Ensign Steve

Again, not perfect. But a heck of a lot better than what is offered up in the so-called "good" book.

Primal

Well of course atheists can have morality. I imagine you would for example not deny that Buddhists and Taoists adhere to moral codes; and they can be atheists.

But I believe you are more asking why naturalists and secularists have morals and what is our basis for them.

On this question you need to keep in mind that there are many secularist philosophies.

Natrualism merely means you do not believe in the supernatural, that leaves the door wide open for what you do believe. This means a secularist can be a relativist, a kantian, a utilitarian, virtue theorist, collectivist,humanist,existentialist or egoist on any given issue.

The question is akin to me asking if supernaturalists have a moral system and if so, what are they? I imagine you'd get many, MANY different answers.

Thus you will see many atheists here will disagree with me or give contrary answers, which is to be expected and which you cannot honestly apply to me or all atheists. That would be like me asking a Hindu about the basis for true or false and right or wrong, and then applying that to Xians since both groups are supernaturalist/theists.


My own personal take on the issue is that moral standards are intrinsic properties of the given organism. The conscience so to speak. These traits are known to us as emotional dispositions.

I don't believe morals are thus relative or created by the individual or group for several reasons.

1) Because I don't believe in free will. Thus I fail to see how we could invent what we consider moral or immoral. Remember that morals are traits to me, emotional dispositions. We do not get to choose our emotional dispositions: our genes and our enviroment do that. Thus I would say we more inherent morality instead of inventing it.

2) I do not see how one can get from perceptions to morals. I cannot for example how one can see a given act and then conclude "it is immoral". There is a huge gulf between the premise and conclusion there, a gulf which can only be traversed by some means of evaluating the experience before the fact.

I cannot for example see a man torture and kill a rabbit and then conclude that "thus killing rabits for sport is wrong." That really is a non sequitur.

However if we add the premise "and my brain is structured so as to see such an act as wrong." Then I can conclude that killing the rabbit is wrong.

Now some will likewise say there is a distinction to be made between evlauting the act as wrong and the act's being wrong: however I would ask them to prove this distinction exists before hand. The entire question to me seems senseless as saying "there is a distinction between evluating an experience as painful, and the experience being painful."

Thus my view of morality is based on the intrinsic traits of an organism. And since our traits are not fully based on our perceptions nor are they created; our morals are not completely relative.

Now I will aknowledge that there can be, given these standards, variations in morality. Just as there is variation among the traits of any given organisms. However that does not lesson the importance of morality for any given organism in question for itself.

To say it does would be like saying "Well different animals have different wants, wolves want to kill rabbits to get meat, rabbit want to avoid being killed: hence its all relative and one position is as good as another."

Well one position certainly is not as good as the other for the wolf or the rabbit, both may have different sets of values but to both their values of are utmost importance. And to both the conflicting values of the other are more or less, irrelevant in respect to the significance of their own values.

Likewise if I as a trait, or a sort of want think that "rape is immoral", the apperance of another that believes otherwise is more or less inconsequential in regards to my own standing.

Now what is to avoid us sinking into chaos? Traits being so radically different that human beings cannot agree?

Two things 1) Similiarity in biology. Our common humanity. Human beings may differ in many respects but our core traits tend to more or less be present and remain similiar.

2) Our common enviroment. We live in the same reality, under the same physical laws, with the same consequences for the same actions.

Both the above lead to similiar physical and emotional traits in humans. I very much believe that both of the above lead to similiar enough moral traits for humans to thus come to agreement on certain issues, or enough agreement for our societies to avoid sinking into chaos.

Now where did morals come from? A theist will ask me this presuming God, however I have a very different answer: evolution. We evolved the ability to inherent certain standards as morals and value them for a long time, perhaps even as long as we live. Now I am not saying we are born with morals, like we are the ability to breath or feel pain. I am saying there is a biological component the allows us to build up a set of emotional values we call morals, most likely at a younger age and perhaps disposes us to certain morals. This would make the trait more exegenetic then fully instinctive. Similiar to our sexual standards, we are, as organisms born to accept certain standards during our childhood, which will become set for life as our standards of attraction. This process of setting standards of attraction is partly enviromental, with a strong underlying biology to it. I would say that morals are like this, except perhaps more uniform then attraction standards. These morals would likely evolve in a social group of organisms, especially intelligent ones with greater capacities for cruelty and deception, as a means of giving the group greater survival values against other groups.(Groups which can cooperate will do better then groups that are always in a state of conflict.)

Likewise the individual organism will have a better chance itself of being valued by the group and hence helped by the group/not selected against by the group. Remember the group is a selective factor in the enviroment to, a sort of environment in itself that the organism must adapt to. Individuals that cheat,steal,murder,rape ectera will likely be selected against by his or her own group members. Individuals, that are honest,kind,sharing,helpful,fair, will be supported by the group as a valuable member.



And now this is all nice and pretty but I imagine some people will say "so what? Why should I be moral?"

Well that question is akin to asking
"Why should I sleep?" Or "Why should I eat?"

In short:
"Why should I follow my values?" or "Why should I do what I want?"

Basically I would say to many people, save for sociopaths, its because these morals are desires that we have, and the prusuit of morality is something we desire for its own sake. Not because of some external reward, but because deep down, most people don't want to live in a world where this is muder, rape etc.

I would likewise point out extrinsic benefits to such compliance. This would serve to justify moral values even further and to justify complying with moral standards to those who don't share in moral sentiments. Basically I would say not following moral standards can lead to negative consequences in other areas, via punishment, social disorder etc. And likewise complying with moral standards can lead to many benefits, like avoiding retribution for harming someone, creating a safe enviroment for those one cares for etc.


Now most objections to this viewpoint stem from the idea of morality having to be something of solely extrinsic, not instrinsic value.

The problem with this position is that it must rely on certain improbabilities and in some cases, reduce itself to an intrinsic moral standard.

Concerning the first point it would call for us having to believe many things:

1) Being that we have a conscience. That is undeniable. But then saying this conscience is more or less an apendage or a way for us to gauge social consequences and not a motivation in itself. Thus they are saying that our conscience creates certain emotions in us, but these emotions are not desires. These emotions are just there....floating around or serving other emotional needs. This ignores the fact that our emotions by their very nature are the very things that motivate us.

2) They will have to deny certain basic experiences we all have. For example if I asked most people if they would accept a black person as a slave...no social consequences at all. No consequence except for their own personal emotional ones springing from their conscience, most will say "no". I certainly would. Having a slave would be most useful in many ways though it is hard to explain why anyone would say "no".....unless that is we accept our morals as instrinsic values, i.e. motivations in themselves.

3) We must presume that we evolved in soceities for millions of years, without any moral standards or emotions to keep us in line, which most agree is very improbable.

Or that we evolved in such societies without establishing our moral mechanisms as intrinsic desires. That we are more or less, a group or sociopaths and have remained so for millions of years who just pretend to be moral when it suits our purposes. This is unlikely as in such societies that merely pretend to be moral, there will be more backstabbing then in societies with sincere moral feelings, thus making such a society less fit to survive. Likewise individuals which only pretend to be moral will make more slip ups and mistakes then individuals that are moral and thus will be selected against by group members.

4) That we more or less just invented our moral theories during our social evolution as a means of keeping order. Besides from the arbitrary nature of such a "morals out of nowhere argument" there is the added difficulty of how in fact this was done. If humans really did not have any predispositions towards such a state before hand, merely inventing a way to cooperate would seem exceedingly difficult.

As for my second objection, it seems to me many standards of morality that are extrnsic in appearance ultimately resort to intrinsic morality or values.

Take for example the theist claim that all morals come from God, if the theist likewise denies that people have intrinsic morals and our conscience is a sensor used for avoiding divine punishment. However the theist must then state where God got his morality from. Ultimately they will either say "I don't know" making their theory less coherent or say "they are aspects of God's nature."
In which case they are in the end apealing to instinsic morality, just in a superfluous manner.


Thus my morality is a completely secular one, capable of allowing us to make sense of our moral intuitions, agree on moral codes, explain variation, and allow for situational means in the least superfluous manner possible.

the_cave

I disagree. As far as I can tell, these principles are exactly what's offered up in the common Christian interpretation of the Bible. Now I'm certainly not going to argue that they're presented with any clarity, and obviously you need to do a lot of interpreting to ignore contrary examples (of which there are plenty in the Bible). Nor am I necessarily arguing that they originated in Hebrew and Christian writings--I'm just saying that Christians by and large get exactly these ethics from scripture.

Stephen T-B

learned anything yet, Rubbercok3000?

The Church (and Churches) which claim to represent core Christian beliefs have, over the last thousand or so years, endorsed:
the burning to death of cats in wicker baskets hung from poles;
the burning to death of witches;
the torturing, burning to death and wholesale slaughter of heretics;
the slaying of pagans;
the capturing, shipping and keeping of slaves;
Apartheid in South Africa;
racial segregation in the Southern States,
- and while it cannot be said that Christian churches supported the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda, many priests and nuns played an active role in the killings.

Perhaps, Rubbercok3000, Christians should look in their own backyard before pointing out the garbage in other people’s?

Alonzo Fyfe

For me, you will find my answer in the series that I am writing which is being posted in the Secular Lifestyles and Support section.

Ethics Without God: A Personal Journey

In the parts that I have written so far, the part that you may find the most interesting is Part I -- explaining why the question, "How can I be good?" cannot be reliably answered by looking at religion -- even religious people look at a standard outside of religion for their ethics.

The argument will be restated in a stronger form in Part V, when I get it posted, either today or tomorrow.

Lobstrosity

Well, I'm an atheist and I have morals, so to answer your first question: yes.

As for why, that's easy. Morals are a necessary component of social interaction. Since humans are social creatures, morality is an integral component of humanity. Morality serves to produce a healthy society. Society serves to protect and provide for the individual. By helping to maintain the integrity of society, we are helping ourselves.

I actually came up with and put on paper my ideal system of morality; it's meant to keep the best aspects of contract egoism and utilitarianism while discarding what I see as the weaknesses of each. It's actually based on Aasimov's "Three Laws of Robotics," but it's really quite long and I'm not sure where/if I should post it (it's really long!).

Primal

Stephen T-B: You made an excellent point about church hypocrisy. I would also like to point out another fact related to the issue though: How Xians so often claim to be absolutists, the when confronted with unpleasant acts of God in the Bible(The flood,genocide,endorsment of slavery, infanticide,condoning of rape) resort to situational/teleological moral defenses. I.e. the ends justify God's means. Or It's okay for God but not for man, making their moral code less then absolute.

And then this brings in the question, of how morality, if it comes from God, be less then absolute? Why is God a hypocrite?

Lobstrocity: I agree with you for the most part. However I would like to note that your theory begs the question of what exactly do you mean by "best for society"? Or how do you decide on what makes society happiest and how was it established in the first place that moral=what makes society happy? Even given what you are saying though, lets say I personally can gain more by cheating society temporarily and/or am a minority who will be hurt overall by some gain for society, why then should I be concerned with what is moral?


For example I doubt society will ever fall apart. Why then should I not be a scam artist and make wads of dough? You may say "because if everyone did that there would be no society" however I know that not everyone is going to do it, so why shouldn't I?

Guillaume

Like all atheists who hopelessly try to justify a logical basis for morals, you make no sense at all.

Not true. I have no moral yet I don’t have problems with social interaction. Having no moral does not necessary mean hurting others, it just mean doing what is best for yourself without feeling guilt,shame or other unnecessary and harmful emotions.

You definite humans as “social creatures”. I don’t agree with such a definition. For me humans are rational creatures. Many different animals have a “social” life, yet only humans are able to think and use logic.

Regardless of if you do hurt or help “society”, your actual impact on it will likely be extremely limited and negligible. As such, I fail to see how you “help yourself” when you help society. To me having no moral just seems a far more efficient way to help yourself.

Guillaume

While I hold a similar opinion regarding free will, I disagree with the origin of "emotional dispositions". To me, "emotional dispositions" are not primarily based on our genes but is instead based on our experiences ( especially childhoods ones ). Basically, society ( and parents ) "teach" children at a very young age what is "right" or "wrong", what is "true" or "false". This includes morals, values, religion, etc. Most children take those "revealed truths" for granted : they trust their "teachers". Indeed, most people will never question the beliefs they were given : to them, they are "evident". This illusion of "evidence" is strengthened by the social environment : people do not question something if everyone around them support it.

In short, the illusion of "good" and "evil" is nothing more then the result of a constant brainwashing by society. As such, "morality" is very similar to religion : both are beliefs not based on rational though, and both are "known" to be true "because I feel it is true".

Philosoft

Why not? I don't think anyone is saying humans are exclusively social creatures. It seems very difficult to deny that there is a major social component to human behavior, and this is bolstered by observations of social behavior in other primates.

Certainly not all the time, or even most of the time. And why are these two attributes mutually exclusive?

Surely this does not deny that humans are also social creatures?