What would change?

[The Nihilist]

Wait. Are you insisting on objective meaning? Is your point that if the universe is without objective meaning, then it is objectively meaningless?

 

[Apolloe]

I am obviously not talking about subjective "meaning", because that's something entirely different. If someone asks, "does my life have meaning?", they don't mean, "have I chosen some meaning for my life?". They are asking if their life has some eternal, external meaning.

I would not deny that people invent for themselves goals, which they say is some personal meaning to their lives. That's just a fact, and is uninteresting to point out. The deeper question is, why should they invent meaning for their life in the first place? How can we judge between one arbitrarily chosen meaning for our life over another? Without ultimate meaning, there is no reason, and no way to judge. One choice is as good (or pointless) as the next.

As I wrote at the end of my earlier post,

Any meaning you can devise will be transitory. If you say that you give life its own meaning, then you're not talking about the same thing as me. I'm not referring to an internal illusion you devise for your own comfort. I'm talking about whether life has *actual* meaning. Your personal meaning and mine may differ, and we can't both be right - but we can both be wrong. A personal meaning to life will not do. It might give you some false comfort - but when we reflect on the ultimate bleak nature of reality, it will quickly be seen as a joke.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. That particular conclusion was the logical outcome - in many cases it is not the actual outcome, because atheists like yourselves don't think deeply about the consequences of your beliefs

Your stock with me is dropping faster than the stock market. You don't know how deeply I think about the consequences of my beliefs.

Please don't pretend to have knowledge about my thought processes that you don't have. It is very rude.

2. I anticipated your response, and even wrote on it. Instead of negating my views, you have merely rejected them

No, I simply want to establish that your claims of intelligence and the clarity of your conclusions for you simply don't hold any weight in the discussion.

1. Life is meaningful
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. God does not exist

I invite you to explain how propositions 1 and 2 are, or can be, true on atheism, and not incompatible with 3.

My view is that the good for human beings is what actualizes their potentials as living human beings. The good is what promotes personal well-being, or what is known by some as personal flourishing.

I suppose that one can describe such good values as "objective" in that they are based on one's reality as a human person, and are not chosen out of thin air for potentially arbitrary reasons. They are not subjective in the sense of being merely desired, but are in fact worthy of desire.

One does choose one's purpose in life, but one does not choose its appropriateness to one's life. To put it another way, while one's nature imposes no specific purpose on one's life, because all purposes that are one's own are chosen by oneself, one's nature nevertheless reveals a standard by which chosen purposes may be judged for their applicability, or goodness, for one's life. There are naturally appropriate purposes to one's life.

Everything I have written is compatible with a naturalistic and nontheistic worldview.

Without an unchanging, eternal being in which to ground morality, there can be no objective moral values and duties.

This sets the bar too high. It isn't necessary for there to be an unchanging, eternal being in order for ethics to transcend arbitrariness. All that is required is that you have a natural standard of goodness from which to judge values that are based in facts of your nature as a living human individual, and not on mere desire.

Regarding meaning, this is obviously false. If God does not exist, and we are not immortal, then life cannot have meaning.

And THAT is obviously false.

Life is an end-in-itself, not merely a means to some afterlife or an infinitely distant future that never arrives.

Life is its own purpose. The choice to live is a naturally appropriate purpose for oneself as a reasoning, choosing being.

And so there is no need whatsoever for life to be infinite in duration to have meaning. The meaning is found in moments of one's life, because those moments have worth in themselves, and not merely as a preliminary means to some future goal.

What are humans? An accidental byproduct of evolution, a mere speck on the story of history. As a speck we came, a speck will we pass.

And in between the coming and the going, there are meaningful human lives.

Will the universe care that we composed a beautiful symphony?

This is what I call the fallacy of the false perspective.

It doesn't matter to us what the universe might "care" about. The universe's opinion, if it even has one, is irrelevant. The universe's perspective is irrelevant. Listen to that beautiful symphony from your own perspective -- the one that matters in this case -- and that moment can have meaning for you.

All will pass away into nothing, forgotten forever, with no eternal meaning.

I thought we were discussing meaning, not "eternal meaning". I'm not interested in "eternal meaning". I'm interested in meaning.

Ultimately, it will not matter if you were kind or cruel to your neighbour

It will not matter to whom? To whom? To whom?

It will matter to you, and that is enough!

How could this not be more obvious?

I'm sure that it seems obvious to you, because you do not share my philosophical worldview. To me, the opposite is obvious.

I'm not referring to an internal illusion you devise for your own comfort.

I'm not talking about that either.

Another possibility is that I am right, and recognise things about your beliefs that you either refuse to, or cannot. Then it's not a question of whether someone can handle atheism, but whether atheism is true.

Another possibility is that I am right, and recognise things about your beliefs that you either refuse to, or cannot. But I'm banking on you simply not having considered my philosophical perspective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Eudaimonist its true, life can have a meaning for ones self right now without God. But there can be no objective meaning, only a subjective one, which means if I decide that from my perspective I and the world will be better off if I create a fascist empire by any means necessary for the sole purpose of imposing festivals and my aesthetic tastes upon as much of the world as possible (because the world today is just too ugly!) - then, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that game plan, or any other game plan someone decides to play to. There can be no objective right way to live because if I decide that my standards of beauty are actually more important than other peoples lives, or that books have more of a right to preservation than people, then that is ultimately as reasonable a value set as any other - and yet is has profound implications for action.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Eudaimonist its true, life can have a meaning for ones self right now without God. But there can be no objective meaning, only a subjective one

Thank you for your reply. I respectfully disagree for reasons already stated. I reject this objective/subjective meaning distinction as a false alternative. It fails to appreciate other categories of meaning. I'm presenting a "third" alternative.

which means if I decide that from my perspective I and the world will be better off if I create a fascist empire by any means necessary for the sole purpose of imposing festivals and my aesthetic tastes upon as much of the world as possible (because the world today is just too ugly!) - then, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that game plan, or any other game plan someone decides to play to.

In my view, any attempt to establish a fascist empire would fail the test of a natural standard of goodness appropriate to human beings. It would have to be judged to be evil. It is not my view that personal taste rules the field of ethics.

There can be no objective right way to live because if I decide that my standards of beauty are actually more important than other peoples lives, or that books have more of a right to preservation than people, then that is ultimately as reasonable a value set as any other - and yet is has profound implications for action.

You may "decide" what you wish, of course, but that would be like "deciding" that the Earth was flat as a pancake. Your "decision" can be in error. IMV, in ethics, one can be mistaken about the goodness of a value.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

In my view, any attempt to establish a fascist empire would fail the test of a natural standard of goodness appropriate to human beings.

What standard is that?

You may "decide" what you wish, of course, but that would be like "deciding" that the Earth was flat as a pancake. Your "decision" can be in error. IMV, in ethics, one can be mistaken about the goodness of a value.

How does that follow?

 

[Egoistka]

Christians, hypothetically, what would change if you suddenly discovered irrefutably that there was no God? What would change about how you went about your life? Would you kill yourself? Would you fornicate in the streets? Would you not really change anything?

Also, can we not make this a thread about what atheists would do if they found out there was a god? If that's what you want to talk about, make your own thread.

If this hypothetical situation really occured, I guess it'd change my internal life, I'd probably experience some emotional trauma... But would I change my behaviour? I think not. I'd definitely not fornicate in the streets ;p.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I think not. I'd definitely not fornicate in the streets ;p.

Aww, I was going to try and deconvert you otherwise

 

[The Nihilist]

Wow, did it just get hot in here?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

... oops, I am not even supposed to answer. *blushes & unsubscribes*

 

[Apolloe]

I did not say that life has no meaning to a specific person. I said that, on atheism, life has no meaning simpliciter.

Let's imagine the following conversation:
Jake (depressed): If I am to die one day, and cease to exist, then what's the point to life?
Frank: The point is to promote personal well-being, or what is known by some as personal flourishing
Jake: What are you talking about? Why would I care about that?
Frank: Because it is in your nature. Internal to you is this standard, as it is in most of us. It gives us a reason to act this way.
Jake: But that doesn't help me! What difference does it make, if I live or if I should die?
Frank: If you live, then you will experience meaning, times of happiness and beauty
Jake: If I die, then I won't exist to feel the times of pain and suffering, nor will I be capable of regretting I missed the good things I might have otherwise experienced.
Frank: While you live, those times will have meaning for you in the instances you experience them, and for as long as you can recall them
Jake: Where is that meaning when I, and all others who witnessed that moment, have passed away? I will not remember it when I am in the ground, nor will I have thoughts with which to care that I do not remember it. If you were to kill me right now, it would mean nothing to me. I would be dead - how then would I judge you? How would I even conceive a desire see you held accountable?

As Albert Camus wrote, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."

Or imagine a deathbed confession of a rich, elderly man lying in his bed, speaking to his gathered family. "The fortunes you will inherit from me were not earned by my own hands, as you think. As a young man, I worked my way into the good graces of a wealthy gentlemen who had great trust and interest in me. Being young himself, he then decided to write me into his will as his sole heir, should any misfortune befall him before he could have children. As it happened, I was not doing so well financially, and I coveted what he had. So I planned a way to murder him and explain it away as an accident. This plan I carried out. There were many questions, and investigations, but in the end I was cleared and the money was passed to me. I then invested it in the businesses which you are now aware I possess, and passed off my wealth to others as though I had made it myself. I have lived a life of great pleasure and excitement. I have had family which has loved me, and I have indulged my every whim. When that cockcroach we call conscience turned up, I merely distracted myself with another whim until it disappeared. In this way, I have managed to live a life free from most guilt, but full of pleasure and the most life has to offer. And now, having confessed, there is little anyone can do. I have but days left to live, and then I will know no more. No guilt, no memories of pleasure, no Maker to judge me. Do as you please with what I leave to you. Though I love you, I will not be anything anymore, that I should care whether you even live another day."

By your view, this man is wrong, and irrational - much like the man who thinks that the Earth is as flat as a pancake. I do not see how you can think that, given atheism. There is no way you can say this man did wrong, as though he should have lived another way. Not without invoking God's existence. I maintain everything I said prior. Your response to a.d.ivNonasNovembres reveals the lack of depth with which you have pondered these very serious issues.

You may "decide" what you wish, of course, but that would be like "deciding" that the Earth was flat as a pancake. Your "decision" can be in error. IMV, in ethics, one can be mistaken about the goodness of a value.

I agree with you, Eudaimonist, that the a fascist empire can be judged as evil, independent of personal tastes. I disagree with you that the atheist has any rights to make such a judgment. You have failed to give any reason why "a natural standard of goodness appropriate to human beings" is any more reasonable to choose than another standard. You have not shown why deciding on any other standard is akin to saying the Earth is flat like a pancake - a view you can hold, but one that is objectively wrong. I agree with you, that given "a natural standard of goodness appropriate to human beings", certain judgments of good and evil will follow. But I don't see any reason why someone should pick that standard over any other - even ones that oppose what their nature teaches. This is where the arbitrary nature of atheist ethics comes in. Any arbitrary standard can be chosen, because they will all be equally (ir)rational. If God does not exist, everything is permitted.

You must show us why "a natural standard of goodness appropriate to human beings" is less arbitrary than a standard of goodness that aims to maximise the number of rose gardens, or to minimise the happiness of strangers. You may think such suggestions are absurd, but that is how absurd the ground of atheist ethics really is.

Consider what Kai Nielson, an atheist philosopher wrote after attempting to defend ethics without God:
"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me.... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality" ("Why Should I Be Moral? Revisited." American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (2984):81-91)

Now, I know you probably choose to live a good life, as most people understand goodness. But I do not see how, on atheism, you can say that people who think and act in an evil way are being irrational:

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, "There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish." I have heard one torturer even say, "I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart." He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners

(Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ, 1967)

We may rejoice though, knowing that God does exist!

One more thought on something you said:

Your stock with me is dropping faster than the stock market. You don't know how deeply I think about the consequences of my beliefs.

Please don't pretend to have knowledge about my thought processes that you don't have. It is very rude.

First of all, I did not pretend to have knowledge about your thought processes. I know that these conclusions flow from atheism. If you do not see these conclusions, then there are few other charitable explanations other than that you have not thought deeply about these issues. I simply chose the best explanation to fit the evidence, that was also charitable. Other explanations include that you are a fool incapable of seeing obvious rational conclusions, your eyes have been blinded by Satan, or that you are being deliberately contrary when you know I'm right. I chose instead to believe that you are a rational person who simply has not considered these issues in detail yet, and will come to a deeper understanding when the facts are laid before you.

Second of all, you have made judgments regarding my strength of character, when you conjectured that I couldn't handle being an atheist. If you want to make personal judgments regarding me, at least be willing to face them yourself.

Third, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you think many Christians or other religious people do not think deeply about the consequences of their beliefs. If so, how is my judgment regarding you any different from you making such a similar judgment about them?

 

[The Nihilist]

Mark is more or less an Aristotelian Eudaimonist. I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you in great detail, but you can read the article on wikipedia if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichomachean_Ethics
I cannot speak for Mark, but Aristotle's position is more or less that, given what a man is, we can know certain things about what are best for him. Again, without going into great detail, this basically lets us draw conclusions about what is going to be best for man and what is going to make him the best man.
Now, concerning your remark about rose gardens. Instead of that, though, let's use a different analogy. Let's talk about the care of the body, which is also a part of Eudaimonism, as I understand it. Instead of practicing good hygiene, eating well, and getting plenty of exercise, you could live in your parents' basement and sit around all day eating Cheetos. While this may seem fun at first, eventually, it becomes really crappy. You get fat, you're sickly, you're weak, and it sucks. It is the same for the mind.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Mark is more or less an Aristotelian Eudaimonist. I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you in great detail, but you can read the article on wikipedia if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichomachean_Ethics
I cannot speak for Mark, but Aristotle's position is more or less that, given what a man is, we can know certain things about what are best for him. Again, without going into great detail, this basically lets us draw conclusions about what is going to be best for man and what is going to make him the best man.
Now, concerning your remark about rose gardens. Instead of that, though, let's use a different analogy. Let's talk about the care of the body, which is also a part of Eudaimonism, as I understand it. Instead of practicing good hygiene, eating well, and getting plenty of exercise, you could live in your parents' basement and sit around all day eating Cheetos. While this may seem fun at first, eventually, it becomes really crappy. You get fat, you're sickly, you're weak, and it sucks. It is the same for the mind.

I do not think there is any indication that it is bad for man in a Godless world to exercise his will to power even against the best interests of other men.

It might be a problem if it effects his conscience of course, but man's ability to justify his own actions is not at all weak.

 

[The Nihilist]

I do not think there is any indication that it is bad for man in a Godless world to exercise his will to power even against the best interests of other men.

It might be a problem if it effects his conscience of course, but man's ability to justify his own actions is not at all weak.

A man may have a good reason to sit on his couch all day, but he's still fat.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

A man may have a good reason to sit on his couch all day, but he's still fat.

But a fat guy has problems from that, it will cause him trouble.
What trouble does a man who has trampled ruthlessly but successfully on his enemies (whom he dislikes too much to be troubled by the sufferings of) have?

A mans justification for sitting around on the couch doesn't stop him being fat - it just stops him being upset about it. But to be troubled in conscience is the upset, so if he successfully justifies his actions to himself he suffers nothing for it.

 

[The Nihilist]

But a fat guy has problems from that, it will cause him trouble.
What trouble does a man who has trampled ruthlessly but successfully on his enemies (whom he dislikes too much to be troubled by the sufferings of) have?

A mans justification for sitting around on the couch doesn't stop him being fat - it just stops him being upset about it. But to be troubled in conscience is the upset, so if he successfully justifies his actions to himself he suffers nothing for it.

The aim of Eudaimonism is less concerned with individual actions than it is with cultivating virtue, which will result in proper action. If a man is virtuous, he will generally behave properly in all regards, and if he is not, he will not.
I think the argument you'll get from Mark, though, is that virtue is its own reward, in much the same way that physical strength is. Being strong, being physically fit just feels better than being weak or fat. Similarly, being virtuous feels better than not being virtuous. And while eating cheetos feels better right away than going to the gym, and while cultivating poor habits is more fun right away than cultivating good habits, in the long term, these make living more wretched.

 

[Apolloe]

Mark is more or less an Aristotelian Eudaimonist. I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you in great detail, but you can read the article on wikipedia if you like.

It should come as little surprise that, during Aristotle's time, slavery was quite common. Not only that, but Aristotle supported such slavery:

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

(Politics 1:5)

I wonder if Eudaimonist thinks this as well? The fact is, that on atheism there's no reason to reject or accept slavery.

There's no reason to follow Aristotle's line of ethics. It's an arbitrary choice - but once you make that choice, then moral truths flow out naturally.

Your fat man example is a poor one. One can think of a multitude of circumstances where one can inflict suffering, or even death, on others to serve one's own happiness. Slavery is just one example, murder is another. There is also theft, rape, coercion, intimidation, etc.

But even these outcomes of a particular belief are irrelevant. The main point is that, anything is permitted, because nothing can be justified. There is no reason for me to pick one brand of ethics over another.

 

[Apolloe]

I need to make something else clear. We don't want to get bogged down into the details of Mark's particular standard of ethics. It doesn't matter one bit whether his standard results in unimaginable evil, or if it approximates what we consider "good" in every circumstance (ie, is highly successful).

The big question is, why should we accept his standard in the first place? Why should we maximise what we think is good?

Let's imagine (because I don't know) that Mark's standard of ethics holds that murder is wrong. Consider the rich murderer deathbed confession above - Mark thinks this is wrong (given my assumption that his ethics holds murder is wrong). But the rich murderer has a different standard for right and wrong, and thinks he did no wrong. How can Mark judge him? How would Mark persuade this rich murderer that he should in fact hold a different standard of ethics? One more like his own. Obviously he can't appeal to consequences, because the rich man already knows that his life was happy - and he's at the end. There are no consequences to face, or if there are, it will only last a day or two before he dies.

 

[The Nihilist]

Aristotle advocated slavery for Barbarians, as people unable to govern themselves rationally. I know little of the Greek institution of slavery, beyond that it was radically different from American slavery. As such, I will not discuss its merits and faults.
If you think the example of the fat man is a poor one, it is because you did not pay attention. Staying inside and eating cheetos all day feels good while you're doing it, but you feel terrible later. It is the same with rape, murder, whatever.
Eudaimonism is not about particular cases. It doesn't say that killing is wrong, or that stealing is wrong, or whatever. At least, not exactly. Eudaimonism is about caring for your soul*, in the same way that an athlete cares for his body. And just as the athlete feels better because of his good shape, a Eudaimonist feels better. To some degree, it might even be accurate to say that Eudaimonism is a highly refined form of hedonism. Just as an athlete can run so fast, it is because the Eudaimonist's soul is in good shape that he is inclined to perform morally proper actions.
Your rich murderer is a wretch. He is unenviable. But because he is so wretched, he could no more be convinced that he is a wretch than an insane man could be convinced he is insane.

Now, as to your big question. You don't have to agree with Aristotle. Most of this follows from Aristotle's assertion that Man is a rational animal. You may agree with that or you may disagree. If you disagree, you'll have to find something else to hang morality on.
That being said, we have escaped your problem. We have established a system of ethics that not only does not depend on a God, but that rises or falls on a completely unrelated question, which is the nature of Man. The existence of God plays no part, and your assertion that ethics without God is impossible is broken.



*The soul is not presented here as it is presented in Christian orthodoxy. The Greeks understood the soul as the difference between a living and a nonliving thing. It is essentially the part of a man that thinks, feels, and acts.

 

[Apolloe]

I don't care what the outcomes or fruits of Eudaimonist's view are. I don't care if it has the result of producing the fittest, smartest, most caring people who live the happiest, having the most fulfilled lives. I don't care if it ushers in a scientific revolution that ends world hunger and sees us all elevate to new levels of consciousness. It doesn't matter one bit if embracing Eudaimonist's view causes every single person to spontaneously and for the rest of their lives experience nothing but pure happiness.

I want to know, how can you call the rich murderer a wretch? Pretend that he's rational, able to be persuaded when presented with the right arguments and evidence, and intelligent enough to recognise good arguments and evidence. What reason then could you give him to understand that he did wrong? You did not answer this question - and you're not answering it, I think, because there is no way to persuade him. No reason or rational argument you can appeal to. He acts as independently from reasoning as does Eudaimonist. His actions are as rational as that of a tree swaying in the wind, or the waves of the ocean. It just is.

You can't just assert that he's wretched, and imagine that your words have meaning. You think he's a wretch, but you need to rationally show me why that's the case.

Here's the crux of the issue. You say:

If you disagree, you'll have to find something else to hang morality on.

I ask, how do you judge between one coat-hook and another to hang your morality on? There's simply no way to judge between them. As Kai Nielson said, "Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality".

I'll take Eudaimonist's word on what good and evil are, given the assumption of his standard for ethics. I don't really care what it justifies - even slavery or emancipation. I want to know, why would someone be rationally compelled to accept that standard in the first place.

If you feel tempted at this point to reply, "Well, the Christian is no better off", then consider two points:
1. We are better off. We have a view which can give an objective, non-arbitrary, unchanging standard of morality - a necessarily existing agent who is unchanging. This is the only view that can justify the existence of objective good and evil
2. Even if we weren't better off, that doesn't show that atheism doesn't lead to a life without meaning and morality simpliciter

But you and Eudaimonist seem to be making positive claims which you have no right to make on atheism:
1. Life has meaning
2. The person who does evil is much like the person who thinks the world is flat - he is irrational, and wrong

If you are right about (2) then you should be able to show why the rich murderer is wrong - or at least give an outline of the approach such a demonstration would take.