Evolutionary morals

[Prince Lucianus]

I was reading the local paper which used a recent american (I know, the friend of a nephew's child etc. ) poll on mobile phones and the changing attitude.

Less and less people think it's acceptable to use your mobile in several places (hospital, cinema, restaurant, while driving etc).
The poll made a comparison with several years ago and the tendency was quite obvious.

Then I thought about a question which pops up here X' times a month: "Where do atheists get their morals from?"
The fun thing with mobile phone morals is that no religion can anwser this as well. Nowhere in the bible does it state where you can and can not use your mobile.

What do we learn from polls like this: With new situations, an equilibrium is sought and found. Morals will develop and an equilibrium will be found naturally. Several countries are implementing laws as a result and this is of course what must have happened during history as we know it.

New things/situations develop-> Equilibrium sought and found-> Laws implemented.

It's a nutshell, but this simply shows how morals come about, change and stabilise.
A few years ago, in the subways people were blabbering through a mobile all the time. People thought driving and using a phone at the same time were okay.
Now, people no longer think it's okay (accidents happened) and morals are set in place.

Lucy

 

[alerj123]

I was reading the local paper which used a recent american (I know, the friend of a nephew's child etc. ) poll on mobile phones and the changing attitude.

Less and less people think it's acceptable to use your mobile in several places (hospital, cinema, restaurant, while driving etc).
The poll made a comparison with several years ago and the tendency was quite obvious.

Then I thought about a question which pops up here X' times a month: "Where do atheists get their morals from?"
The fun thing with mobile phone morals is that no religion can anwser this as well. Nowhere in the bible does it state where you can and can not use your mobile.

What do we learn from polls like this: With new situations, an equilibrium is sought and found. Morals will develop and an equilibrium will be found naturally. Several countries are implementing laws as a result and this is of course what must have happened during history as we know it.

New things/situations develop-> Equilibrium sought and found-> Laws implemented.

It's a nutshell, but this simply shows how morals come about, change and stabilise.
A few years ago, in the subways people were blabbering through a mobile all the time. People thought driving and using a phone at the same time were okay.
Now, people no longer think it's okay (accidents happened) and morals are set in place.

Lucy

atheists get their morals the same place every other human being on the planet gets them. From themselvs and the people they associate with.

The only difference is who gets the credit.

 

[Voegelin]

Who gets the credit is the difference between the morality of Ernest Haeckel and Mother Teresa.

 

[Nightson]

Who gets the credit is the difference between the morality of Ernest Haeckel and Mother Teresa.

Or the difference between Susan B. Anthony and Torquemada.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

atheists get their morals the same place every other human being on the planet gets them. From themselvs and the people they associate with.

The only difference is who gets the credit.

I think that was my point.

I only needed more phrases to say it

Lucy

 

[jayem]

It's a nutshell, but this simply shows how morals come about, change and stabilise.
A few years ago, in the subways people were blabbering through a mobile all the time. People thought driving and using a phone at the same time were okay.
Now, people no longer think it's okay (accidents happened) and morals are set in place.

Lucy

Though I agree with your point about evolving standards of behavior, I would call your cell phone example more about etiquette, or manners, than morals. But maybe, in some respects, changing etiquette is the first baby step towards changing moral values.

 

[sister_maynard]

Probably. You can boil changing manners down to equilibrium or people developing a belief in the firm social power of the Golden Rule- you wouldn't like someone to smash your car up (or kill you or themselves) because they were talking on a cell phone, so you don't talk on your cell phone because you want to avoid extending that same risk of accident or death to other.
(Of course, the Golden Rule is found in pretty much every religion and in basic empathy, but it's an interesting point.)

 

[Voegelin]

the firm social power of the Golden Rule- you wouldn't like someone to smash your car up (or kill you or themselves) because they were talking on a cell phone, so you don't talk on your cell phone . . . the Golden Rule is found in pretty much every religion. . .

What differs (and I am including gnostic pseudo-religions) is the starting premise. If one is a materialist, a utilitarian,an atheist, a marxist one could use the Golden Rule to justify abortion, steralization for the purpose of eugenics and euthanasia. In those belief systems, morality is malleable. There is no requirement one be for euthanasia but there is nothing stopping anyone either. There is no principle which overrides the whim of the individual(s). However if one believes man is made in the image of God and looks to Mat 25:40 for guidence on how to act toward others, such positions become untenable.

 

[Moros]

Some of my favorite Christians are the ones who cite really vague scripture to cover things that didn't exist back then so they can say that the bible says ___ about ___. Prophecy!

 

[OfficeBoss]

I love it when people say "Athiests cant have morals becuase they are godless!"

 

[Eudaimonist]

In those belief systems, morality is malleable.

No, it isn't. Not any more than that the existence of different theistic ethics means that morality is malleable for the theist.

Just because one is a "theist" or a "supernaturalist" and different ethics can be argued with these as foundational premises or categories of thought, that doesn't mean that just any morality that can be argued for must be regarded as valid and true. (E.g. Is it immoral to accept a blood transfusion? Different theisms take different moral positions.)

The same thing holds true for the categories of nontheist that you mentioned. Just because one can be an atheist and support eugenics, that doesn't mean that this is must be regarded by all atheists as a valid moral position or option. One may be an atheist and disagree strenuously that eugenics is moral. No atheist, materialist, or whatever need regard morality as "malleable".


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Verv]

People will always have concepts of morality, but I think what makes the person who believes in God(s) more powerful in their morals is that they have a divine source of morality, whereas everyone else has no real source of morality, only complete hypothesis.

In the situation of men debating morality amongst each other,,, when man becomes the greatest authority on ethics, is it not trued that man's ethics are inherently different? Which man is most appropriate to decide our ethics?

If man is the measure of morality, then we are never going to have a proper measure and thus never have any objectivity in our decisions on morality.

 

[OfficeBoss]

People will always have concepts of morality, but I think what makes the person who believes in God(s) more powerful in their morals is that they have a divine source of morality, whereas everyone else has no real source of morality, only complete hypothesis.

In the situation of men debating morality amongst each other,,, when man becomes the greatest authority on ethics, is it not trued that man's ethics are inherently different? Which man is most appropriate to decide our ethics?

If man is the measure of morality, then we are never going to have a proper measure and thus never have any objectivity in our decisions on morality.

What part of men living their own lives and making their own choices and forming different opinions are you insecure about?

What makes you think my morals are not real, or cant be as strong as yours? I would love to know.

 

[Eudaimonist]

People will always have concepts of morality, but I think what makes the person who believes in God(s) more powerful in their morals is that they have a divine source of morality, whereas everyone else has no real source of morality, only complete hypothesis.

eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

People will always have concepts of morality, but I think what makes the person who believes in God(s) more powerful in their morals is that they have a divine source of morality, whereas everyone else has no real source of morality, only complete hypothesis.

In the situation of men debating morality amongst each other,,, when man becomes the greatest authority on ethics, is it not trued that man's ethics are inherently different? Which man is most appropriate to decide our ethics?

If man is the measure of morality, then we are never going to have a proper measure and thus never have any objectivity in our decisions on morality.

Which leaves us in exactly the same position as if there is a God, and he is the divine source of morality, because man is STILL the measure - everybody interprets what God has said differently. It still leaves the question of which man is most appropriate to decide our ethics - it's just that it now becomes which man is most appropriate to determine what god has told us?

 

[Verv]

What part of men living their own lives and making their own choices and forming different opinions are you insecure about?

What makes you think my morals are not real, or cant be as strong as yours? I would love to know.

I am insecure about no part of that. All people must live freely. However, people going around and making choices on their own is one thing, debating philosophy is another; most folks put little thought into their own commitments to higher ideals or the analysis of where values, truths come from, etc. I fear nothing. I live in Korea -- more than half the people I talk to, party with, etc. are atheist.

Your morals are purely dependent on your own independent thought, and thus are extremely fallible, whereas other people's morals who believe in God(s) are founded on doctrine and divine promulgation, meaning that they have a very strong foundation in their own mind and are uncompromisable.

Someone who does not believe in God and believes that man is the greatest measure of morals will be prone to compromising ideals more, being that they are not from a Divine source.

Which leaves us in exactly the same position as if there is a God, and he is the divine source of morality, because man is STILL the measure - everybody interprets what God has said differently. It still leaves the question of which man is most appropriate to decide our ethics - it's just that it now becomes which man is most appropriate to determine what god has told us?

That is true in many ways, and in very many ways it is not true. Some things which God promulgated are extraordinarily clear cut:

"Love your neighbor as how you love yourself."
"Thou shalt not murder."
"Thou shalt not steal."
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." etc.

It becomes even clearer in some religions other than Christianity, where laws governing diets and worship are very clearly laid out.

However, you are right, there will always be variations. Some people take 'Thou shalt not murder' to mean 'never kill someone, including in a tme of war,' whereas others feel that killing in war is not considered murder, etc. it is all debatable, but one thing is certain: people generally pull a much tighter line on morals when there is a God involved.

Without a God, there is perhaps a higher inclination towards moral relativity.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That is true in many ways, and in very many ways it is not true. Some things which God promulgated are extraordinarily clear cut:

"Love your neighbor as how you love yourself."
"Thou shalt not murder."
"Thou shalt not steal."
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." etc.

But these are things we don't need a god for. We all know that these are good moral precepts - we don't need a holy book to tell us.

However, you are right, there will always be variations. Some people take 'Thou shalt not murder' to mean 'never kill someone, including in a tme of war,' whereas others feel that killing in war is not considered murder, etc. it is all debatable, but one thing is certain: people generally pull a much tighter line on morals when there is a God involved.

I'm not sure what 'pull a tighter line on morals' means - but I see no difference at all between the moral reasoning of theists and non-theists. The theists claim that their interpretation of what their god has said represents objective morality - non-theists simply don't claim that any objective morality exists. They both come up with the same sorts of morals. What's the difference?

Without a God, there is perhaps a higher inclination towards moral relativity.

I don't think that's true, because even theists use moral relativity - what they call objective morality is merely their subjective take on what they believe their god has said.

 

[Verv]

But these are things we don't need a god for. We all know that these are good moral precepts - we don't need a holy book to tell us.

I disagree. There are a lot of people and groups that previously believed, before universal morals were somewhat brought together through a concept of democracy, human rights, very much founded on a lot of Christian ideals on human rights by 17th-18th century philosophers, woudl conceive stealing from a rival tribe/group as okay, would consider adultery to not be fundamentally negative if it was between two willing people, and things of that like.

I'm not sure what 'pull a tighter line on morals' means - but I see no difference at all between the moral reasoning of theists and non-theists. The theists claim that their interpretation of what their god has said represents objective morality - non-theists simply don't claim that any objective morality exists. They both come up with the same sorts of morals. What's the difference?

They do not come upw ith the same morals in many cases. The moral system of USSR, PRC, DPRK, Viet Nam, Khampuchea, Burma, Laos, etc. were all determined for a long time by godless idealism, in which practicality took precedent over basic human rights. Regardless of your views on a lot of it, atheist and theist morals are different and generally theists pull very hard lines on murder, theft, etc. and due to these even become impractical.

I don't think that's true, because even theists use moral relativity - what they call objective morality is merely their subjective take on what they believe their god has said.

Sikhs use moral relativity, I know, but I do not think that other groups do so muc; if something is wrong, it is wrong, period.

 

[Marz Blak]

They do not come upw ith the same morals in many cases. The moral system of USSR, PRC, DPRK, Viet Nam, Khampuchea, Burma, Laos, etc. were all determined for a long time by godless idealism, in which practicality took precedent over basic human rights.

I think it worth noting that the very concept of 'basic human rights' is a relatively modern one. Its philosophical basis in the Western world (after Locke, Hobbes, et al) was not primarily grounded in religious principles, but rather on humanistic natural rights theories.

On the other hand, divine command theories of ethics have been used to justify war, forced conversion/inquistion, slavery and serfdom, oligarchy (e.g., 'divine right of kings'), etc.

In making this observation, I do not argue that ethics based on a religious foundation are inherently worse than atheistic ones; I am merely saying that it is hard to argue that they inherently any better based on what evidence we have: for every Pol Pot there's a Torquemada, Hitler's beliefs were at least partly based on his religious views, etc.

I would assert, though, that with regard to the great advances in ethics we've seen in the last two centuries or so -- the very concept of human rights, the abolitionist movement, the the concept of the welfare state, etc. -- it the advance of humanist principles, both within religious schools of thought and without, that was the primary motivating factor.

 

[Marz Blak]

Sikhs use moral relativity, I know, but I do not think that other groups do so muc; if something is wrong, it is wrong, period.

I think this is, at best, an oversimplification. Often the relativity is built into the definitions of prohibited or allowed acts specified in the supposedly concrete ethical code. For example, the Ten Commandments says unambiguously 'thou shalt not kill (or 'murder') but elsewhere in the Old Testament there are other statements, laws, and described acts of God that make this command a good deal more qualified, to say the least.