Morality

[Earatha]

I'd argue that the best way to be good is to let all religion go and focus on ourselves.

People will say Christians have better morality than atheists. But just look at all the arguing in the Minecraft thread. Over a video game, and dare I say it, one that's not even that good in terms of gameplay quality.

Religion or lack thereof does not mean anything in terms of morality. The only link is that it supplies a pre-made moral philosophy. Many atheists I know take up the humanist moral philosophy without giving it further thought. I will be blunt here and say both are lazy.

What is right? What is wrong? How do we make that decision? How do we settle moral disputes? These are questions worth talking about. And some of the answers might be unsettling.

But that's what makes the discussion interesting. What fun would it be if all the questions gave the same answers by everyone? For example, I don't see selfishness as inherently evil. In fact I think rational self interest is a good thing.

 

[-V-]

"Wrong. Atheists just don't have an ultimate authority on morality. They still believe it's good and not evil to help an old lady cross the street."
- It's not about WHAT you believe. It's WHY. WHY is it good to help an old lady across the street? From an atheist perspective, the only consistent answer is because it's simply your opinion that it's good. If I say pushing the old lady down in the street is the good thing to do, it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine within an atheist framework.

"My question is, why do we need an ultimate authority on morality?"
- To avoid the problem I stated above.

 

[Tinker Grey]

1. Welcome to the boards.
   
2. It is useful to learn the tags for quoting. You can do this two ways:
   • Surround the text you want to quote in quote tags, thusly
     [quote]This is the text[/quote], yields

     This is the text

   • Press the reply button in the bottom right corner of the post you want to respond to. Then, you break up that post as above.

"Wrong. Atheists just don't have an ultimate authority on morality. They still believe it's good and not evil to help an old lady cross the street."
- It's not about WHAT you believe. It's WHY. WHY is it good to help an old lady across the street? From an atheist perspective, the only consistent answer is because it's simply your opinion that it's good. If I say pushing the old lady down in the street is the good thing to do, it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine within an atheist framework.

The why is because we are a social species. We evolved to operate this way. We cooperate. That's what morality is. That's what being a social species is. To violate this is to break the social contract.

The fact that people do break that contract is indicative of evolution, too. Every generation is different from the previous. Sometimes that is reflecting in the genes that control for social cooperation.

If a person can't cooperate or fake cooperation, they end up killed, imprisoned, or banished.

 

[-V-]

"The why is because we are a social species. We evolved to operate this way. We cooperate. That's what morality is. That's what being a social species is. To violate this is to break the social contract."
- But WHY is breaking the social contract immoral? Just because we evolved that way is completely arbitrary. We evolved to have 5 fingers instead of 6. Is 5 "right" while 6 would be "wrong"? Nonsense. In the same way, just because we evolved to be social can not, therefore, be the reason why going against that is immoral.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"The why is because we are a social species. We evolved to operate this way. We cooperate. That's what morality is. That's what being a social species is. To violate this is to break the social contract."
- But WHY is breaking the social contract immoral? Just because we evolved that way is completely arbitrary. We evolved to have 5 fingers instead of 6. Is 5 "right" while 6 would be "wrong"? Nonsense. In the same way, just because we evolved to be social can not, therefore, be the reason why going against that is immoral.

Yes. Breaking the social contract is immoral by definition. The right number of fingers for a human is five because we evolved that way.

 

[quatona]

"Wrong. Atheists just don't have an ultimate authority on morality. They still believe it's good and not evil to help an old lady cross the street."
- It's not about WHAT you believe. It's WHY. WHY is it good to help an old lady across the street? From an atheist perspective, the only consistent answer is because it's simply your opinion that it's good. If I say pushing the old lady down in the street is the good thing to do, it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine within an atheist framework.

"My question is, why do we need an ultimate authority on morality?"
- To avoid the problem I stated above.

Except the problem and the question would remain the same: "WHY does an ultimate authority make right/good?"

 

[quatona]

- It's not about WHAT you believe. It's WHY.

Yes: WHY do people believe in a God, WHY do they believe this Goe has commanded a certain morality, and WHY do they believe that this would be a sufficient reason to accept this morality as authoritative?

WHY is it good to help an old lady across the street? From an atheist perspective, the only consistent answer is because it's simply your opinion that it's good.

By the same token, from a theist perspective the answer is because it´s simply their opinion that a God exists, has commanded a certain morality, and that this morality is therefore authoritative.
[/quote]If I say pushing the old lady down in the street is the good thing to do, it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine within an atheist framework.[/quote]
You almost make it sound like theists can prove their opinion to be better than someone else´s.

 

[-V-]

"Breaking the social contract is immoral by definition."
- By whose definition? Merriam Webster? Oxford? Please link to a definition of "moral" that says that.

"Except the problem and the question would remain the same: "WHY does an ultimate authority make right/good?""
- In a Christian framework, no, it does not remain. God, the ultimate authority, makes right/good because God, by definition, is right/good.

"Yes: WHY do people believe in a God"
- Irrelevant. The question is not about God's existence, it's about morality within one's particular framework of belief.

"By the same token, from a theist perspective the answer is because it´s simply their opinion that a God exists, has commanded a certain morality, and that this morality is therefore authoritative."
- Yes, because God being authoritative is consistent within a theist framework.

"You almost make it sound like theists can prove their opinion to be better than someone else´s."
- It's not about proving that I'm right while you're wrong - it's about proving consistency within one's own framework. My beliefs of what is moral/immoral is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT within a theist/Christian framework. The only moral position that is consistent within an atheistic framework is that no action is truly more/less moral than any other act beyond one's personal feelings/opinions, with no way to justify one view/opinion as more valid than an opposing view/opinion.

 

[Left]

Someone needs to call Nihilist Virus into this thread, to provide an accurate representation of the "atheist" side for everyone.

 

[quatona]

"Except the problem and the question would remain the same: "WHY does an ultimate authority make right/good?""
- In a Christian framework, no, it does not remain. God, the ultimate authority, makes right/good because God, by definition, is right/good.

Well, if the problem is solved by defining stuff as right/good, every atheist can do the same.

"Yes: WHY do people believe in a God"
- Irrelevant. The question is not about God's existence, it's about morality within one's particular framework of belief.

Ok, if it´s about creating a framework within which things are good/right by definition, that shouldn´t be any problem with or without a God.

"By the same token, from a theist perspective the answer is because it´s simply their opinion that a God exists, has commanded a certain morality, and that this morality is therefore authoritative."
- Yes, because God being authoritative is consistent within a theist framework.

...and e.g. defining social contract as being authoritative is consistent within a non-theist framework.

"You almost make it sound like theists can prove their opinion to be better than someone else´s."
- It's not about proving that I'm right while you're wrong

Yes, sorry, that´s what you said: "it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine".
As soon as anyone can prove that their moral opinion is better than someone else´s, you can start singling out a certain group for being unable to do that. Until then, not so much.

The only moral position that is consistent within an atheistic framework is that no action is truly more/less moral than any other act beyond one's personal feelings/opinions, with no way to justify one view/opinion as more valid than an opposing view/opinion.

Incorrect. Atheists, just like theists, can appeal to an alleged moral authority they believe in. So there´s the very framework that´s needed, according to your line of reasoning.

 

[-V-]

"Well, if the problem is solved by defining stuff as right/good, every atheist can do the same."
- But HOW are they defining it, and how is it consistent within an atheist framework?

"Ok, if it´s about creating a framework within which things are good/right by definition, that shouldn´t be any problem with or without a God."
- And yet none of you have done such in a manner consistent within an atheist framework.

"and e.g. defining social contract as being authoritative is consistent within a non-theist framework."
- But who decides what that social contract actually consists of? If it's just people's opinions, then you haven't shown why your opinion is more valid than mine.

"Yes, sorry, that´s what you said: "it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine".
As soon as anyone can prove that their moral opinion is better than someone else´s, you can start singling out a certain group for being unable to do that. Until then, not so much."
- No, you're taking what I said out of context. In an atheist framework, neither opinion can be actually proven to be more moral. In the theist/Christian framework, one of those opinions CAN be proven to be more moral.

"Incorrect. Atheists, just like theists, can appeal to an alleged moral authority they believe in. So there´s the very framework that´s needed, according to your line of reasoning."
- They can? Then do so. Give us this moral authority, and how said authority is actually a valid, objective standard in an atheist framework.

 

[quatona]

"Well, if the problem is solved by defining stuff as right/good, every atheist can do the same."
- But HOW are they defining it, and how is it consistent within an atheist framework?

"Ok, if it´s about creating a framework within which things are good/right by definition, that shouldn´t be any problem with or without a God."
- And yet none of you have done such in a manner consistent within an atheist framework.

"and e.g. defining social contract as being authoritative is consistent within a non-theist framework."
- But who decides what that social contract actually consists of? If it's just people's opinions, then you haven't shown why your opinion is more valid than mine.

"Yes, sorry, that´s what you said: "it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine".
As soon as anyone can prove that their moral opinion is better than someone else´s, you can start singling out a certain group for being unable to do that. Until then, not so much."
- No, you're taking what I said out of context. In an atheist framework, neither opinion can be actually proven to be more moral. In the theist/Christian framework, one of those opinions CAN be proven to be more moral.

"Incorrect. Atheists, just like theists, can appeal to an alleged moral authority they believe in. So there´s the very framework that´s needed, according to your line of reasoning."
- They can? Then do so. Give us this moral authority, and how said authority is actually a valid, objective standard in an atheist framework.

Your first mistake is the notion of an "atheist framework". Atheism isn´t a framework, it is the rejection of a single claim.
As for your request: I can define nature as "good/right", and within this framework everything that´s produced by nature is good/right. (And don´t ask me to prove the framework to be correct - since previously you insisted that proving the framework correct was irrelevant, but that you are talking about a framework within which moral claims are consistent.). That´s just one example in which no God is required.

 

[Dave-W]

The right number of fingers for a human is five because we evolved that way.

And the "left" number would be 6 because that is a common mutation?

 

[SPF]

With morality, the simple Truth is that under the Biblical understanding of God, morality is objective because the standard comes from God's nature, and God is immutable.

Within an atheistic worldview, man is the measure of all things. And if man is the measure of all things, then morality is necessarily subjective because no man has more authority over another man to tell them that action X is right or wrong.

 

[Tinker Grey]

With morality, the simple Truth is that under the Biblical understanding of God, morality is objective because the standard comes from God's nature, and God is immutable.

Within an atheistic worldview, man is the measure of all things. And if man is the measure of all things, then morality is necessarily subjective because no man has more authority over another man to tell them that action X is right or wrong.

Note that man is being used above to indicate all of mankind and also to indicate individuals.

We don't have a choice merely between a god and each individual human doing his/her own thing. The corporate body does indeed have the authority to tell an individual what is right or wrong. It also has the power to enforce those judgments. An individual can judge an action against society's standards.

 

[SPF]

We don't have a choice merely between a god and each individual human doing his/her own thing. The corporate body does indeed have the authority to tell an individual what is right or wrong. It also has the power to enforce those judgments. An individual can judge an action against society's standards.

This doesn't solve the dilemma, it just shifts it. Culture is made up of men, and while a group of men may come together and say that we are going to determine these actions as good and these actions as bad - there is nothing objective about their decisions. Meaning, the next generation of men may come along and change what is right and what is wrong. Essentially what we have here is a "might makes right" mentality where if enough people agree, they can enforce their beliefs upon others.

But those beliefs are not in any way objective, for they are still determined by each man. 10 men agreeing on something and having the power to force that upon others does not make the belief objective. It just makes a subjective belief enforceable.

There's simply no getting around the fact that if man is the measure of morality, then morality is necessarily subjective. For if man is the measure of morality, then no man has the authority to say that their belief about action X is wrong to the man that believes action X is acceptable.

Personally, I've never understood why atheists even have a problem with this. I would whole-heartedly embrace this if I were.

 

[-V-]

"Your first mistake is the notion of an "atheist framework". Atheism isn´t a framework, it is the rejection of a single claim"
- Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum. There are logical, necessary conclusions from atheism. And one of those necessary conclusions is that moral beliefs must be completely arbitrary.

"As for your request: I can define nature as "good/right", and within this framework everything that´s produced by nature is good/right. "
- No, you can't. There is nothing in an atheist framework that defines nature as inherently good. You can say it's your opinion that nature is good, but in an atheist framework, that is nothing but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion.

"The corporate body does indeed have the authority to tell an individual what is right or wrong."
- And why is that? Oh, because people say so. Under an atheistic framework, that is another unsubstantiated subjective opinion.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Christianity is utterly irrelevant to morality. As are all religions.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There are logical, necessary conclusions from atheism.

There is only one necessary conclusion of - not from - atheism. That is a lack of belief in gods. Any consideration beyond that, and you are talking about something other than atheism.

And one of those necessary conclusions is that moral beliefs must be completely arbitrary.

That is a naked assertion, which I dismiss out of hand.

There is nothing in an atheist framework that defines nature as inherently good.

That's hardly surprising, since it is irrelevant to atheism.

You can say it's your opinion that nature is good, but in an atheist framework, that is nothing but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion.

Even granting that this is somehow a problem for an 'atheist framework', as you put it, there is nothing in Christianity that can answer the 'problem' anyway. So, another irrelevant non-point.

 

[Larniavc]

In an atheistic view, the only consistent conclusion is that morality doesn't exist.

Yet another example of someone who is not an atheist, speaking for atheists; and getting it wrong.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.