On Morality

[fschmidt]

As an atheist, I would like to ask the question whether there should be any great difference in the morality of a religious person and an atheist. My answer is that it is harder for an atheist to be moral, but an intelligent atheist with integrity should have a similar morality to a religious person. This conclusion requires two sets of arguments, one from a religious perspective and one from an atheist perspective.

First the religious perspective. If God created the world, then the laws of nature should reflect his thinking. An atheist focuses on the laws of nature rather than on God, but since nature is a creation of God, a deep analysis of nature should yield the same conclusions as the study of God would. Furthermore, if God is good, then his morality should ultimately benefit people, so an analysis of what morality benefits people in the long run should produce the same morality that God would choose. However, all of this is indirect, from a religious perspective, and so is a harder path.

Now the atheist perspective. Religions evolve, those that are functional survive and those that aren't die. So old religions must have a good morality in order to survive as long as they have. Because religions are effective carriers of memes, they allow for the successful evolution of morality without requiring analysis. Members of religions simply accept the moral principles that have withstood the test of time, which is a much easier approach than having to derive morality for oneself. Since atheists have no such moral guidance, the morality of most atheists becomes something like fashion and degenerates until the culture of the atheists self destructs. So only intelligent atheists with a firm understanding of history have any chance of having a sensible morality.

 

[drich0150]

Without any foundational truths or absolute standards, "morality" is subject to popular culture, and one can quite easily find himself to be a "moral" man. But, when one compares their "morality" to that of God's ultimate standard, then it is apparent that we can never be "moral" and then we must seek redemption through Jesus Christ.

True Morality is a proud man's fallacy. No one is moral, no not one.

 

[singpeace]

As an atheist, I would like to ask the question whether there should be any great difference in the morality of a religious person and an atheist. My answer is that it is harder for an atheist to be moral, but an intelligent atheist with integrity should have a similar morality to a religious person. This conclusion requires two sets of arguments, one from a religious perspective and one from an atheist perspective.

First the religious perspective. If God created the world, then the laws of nature should reflect his thinking. An atheist focuses on the laws of nature rather than on God, but since nature is a creation of God, a deep analysis of nature should yield the same conclusions as the study of God would. Furthermore, if God is good, then his morality should ultimately benefit people, so an analysis of what morality benefits people in the long run should produce the same morality that God would choose. However, all of this is indirect, from a religious perspective, and so is a harder path.

Now the atheist perspective. Religions evolve, those that are functional survive and those that aren't die. So old religions must have a good morality in order to survive as long as they have. Because religions are effective carriers of memes, they allow for the successful evolution of morality without requiring analysis. Members of religions simply accept the moral principles that have withstood the test of time, which is a much easier approach than having to derive morality for oneself. Since atheists have no such moral guidance, the morality of most atheists becomes something like fashion and degenerates until the culture of the atheists self destructs. So only intelligent atheists with a firm understanding of history have any chance of having a sensible morality.

I am of the opinion that morality represents a universally shared knowledge of the difference between good and evil or right and wrong. When someone wrongs us, we instinctively and positively know we have been wronged without the need to look to cultural influences. Protecting an innocent child from being hit by a car is instinctive. We put the welfare of those we love above our own needs and desires, and this is the most natural thing in the world to us. Morality is a part of each human being and cannot be measured in physical or material terms. It is spiritual. It exists in the soul. It is a gift from God; a portion of him given to each human as mankind is made in the image of God... not physically, but because of the reality of the soul.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The distinction one commonly hears is that there is an ontological difference between an atheist's morality and a Christian's morality. One could not necessarily conclude that an atheist will conclude that morality should be derived primarily from self concern to the exclusion of others, since there are atheists that conclude that morality is derived either from self concern primarily that extends to altruism or starts with a recognition of the equality of everyone as moral patients as well as moral agents.

The Christian would argue that their morality, while potentially identical to an atheist's morality that concludes on many of the same beliefs about how you should treat others, their concern is not with morality as a basic end in itself of treating others well, but morality as something adjacent to salvation. One's salvation from a Christian standpoint is not any righteousness you merit on your own, but merit from the grace of God moreso. The difficulty then seems to arise on this point about the moral behavior that results from a Christian having a salvation experience and then doing good works through faith imbued in them by God's grace.

I'm reminded virtually every time of the Euthypro dilemma in some way, shape or form.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Of course the difficulties would still persist with qualifications that goodness is in God's nature, because of the notion of God's nature being immutable and thus good being something unchanging and by some derivation, rigid and resistant.

 

[fschmidt]

when one compares their "morality" to that of God's ultimate standard, then it is apparent that we can never be "moral" and then we must seek redemption through Jesus Christ.

But there must be degrees of morality, right? If not, then why not just rape and pillage and seek redemption when you are done?

I am of the opinion that morality represents a universally shared knowledge of the difference between good and evil or right and wrong. When someone wrongs us, we instinctively and positively know we have been wronged without the need to look to cultural influences.

Certainly there is a shared moral instinct. But this doesn't cover many moral details of behavior, which is why so many moral issues are debated. For example, Talmudic study is largely an effort by Jews to decide on these details based on their culture.

The distinction one commonly hears is that there is an ontological difference between an atheist's morality and a Christian's morality.

I don't care much about ontology. What matters to me is what is good, not why it is considered good. In other words, I care about actions, not motives.

 

[aiki]

As an atheist, I would like to ask the question whether there should be any great difference in the morality of a religious person and an atheist.

Not necessarily, but the source for an atheist's morality is widely different from that of a Christian, which has serious ramifications for the atheist's freedom to assert their morality in the public sphere.

My answer is that it is harder for an atheist to be moral, but an intelligent atheist with integrity should have a similar morality to a religious person.

Yes, I think it is harder for an atheist to be moral. Why they should be moral given the naturalistic/materialistic view on life they must, as atheists, hold, is a very problematic question.

If God created the world, then the laws of nature should reflect his thinking. An atheist focuses on the laws of nature rather than on God, but since nature is a creation of God, a deep analysis of nature should yield the same conclusions as the study of God would.

Only to a certain degree. Nature stops short of being able to tell you who God is. It can tell you that God is, and indicate some of His basic characteristics, but we require the special revelation we obtain of God in Scripture to know Him more. Certainly, His holiness, and justice, and love are not revealed to us in Nature as they are in the Bible.

Furthermore, if God is good, then his morality should ultimately benefit people, so an analysis of what morality benefits people in the long run should produce the same morality that God would choose.

"What benefits people" is a phrase with a multitude of interpretations. How do you define it? I'd be surprised if it paralleled what the Bible says of God's view on the question.

However, all of this is indirect, from a religious perspective, and so is a harder path.

Actually, none of what you've said so far is from a religious perspective - at least, not a Christian one.

Now the atheist perspective. Religions evolve, those that are functional survive and those that aren't die.

"Functional"? What does that mean? And history shows that what you've just stated here is not true. Christianity, for example, was quite detrimental initially to those who believed in it. Yet, 2000 years later it is still a thriving religion.

So old religions must have a good morality in order to survive as long as they have.

And what is a "good morality," exactly?

Because religions are effective carriers of memes, they allow for the successful evolution of morality without requiring analysis.

By itself, this remark makes little sense. Could you explain, please? Oh, and are you aware that "memes" are purely theoretical? You talk about them as though they are proven fact.

Members of religions simply accept the moral principles that have withstood the test of time, which is a much easier approach than having to derive morality for oneself.

I think this is a very over-simplified assessment of the matter. The morality of various religions has varied widely and in some instances has been contradictory one religion to another. Time is not the utlimate arbiter of what constitutes true morality.

Since atheists have no such moral guidance, the morality of most atheists becomes something like fashion and degenerates until the culture of the atheists self destructs. So only intelligent atheists with a firm understanding of history have any chance of having a sensible morality.

You make the error of thinking that intelligence equates to morality, which it doesn't. Some very smart atheists have done some very evil things. Really intelligent atheists realize that their worldview erodes morality and that living consistently with a naturalistic/materialistic philosophy, which is the only philosophy logically open to atheists, inevitably leads to a sort of epicurean nihilism.

Selah.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As an atheist, I would like to ask the question whether there should be any great difference in the morality of a religious person and an atheist. My answer is that it is harder for an atheist to be moral, but an intelligent atheist with integrity should have a similar morality to a religious person. This conclusion requires two sets of arguments, one from a religious perspective and one from an atheist perspective.

I've read things from various atheists who seem to claim that they are moral, perhaps more so, than Christians (e.g. Julian Baggini, "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction". I find it interesting that you think morality is harder for an atheist.

First the religious perspective. If God created the world, then the laws of nature should reflect his thinking. An atheist focuses on the laws of nature rather than on God, but since nature is a creation of God, a deep analysis of nature should yield the same conclusions as the study of God would. Furthermore, if God is good, then his morality should ultimately benefit people, so an analysis of what morality benefits people in the long run should produce the same morality that God would choose. However, all of this is indirect, from a religious perspective, and so is a harder path.

I'm not convinced, philosophically, that a study of nature will reveal the mind of God. I wish it did, but on a practical scale, I don't think it does, at least not very much.

Now the atheist perspective. Religions evolve, those that are functional survive and those that aren't die. So old religions must have a good morality in order to survive as long as they have.

Or a very sharp sword...

Because religions are effective carriers of memes, they allow for the successful evolution of morality without requiring analysis.

I don't mean to be condescending here, but if religions are so effective in carrying moral memes, why are there so many religious people who mess up their lives by doing things that are contrary to their own religious codes?

Members of religions simply accept the moral principles that have withstood the test of time, which is a much easier approach than having to derive morality for oneself. Since atheists have no such moral guidance, the morality of most atheists becomes something like fashion and degenerates until the culture of the atheists self destructs. So only intelligent atheists with a firm understanding of history have any chance of having a sensible morality.

Can we name some atheists who have a 'Christian Style' morality and have effectively followed through? I'm having a difficult time thinking of any. Maybe you do, but you would be a minority, I think.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't care much about ontology. What matters to me is what is good, not why it is considered good. In other words, I care about actions, not motives.

Ontology is about where you derive your morality, in a foundational sense, if you will. What you are concerned with would be termed descriptive ethics/morality in contrast with normative ethics/morality.

The problem with considering purely actions is that actions that lead to good or bad ends don't seem to have much to do with the agent themselves. If we at least somewhat considered the motive and intent of the moral agent, then it seems more relevant to speak about ethics as descriptively good. Because one could still consider an action that ends with bad consequences for some as a morally good action if the intent was good, though this gets into how one regards bad consequences as a learning experience.

I admit that deontological ethics, concerned primarily with motive, doesn't always work. Consequentialist ethics suffers from particular issues as well though if you just focus on what results from the actions, since we can't necessarily reflect on all the possible results of our actions. If you are interested in focusing on the actions as they reflect virtues, then I could sympathize. In this sense, it strikes a middle ground between basing morality on the intent of the agent and the consequences of any agent's actions.

One should care about motives behind actions in the sense of how those motives line up with virtue. You shouldn't consider motives behind action as important if they are simply someone attempting to justify what is otherwise a questionable ethical action, such as rape (someone saying the woman asked for it dressing provocatively, for instance, is not exactly a good excuse). The actions themselves could be considered morally neutral in a sense, whereas it is how those actions affect people externally and internally, consequentially and intentionally, that is morally significant.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not necessarily, but the source for an atheist's morality is widely different from that of a Christian, which has serious ramifications for the atheist's freedom to assert their morality in the public sphere.

The source for many atheist's morality could be said to be a simple principle of empathy/sympathy. We recognize that we share the capacity to suffer emotional and physical pain, thus we also recognize that it is a necessary fact that we should at least be considerate of others' feelings that we may affect, though not to the extent of basing all our ethical considerations on how we might offend someone's sensibilities. But to the extent that our actions do more harm than good, we would conclude that they are not ethical. Raping someone, stealing their things with no justification other than possessiveness, lying to advane our own ambition, betraying someone's trust through marital infidelity, etc.

Yes, I think it is harder for an atheist to be moral. Why they should be moral given the naturalistic/materialistic view on life they must, as atheists, hold, is a very problematic question.

Not every ethicist sees it as a relevant question to inquire as to "why" we are moral, but instead focus on "how" we develop functional morality as relates to society and human relationships. To overcomplicate ethics is to try to add purpose and telos to things that don't hold a necessarily absolute end in mind, but consider things as they are, not as they might become.

"Functional"? What does that mean? And history shows that what you've just stated here is not true. Christianity, for example, was quite detrimental initially to those who believed in it. Yet, 2000 years later it is still a thriving religion.

Functionality for a religion doesn't necessarily require that it maintain its
original identity absolutely, but only that it functions in such a way that it is able to survive over time. Christianity was appropriated by the Roman empire and it survived, it was appropriated by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, it adapted and survived. The message of a religion and how the practice and beliefs of it manage to survive reflects the functionality of it, it appears.

And what is a "good morality," exactly?

A morality that, while imperfect, also enables people to live in relative peace with each other; while also potentially causing conflicts, it can resolve those conflicts in ways that do not negatively affect people beyond necessity, i.e. compromise, sacrifices, general loss that may very well occur in military incursions as either through combat or through collateral damage.

By itself, this remark makes little sense. Could you explain, please? Oh, and are you aware that "memes" are purely theoretical? You talk about them as though they are proven fact.

In a scientific discourse, something can be both a fact and a theory. What you probably want to criticize is actually memes being hypothetical moreso than theoretical, since a large scale model about memetics doesn't exist as far as I know. For evolution and gravity, theoretical models exist for a vast scale of consideration, though each varies as to the extent we can have a large scale model, either temporal or historical.

I think this is a very over-simplified assessment of the matter. The morality of various religions has varied widely and in some instances has been contradictory one religion to another. Time is not the utlimate arbiter of what constitutes true morality.

But time can give us a chance for reflection about how morality functions over time and how it evolves and adapts as something that people utilize as a pattern to mold their behavior on. It's debatable to say that the kinds of ethical systems that have developed have necessarily disagreed on everything. Virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism could all agree that lying, cheating, stealing and murder are all bad things but not for the same reasons. Likewise, a Dharmic or otherwise more Eastern religion could agree with a more Abrahamic or more Western religion that murder of a human being is wrong, though to what degree and in what circumstances might still be disagreed upon.

You make the error of thinking that intelligence equates to morality, which it doesn't. Some very smart atheists have done some very evil things. Really intelligent atheists realize that their worldview erodes morality and that living consistently with a naturalistic/materialistic philosophy, which is the only philosophy logically open to atheists, inevitably leads to a sort of epicurean nihilism.

Intelligence doesn't necessarily equate to morality, but it does allow for the potential use of thinking about morality to advance a more accessible teaching about morality to people of "lesser" intelligence. The misuse of intelligence doesn't mean intelligence can't be properly used in relation to ethics, for example.

I cannot say my atheism as a Buddhist or Humanist erodes my morality; in fact, it has actually strengthened my moral considerations about the world. Before, it was a notion that honestly seems a logical consideration; if God is truly sovereign, why should humans make any attempt to right any wrongs, especially if we are meant to go to a heavenly existence where all the sufferings of the world are righted and thus all our previous actions would mean nothing in comparison to eternity? If I had persisted in my Christian upbringing, I can't imagine I'd be motivated to help people for the same reasons I am motivated now. If it was just because it was a divine mandate, then I would be doing it for little reason besides that it was commanded of me by my Creator. Now, I consider that it benefits both myself and others, though in different ways, to aid those in need, to lend help to those who require it and to be a person reflecting compassion as a virtue. To focus on humans as the object of our moral considerations is not to denigrate or erode morality, but to sharpen one's sense of why morality is important.

And Epicurean nihilism is a contradiction in terms,since it advocates something not unlike the social contract theory that persists today through a form of Christian ethics, derived from Platonic ethics. That is, we behave ethically because either the divine (God) mandates it as something beneficial to advance human pleasure and well being or it makes practical sense to behave ethically because it advances human pleasure and well being as a whole. Epicurean consequentialism, perhaps, not nihilism, which would have made an Epicurean by your description reject morality as irrelevant.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Can we name some atheists who have a 'Christian Style' morality and have effectively followed through? I'm having a difficult time thinking of any. Maybe you do, but you would be a minority, I think.

Two problems already exist before I could even suffice to answer
1)What do you consider a person who is an atheist? Self admitted atheists as opposed to what Christians would call practical atheists?

2)More importantly, what do you consider a Christian Style morality? Does it involve the ten commandments, at least in part, rejecting at least the first 3 or 4? Does it involve the Golden Rule? If that's the case, there are no doubt plenty of Buddhists that could attest to following a Christian style morality, but part of the difficulty lies with whether you would consider Buddhists like Thich Nhat Hanh and Tenzin Gyatso properly atheists.

 

[fschmidt]

I don't mean to be condescending here, but if religions are so effective in carrying moral memes, why are there so many religious people who mess up their lives by doing things that are contrary to their own religious codes?

Religions carry the memes, but not necessarily all the members do. A religion is more than just a collection of its members.

Can we name some atheists who have a 'Christian Style' morality and have effectively followed through? I'm having a difficult time thinking of any. Maybe you do, but you would be a minority, I think.

This is a very difficult question because promoting atheism is in itself immoral because atheism is harmful to the morality of average people. So a moral atheist who becomes a public figure would not broadcast his atheism. An example would be Einstein who was clearly an atheist based on his private writings but never broadcast this publicly. Gandhi most probably was Hindu only in a moral sense, not so much in worshipping Hindu gods. High level Buddhists are also basically atheists. I had an interesting discussion with Buddhist monks in Tibet where I asked them if they believed in all the supernatural stuff that common people worship in Buddhist temples. They said that they don't but that they support it because it helps common people be better people, more closely following what they consider to be the right path.

Ontology is about where you derive your morality, in a foundational sense, if you will.

Let me correct my statement, I don't care much about the ontology of others.

If you are interested in focusing on the actions as they reflect virtues, then I could sympathize. In this sense, it strikes a middle ground between basing morality on the intent of the agent and the consequences of any agent's actions.

Yes, this. There are motives, actions, and results. Actions are in the middle. I am more concerned about actions than either motives or results.

One should care about motives behind actions in the sense of how those motives line up with virtue. You shouldn't consider motives behind action as important if they are simply someone attempting to justify what is otherwise a questionable ethical action, such as rape (someone saying the woman asked for it dressing provocatively, for instance, is not exactly a good excuse). The actions themselves could be considered morally neutral in a sense, whereas it is how those actions affect people externally and internally, consequentially and intentionally, that is morally significant.

This is a different issue. Obviously the morality of actions depends on the circumstances of those actions. Killing is generally immoral, but killing in self defense is not. So the issue here is circumstance, not motive.

 

[singpeace]

The distinction one commonly hears is that there is an ontological difference between an atheist's morality and a Christian's morality. One could not necessarily conclude that an atheist will conclude that morality should be derived primarily from self concern to the exclusion of others, since there are atheists that conclude that morality is derived either from self concern primarily that extends to altruism or starts with a recognition of the equality of everyone as moral patients as well as moral agents.

The Christian would argue that their morality, while potentially identical to an atheist's morality that concludes on many of the same beliefs about how you should treat others, their concern is not with morality as a basic end in itself of treating others well, but morality as something adjacent to salvation. One's salvation from a Christian standpoint is not any righteousness you merit on your own, but merit from the grace of God moreso. The difficulty then seems to arise on this point about the moral behavior that results from a Christian having a salvation experience and then doing good works through faith imbued in them by God's grace.

I'm reminded virtually every time of the Euthypro dilemma in some way, shape or form.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Of course the difficulties would still persist with qualifications that goodness is in God's nature, because of the notion of God's nature being immutable and thus good being something unchanging and by some derivation, rigid and resistant.

What I think adds to fuel the debate is that too often a Christian makes the statement or implication that morality among Atheists is not like morality among Christians.

In truth, morality is (though I cannot prove it) the outward sign that we have a soul and this is what ultimately separates us from all other living creatures.

Only humans fall in love and sacrifice themselves for love. Only humans look to the greater good of all eg planet Earth's future, civilization, the Holocaust, etc. Only a human can discover the theory of relativity and openly state that at that moment, he ceased being an unbeliever and knew there was a God. The examples are endless and drive home; at least to me, that God breathed life into man and made him in His image - to be like Him. God gave man a soul.

Morality is universal among humans but never among any other living creature. To me, this is the evidence of God's life force dwelling within each of us; Atheists and Christians and all others who have ever lived.


The honest answer to Euthypro's dilemma is, "I do not know, but I'll ask Him." lol

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Let me correct my statement, I don't care much about the ontology of others.

If you don't understand even partially and imperfectly where others are coming from, there is a natural difficulty to communicate the similarities one shares with another person

Yes, this. There are motives, actions, and results. Actions are in the middle. I am more concerned about actions than either motives or results.

The actions can be motivated by different intentions, so the actions could go either way in and of themselves. I could steal to aid those in poverty, or I could steal to aid myself to hoard more things

This is a different issue. Obviously the morality of actions depends on the circumstances of those actions. Killing is generally immoral, but killing in self defense is not. So the issue here is circumstance, not motive.

The circumstance is important, but you can't just throw out the motive even in individual circumstances. Proposed self defense could just be a hostile personality that lashes out defensively. People can try to justify circumstantial ethics by saying that their intent was one way when it may have been otherwise.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

What I think adds to fuel the debate is that too often a Christian makes the statement or implication that morality among Atheists is not like morality among Christians.

It isn't like it at least in the sense of how one comes to the moral conclusions, one could say. But in all fairness, it is not as if atheists reach conclusions that are terribly different from Christians in many moral issues, though of course there are divisions even within each group.

In truth, morality is (though I cannot prove it) the outward sign that we have a soul and this is what ultimately separates us from all other living creatures.

Only humans fall in love and sacrifice themselves for love. Only humans look to the greater good of all eg planet Earth's future, civilization, the Holocaust, etc. Only a human can discover the theory of relativity and openly state that at that moment, he ceased being an unbeliever and knew there was a God. The examples are endless and drive home; at least to me, that God breathed life into man and made him in His image - to be like Him. God gave man a soul.

I wouldn't say it's evidence of our soul, so much as our psyche, even though the two words were somewhat synonymous in the original Greek. The fact that our minds are as advanced as they are enable us to fall anywhere on the spectrum from rational to emotional and everywhere in between

Morality is universal among humans but never among any other living creature. To me, this is the evidence of God's life force dwelling within each of us; Atheists and Christians and all others who have ever lived.

Using the notion of God's life force dwelling within us would probably smack of pantheism to many Christians

The honest answer to Euthypro's dilemma is, "I do not know, but I'll ask Him."

It doesn't seem to genuinely answer the question, it just goes a bit further than necessary in saying that we can actually get the answer in some sense, even if its after we're dead. If you just admit that you don't know, you at least don't run the risk of sounding like you're trying to justify suffering under a benevolent and all powerful deity's sovereign will, which is certainly a questionable thing for theists and atheists alike and why theodicy is usually a bit of a touchy subject.

 

[drich0150]

But there must be degrees of morality, right?

For God their is only sin and righteousness.

If not, then why not just rape and pillage and seek redemption when you are done?

Because God is not a fool, nor is he bound to the motions of redemption one may under go when he is looking for a superficial cleansing ceremony.

True redemption is a matter of love and forgiveness. Not a way for someone to simply escape the consequences of their actions.

 

[aiki]

ToHoldNothing:

My comments and questions were directed at fschmidt, not you. I think simple common courtesy dictates that you ought to allow him to answer for himself.

The source for many atheist's morality could be said to be a simple principle of empathy/sympathy.

Yes, it could. It could also be said that it is not. So what?

We recognize that we share the capacity to suffer emotional and physical pain, thus we also recognize that it is a necessary fact that we should at least be considerate of others' feelings that we may affect, though not to the extent of basing all our ethical considerations on how we might offend someone's sensibilities.

That's nice. Why should you rely on your sympathy/empathy to determine your morality? Not everyone is as sympathetic or empathetic as the next person. Some people are quite unsympathetic and have a hard time putting themselves in the other person's shoes. Do we expect them to have a lesser morality then? Is it okay for them to justify what we would consider immoral behaviour by claiming a weak capacity for sympathy? I don't think so.

But to the extent that our actions do more harm than good, we would conclude that they are not ethical. Raping someone, stealing their things with no justification other than possessiveness, lying to advane our own ambition, betraying someone's trust through marital infidelity, etc.

On what basis do you decide what "more harm than good" is, exactly? Why is raping, or stealing, or lying wrong? Because they are not sympathetic or empathetic acts? Why should this be the basis for assessing whether or not a thing is moral or immoral? Someone might come up with a different basis for morality; how do you assert yours is better?

Not every ethicist sees it as a relevant question to inquire as to "why" we are moral, but instead focus on "how" we develop functional morality as relates to society and human relationships.

Again, so what? It makes no difference to my point what some ethicists may think is a relevant question.

To overcomplicate ethics is to try to add purpose and telos to things that don't hold a necessarily absolute end in mind, but consider things as they are, not as they might become.

This is silly. First of all, whose to say what constitutes an overcomplication of ethics? Second, who says ethics don't have an absolute end in mind? Third, why shouldn't we consider the end goal of ethics? Why travel down the road of ethics if you don't have a destination in mind? Only a fool would establish a code of ethics without considering where such a code might lead.

Functionality for a religion doesn't necessarily require that it maintain its
original identity absolutely, but only that it functions in such a way that it is able to survive over time. Christianity was appropriated by the Roman empire and it survived, it was appropriated by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, it adapted and survived. The message of a religion and how the practice and beliefs of it manage to survive reflects the functionality of it, it appears.

None of this addresses my point. For the first three hundred years or so of its existence, the Christian faith was more often than not fatal to its adherents. This is not particularly functional. In fact, given the degree of persecution, Christianity should have disappeared in short order. Instead, it flourished under the persecution leveled against it. Obviously, then, functionality is not the absolute test of a religion's survivability.

A morality that, while imperfect, also enables people to live in relative peace with each other; while also potentially causing conflicts, it can resolve those conflicts in ways that do not negatively affect people beyond necessity, i.e. compromise, sacrifices, general loss that may very well occur in military incursions as either through combat or through collateral damage.

This is what you think constitutes a "good morality" but on what basis can you assert that it is good for anyone else? What if someone else has a very different kind of morality from your own? Who says which is better?

But time can give us a chance for reflection about how morality functions over time and how it evolves and adapts as something that people utilize as a pattern to mold their behavior on.

So? This doesn't alter my point at all.

It's debatable to say that the kinds of ethical systems that have developed have necessarily disagreed on everything.

I didn't say that.

Virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism could all agree that lying, cheating, stealing and murder are all bad things but not for the same reasons.

So? I didn't contend otherwise.

Likewise, a Dharmic or otherwise more Eastern religion could agree with a more Abrahamic or more Western religion that murder of a human being is wrong, though to what degree and in what circumstances might still be disagreed upon.

Your observation above is a pointless clarification, I think. If they disagree upon the circumstances under which one might be convicted of being a murderer, then insofar as they disagree, they contradict each other.

If I say that killing someone under any circumstances between 8 am and noon is not murder and you say that killing anyone at any time is murder we are still in contradiction to each other even though we both acknowledge that some killing of people is murder.

Intelligence doesn't necessarily equate to morality, but it does allow for the potential use of thinking about morality to advance a more accessible teaching about morality to people of "lesser" intelligence.

So? Again, this doesn't alter my point, really.

The misuse of intelligence doesn't mean intelligence can't be properly used in relation to ethics, for example.

I never said that it couldn't.

I cannot say my atheism as a Buddhist or Humanist erodes my morality; in fact, it has actually strengthened my moral considerations about the world.

And this is the only way atheism can be made at all palatable to people: It must be fused to some philosophy that softens the dark futility and emptiness that is the consequence of its assertion about God.

Before, it was a notion that honestly seems a logical consideration; if God is truly sovereign, why should humans make any attempt to right any wrongs, especially if we are meant to go to a heavenly existence where all the sufferings of the world are righted and thus all our previous actions would mean nothing in comparison to eternity?

This isn't the teaching of the Christian faith. This is your caricature of it.

If I had persisted in my Christian upbringing, I can't imagine I'd be motivated to help people for the same reasons I am motivated now. If it was just because it was a divine mandate, then I would be doing it for little reason besides that it was commanded of me by my Creator.

This just reveals how little you actually understand of how the Christian life works. Christians obey God's commands as a result of their love for Him. Obedience is a joy, not an obligation. You would obey as a slave, but God would have us obey Him as loving children.

Now, I consider that it benefits both myself and others, though in different ways, to aid those in need, to lend help to those who require it and to be a person reflecting compassion as a virtue. To focus on humans as the object of our moral considerations is not to denigrate or erode morality, but to sharpen one's sense of why morality is important.

So what? Other people have other views on morality. Yours is merely one view among many.

And Epicurean nihilism is a contradiction in terms,since it advocates something not unlike the social contract theory that persists today through a form of Christian ethics, derived from Platonic ethics.

....

Selah.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Two problems already exist before I could even suffice to answer
1)What do you consider a person who is an atheist? Self admitted atheists as opposed to what Christians would call practical atheists?

I presented my question to the original poster within what appears to me to be a Western oriented definition of atheism, as opposed to an Eastern oriented one. Yes, we could count a Buddhist as an atheist in some way, but that was not the analytical tact that I was addressing. Sorry for the confusion. More specifically, I was thinking of the Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris vein of atheism.

2)More importantly, what do you consider a Christian Style morality? Does it involve the ten commandments, at least in part, rejecting at least the first 3 or 4? Does it involve the Golden Rule? If that's the case, there are no doubt plenty of Buddhists that could attest to following a Christian style morality, but part of the difficulty lies with whether you would consider Buddhists like Thich Nhat Hanh and Tenzin Gyatso properly atheists.

A Christian style morality would be one that affirms such things as:

1. Saving Sex for Relationships within Wedlock
2. Advocating a primarily Pro-Life stance.
3. Affirmation of Hetrosexuality as opposed to the alternative.
4. Awareness of prudence, propriety, and civility --i.e. Value placed upon Holiness.
5. Avoidance of those things which defile a person's Humanity.
6. Extension of Love, Charity, & Mercy to all human beings, without hypocrisy.
7. Worship of the One True God.
ETC.

The point being, although the New Testament does not lay out an 'official laundry list', a basic 'set' can be derived from it nevertheless. We can call that X. If a person decides to detract from the N.T. 'set' X (i.e. X-1, X-2, etc.) we can say that qualifies as a different 'set' and not a Christian morality. An atheist who can get even up to X-1 is, I think, a rarity, with something more akin to X-4, X-5, etc., being more the typicality since atheists' prior philosophical views of metaphysics usually provide varying points of departure for constructing a total worldview.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

My comments and questions were directed at fschmidt, not you. I think simple common courtesy dictates that you ought to allow him to answer for himself.

They can still answer for themselves, but they aren't the only atheist that could.

Yes, it could. It could also be said that it is not. So what?

You're pulling red herrings here. What point does this make with regards to atheism or theism as something in relation to determination of ethics? Very little. An atheist or theist could conclude radically different things than either of us as an atheist and theist respectively would conclude about ethics. That proves in some sense that ethics is subjective, even if there are also objective principles that exist by logic apart from those subjective environmental considerations.

That's nice. Why should you rely on your sympathy/empathy to determine your morality? Not everyone is as sympathetic or empathetic as the next person. Some people are quite unsympathetic and have a hard time putting themselves in the other person's shoes. Do we expect them to have a lesser morality then? Is it okay for them to justify what we would consider immoral behaviour by claiming a weak capacity for sympathy? I don't think so.

You're concluding before I even have a chance to qualify this sympathy/empathy based morality. A person who lacks the high degree of sympathy that certain people may be born with to a great extent, however rare that is, are not inferior in their morality, but simply different by comparison. I didn't have the same amount of sympathy as say one of my best friends who's just very aware of the feelings of others, but that doesn't make me a person who has less moral worth or less moral capacity. The capacity of a person to be moral in this depends on their willingness to pursue and practice virtue and attempt to get along reasonably with other people. bringing the examples of sociopaths is again, a red herring that only reflects that some people are just mentally damaged to an extent that it may not be possible for this ethic to apply or make sense in any way.

On what basis do you decide what "more harm than good" is, exactly? Why is raping, or stealing, or lying wrong? Because they are not sympathetic or empathetic acts? Why should this be the basis for assessing whether or not a thing is moral or immoral? Someone might come up with a different basis for morality; how do you assert yours is better?

Because mine doesn't end up with people suffering more than they would by natural fortune and chance causing us to lose things we love, like people or valuable heirlooms or the like. And rape is innately bad because it reinforces the dangerous perspective that might makes right and overrides any sense of a person's choice and consent being valuable in human relationships. You could say that all the examples of bad things in the world are a matter of in some sense, violation of a person's consent and/or choice. Even something as far reaching as genocide is basically saying that this one group of people doesn't deserve to exist for little reason other than hatred or fear. And likewise with stealing, or murder, you think that people don't deserve what you deserve to have and so you just take it without even considering their feelings. Is it right? No. Does it make sense to anyone but the person who does it? No.

Again, so what? It makes no difference to my point what some ethicists may think is a relevant question.

It makes little difference to assert your own position as somehow more favorable because it makes people feel good about doing good when you could do that without asking why as the primary inquiry.

This is silly. First of all, whose to say what constitutes an overcomplication of ethics? Second, who says ethics don't have an absolute end in mind? Third, why shouldn't we consider the end goal of ethics? Why travel down the road of ethics if you don't have a destination in mind? Only a fool would establish a code of ethics without considering where such a code might lead.

Any telos an ethics has in mind is necessarily limited in how far the person can understand what their actions will accomplish. If I want world peace (which is always a very whimsical and fanciful idea) my end goal is limited to the world as I understand it now, I don't necessarily realize that the world could drastically change and thus the telos has to be readjusted. Few telosi(?) of ethics are so persistent that they can't be changed by circumstances or considerations.

I establish this code as you call it because it benefits people, past, present or future. The destination shouldn't be so important, because it's so future centric you fail to consider people as they are in the process and just think of some ideal that you can only speculate about, you can't realize it without time. I travel the road of ethics because it makes sense now. I don't have to think about a future where I may not exist as the primary consideration when the future I create will be affected by who I influence by my ethical behavior now.

None of this addresses my point. For the first three hundred years or so of its existence, the Christian faith was more often than not fatal to its adherents. This is not particularly functional. In fact, given the degree of persecution, Christianity should have disappeared in short order. Instead, it flourished under the persecution leveled against it. Obviously, then, functionality is not the absolute test of a religion's survivability.

You're confusing functionality in the sense of the survival of the believers with functionality in the sense of the religion's survival as a belief system. Martyrs died willingly most of the time and those that died unwillingly do not necessarily negatively affect the survival of the faith itself through the other survivors and those who happen upon teh faith. The fact that Christianity adapts, evolves and changes with circumstances doesn't mean the overall message has completely changd 180 degrees. The changing times tend to demand changing perspectives on the same issues.

This is what you think constitutes a "good morality" but on what basis can you assert that it is good for anyone else? What if someone else has a very different kind of morality from your own? Who says which is better?

It is good for everyone else in the same way it's good for me. People would die less by terrible circumstances and events, they would be able to have civil dialogue and not kill each other because they think its justified when it's primarily them lashing out in anger and fear, and they would be able to still affect change and new ideas would come about without people behaving in such paranoid fashion because they think the end of the world is always on their heels.

So? This doesn't alter my point at all.

Maybe I'm just naive or "stupid", but you didn't seem to make a point. Maybe you could communicate it a second time.

Your observation above is a pointless clarification, I think. If they disagree upon the circumstances under which one might be convicted of being a murderer, then insofar as they disagree, they contradict each other.

If I say that killing someone under any circumstances between 8 am and noon is not murder and you say that killing anyone at any time is murder we are still in contradiction to each other even though we both acknowledge that some killing of people is murder.

Disagreeing in practice is not the same as disagreeing in principle. If someone says that destroying a zygote is murder, that would be in contradiction to someone who says it isn't. These examples are the ones I was referring to,not your red herring example of calling something murder or not based on the time of day, which no one would ever take you seriously on.

And this is the only way atheism can be made at all palatable to people: It must be fused to some philosophy that softens the dark futility and emptiness that is the consequence of its assertion about God.

Atheism isn't a system on its own, it's always necessarily fused and integrated into a variety of systems, just like what theism did with Christianity, Judaism, etc. You can't separate the two as if they're both formalized systems. Atheism and theism are descriptive terms for systems that happen to have certain characteristics that line up in some sense with what we'd call atheism or theism. Neither of them have churches dedicated in their names.

This isn't the teaching of the Christian faith. This is your caricature of it.

Then by all means enlighten me as to my mistaken understandings if you're such a great representative of your own faith.

This just reveals how little you actually understand of how the Christian life works. Christians obey God's commands as a result of their love for Him. Obedience is a joy, not an obligation. You would obey as a slave, but God would have us obey Him as loving children.

Children don't always know better, they just believe because their parents would punish them otherwise when that punishment isn't always justified. To compare God to a parent is ridiculous and insulting. Ridiculous because the analogy hardly reflects anything in terms of the relationship except as by specious connections between a parent loving a child and God loving creation, however that works. Insulting because you basically lower God to reflect what could also be abused and misunderstood. However much there are good parents, the very existence of bad parents negates the point of even making an analogy to God as a parent if God is supposed to be perfect and excellent.

So what? Other people have other views on morality. Yours is merely one view among many.

Being a contextual and perspective derived view doesn't negate that one can defend and elaborate on their position. You can't claim your morality is somehow superior to mine because you invoke transcendence or any deity that somehow has a monopoly on proclamations of good and evil.



And if you didn't understand my last post you noted with a little gif, then just say so and note what confused you.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I presented my question to the original poster within what appears to me to be a Western oriented definition of atheism, as opposed to an Eastern oriented one. Yes, we could count a Buddhist as an atheist in some way, but that was not the analytical tact that I was addressing. Sorry for the confusion. More specifically, I was thinking of the Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris vein of atheism.

If that's the case, then you have to distinguish between Bertrand Russell, who admitted he was more accurately agnostic and atheist by a more general definition, whereas Dawkins and Harris don't really think agnosticism is intellectually honest or satisfying. The difference would be between an atheist who is a general nonbeliever in God and a contratheist who actively declares their nonbelief and advocates it for others, which is what many might call New Atheism.

A Christian style morality would be one that affirms such things as:

1. Saving Sex for Relationships within Wedlock
2. Advocating a primarily Pro-Life stance.
3. Affirmation of Hetrosexuality as opposed to the alternative.
4. Awareness of prudence, propriety, and civility --i.e. Value placed upon Holiness.
5. Avoidance of those things which defile a person's Humanity.
6. Extension of Love, Charity, & Mercy to all human beings, without hypocrisy.
7. Worship of the One True God.
ETC.

This list might've had some possibility, however unlikely someone would be to admit all of these, but youjsut shot yourself in the foot when you put down #7, because it just defeats the point of what you were asking. Find an atheist that advocates a Christian style morality. An atheist wouldn't in any circumstance agree in principle especially to #7.

1 and 3 seem to be in contradiction to a general atheist worldview that wouldn't view sex as something that has to be formalized so much, but only has to be done responsibly within very basic parameters, but not saying one sexual orientation is better than the other or that sex before marriage somehow negates the genuine love that two mature adults well into their 20s would feel for each other.

2 requires some qualification because one can be pro life on the abortion issue and pro death in terms of the capital punishment issue. I would desire a bit more consistency than I tend to observe on this one term "pro life"

4, 5 and 6 are what I would be able to point out in a general sense, albeit there's always debate on the nature of the virtues if we're going by virtue ethics standards.

The point being, although the New Testament does not lay out an 'official laundry list', a basic 'set' can be derived from it nevertheless. We can call that X. If a person decides to detract from the N.T. 'set' X (i.e. X-1, X-2, etc.) we can say that qualifies as a different 'set' and not a Christian morality. An atheist who can get even up to X-1 is, I think, a rarity, with something more akin to X-4, X-5, etc., being more the typicality since atheists' prior philosophical views of metaphysics usually provide varying points of departure for constructing a total worldview.

Like I said, if you presume that a Christian style morality or even an Abrahamic style morality is appealing to someone who doesn't feel that everything has to be set up and systematized by what some deity proclaims about them: e.g. sex in particular, then you probably are already missing the point. But at least you admit that atheists can and will detract even amongst each other on these issues and thus the difficulty might exist for an atheist morality, except as I said to another poster, atheism is descriptive, not normative. There aren't really formalized beliefs surrounding atheism any more than theism, since theos as a term isn't profoundly defined and has fragmented itself over history into monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, pantheism, deism.

 

[fschmidt]

A Christian style morality would be one that affirms such things as:

1. Saving Sex for Relationships within Wedlock
2. Advocating a primarily Pro-Life stance.
3. Affirmation of Hetrosexuality as opposed to the alternative.
4. Awareness of prudence, propriety, and civility --i.e. Value placed upon Holiness.
5. Avoidance of those things which defile a person's Humanity.
6. Extension of Love, Charity, & Mercy to all human beings, without hypocrisy.
7. Worship of the One True God.
ETC.

The point being, although the New Testament does not lay out an 'official laundry list', a basic 'set' can be derived from it nevertheless. We can call that X. If a person decides to detract from the N.T. 'set' X (i.e. X-1, X-2, etc.) we can say that qualifies as a different 'set' and not a Christian morality. An atheist who can get even up to X-1 is, I think, a rarity, with something more akin to X-4, X-5, etc., being more the typicality since atheists' prior philosophical views of metaphysics usually provide varying points of departure for constructing a total worldview.

There are 2 things I would say here. First, what matters is the moral overlap of the sets. My moral set isn't common in modern times. I would say it is closest to Ancient Athenian morality. So there are numerous points where I disagree with Christians, but even more where I disagree with liberal atheists. I am only trying to find that group that has the greatest overlap with my set, regardless of the absolute size of that overlap.

My second point is that Christian morality has been evolving over time, like in all cultures. And it has been evolving for the worse, as all cultures have in the last few centuries. I doubt Christ gave a lot of thought to the Pro-Life question, for example, since abortion wasn't a big issue in his time. The rules regarding sex, in particular, have greatly changed over time. I prefer the older view on this to the modern one.

1 and 3 seem to be in contradiction to a general atheist worldview that wouldn't view sex as something that has to be formalized so much, but only has to be done responsibly within very basic parameters, but not saying one sexual orientation is better than the other or that sex before marriage somehow negates the genuine love that two mature adults well into their 20s would feel for each other.

This is a great example of how ignorance of history results in moral mistakes by most atheists. The fact is that all moral successful cultures in history required women to be virgins at marriage, and in all cases where this rule ceased to be enforced, morality and culture declined. On the other hand, there is no correlation between homosexuality and cultural success, so I have no opposition to homosexuality. But it is understandable that a religion would oppose homosexuality, this being an impediment to the growth by reproduction of the religion, and so opposition to homosexuality is a meme likely to be selected for.