired than gold and many precious stones: and sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think any of God's Laws are nonsensical or barbaric personally. I do not pick and choose from them which is morally correct...

But you used Leviticus to justify your position. If someone says that homosexuals should be put to death and does the same - quotes Leviticus to support their position, then how would you respond?

 

[Abaxvahl]

But you used Leviticus to justify your position. If someone says that homosexuals should be put to death and does the same - quotes Leviticus to support their position, then how would you respond?

That unless it is the only means of protecting society from said crime then it would not be justified, for this reasoning I would refer them to the Church which states this, who is the context in which the Scriptures are always read. If it was in line with the Church teaching on this though then I would not respond.

Note: this is my "safe" position, I am still discerning the teaching on the matter of putting criminals to death and a broader position may be possible, currently it is beyond my knowledge so I defer to this take.