Vorkosigan

you want me to present arguments for what is a negative thing. You ask me to show arguments for why morality should not exist --- but why is that any different than asking someone to show that God does not exist?

Still avoiding the issue, I see.

Just as atheism is the natural fallout when one sees no reason for God, then amorality is the logical fallout for one who has no external need of such a thing.

How many times must it be said? You are totally and completely wrong. Atheists can be Buddhists, Objectivists, Wiccans, and hundreds of other beliefs. You've erected a false dichotomy. Some atheists have systems, others are ad hoc. All Christians, as far as I know, are ad hoc and subjective in their ethical beliefs.

How is it that people behave morally even without any belief in god? Do you have any objective evidence that the people you label atheist behave more evilly than believers? Just what kind of atheist do you mean, anyway?

So until someone states a reason for having any sort of morals beyond the natural self-presentation,

Are you familiar with the iterated prisoner's dilemma? Have you bothered to read anything on sociobiology, the evolution of cooperation, kin selection, or any of a thousand other things that bear on this question?

Self-preservation is not the only basis for moral behavior. In fact, a creature that attempted to only preserve itself would have no offspring. No creature that was interested only in self-preservation could even be "moral" as we understand the term.

I suggest you read a good introduction to evolutionary biology, and read up on how creatures ensure the survival of offspring, and the enhancement of their genetic representation in the population. You might also pay attention to reciprocity, status competition, mate selection, predation and social behavior, sexuality, and a hundred other topics. Cooperative mechanisms have arisen in hundreds of species, and interspecies cooperation is well-known. Pay attention to economic studies of the behavior of people when information is limited or incomplete. There are lots of ways cooperation arises among complex social creatures like ourselves.

Your narrow definition of self-interest as "self-preservation" is WAY off base. Most Christians who post here are like you and Haran -- they appear to have never studied the evolution of cooperative mechanisms, not even in a simple simulation like an <a href="http://www.brembs.net/ipd/ipd.html" target="_blank">iterated prisoner's dilemma</a>, and see everything naively in terms of a simple prisoner's dilemma. You are absolutely correct -- in that situation, people would screw each other. However, the real world doesn't look like the world you describe, which is why people cooperate.

You might also cogitate on the meaning of "selfishness" and how you have confused it with "self-preservation." Then think about genetics.....what is it creatures are "selfishly" advancing when they cooperate with other animals?

I think that Haran's question is answered as I have stated. So far the details of the answers posted are lacking any strong logic.

This is because your ignorance of the problem is so vast and basic, that nobody could answer you without writing page after page. For example, do you know anything about a cooperative strategy called Tit for Tat? Have you read anything on evolutionary psychology?

At best, I hear nothing that would convince anyone that "morals" are anything other than an emotion in the mind of the beholder.

What does that mean, an "emotion" in the mind of the beholder? For a person who demands logic, you sure are vague.....

For people who criticize following an organized creed on the bases of logic, that is awfully feeble and it certainly means that no morality at all is quite reasonable.

You are welcome to have no morality, but I doubt you will last long as a social being if you do.

In any case, Christianity remains incoherent, incomplete and evil even if you cannot accept any of the alternatives.


I find that I cannot respond to your posts easily because you are able to split the quotes and then respond. Somehow, that doesn't work when I try it. I just get the final line -- as in this post.


It's not easy. You have to copy the entire post and cut it up. It helps to open the reply in a second window, so you can paste back and forth, or copy to a word processor.

Michael

Jamie_L

Coming back very late to this thread. A few notes:

Many, many conflicts can arise if trying to live your life purely by self-interest. What does that mean anyway? If you beat somebody up and take $100 out of their wallet, that's good for you, right? But later you get arrested. Was taking the $100 good?

Often, people are extremely short-sighted. A moral system can help people do things that ARE in their best interests, even if they don't recognize any near-term benefit. What we perceive as beneficial to us may not be. Thus, adhering to a moral code that has our more long-term benefits in mind, may in fact be more in our self-interest than doing whatever we want whenever we want.

Yes, I do good things, and people still do bad things to me. However, if I lived my life as an uncaring asshole, would I be better off? Would I have the close circle of caring friends I do if they knew me to be a jerk, dishonorable, and untrustworthy to others? If I broke laws whenever I thought I could get away with it, would I really be in good shape over the course of my life?

First, atheism is not intended to provide any such answers, whereas religion claims to do just that. If neither actually does, at least atheism is honest about it.

Furthermore, suppose a particular religion provides a moral code. It is clear cut. The religion claims to have divine authority behind it to punish the unbelievers. Should one believe the religion? I could right up a dictionary of morals and claim that little gnomes come out of the ground to smack or even kill people when they disobey the moral commandments. This satisfies your apparent criteria (moral code backed by potential retribution). Would people be justified in converting to my religion and proclaiming its truth?

Maybe a divinely commanded morality would be better IF IT WERE TRUE. But that doesn't MAKE IT TRUE. Should people follow something that isn't true, just because it makes them feel better?

Jamie

jlowder

This may not unreasonably be interpreted as saying, "I don't really care what any of you have to say, I'm just going to keep trolling you with rants and not really attempt to engage in real dialogue."

The idea that the world will began to change toward utopia sounds like wishful thinking to me.

While this may be an accurate description of some atheists (especially those of the Ayn Rand variety who proclaim selfishness as a virtue), it is doubtful this is an accurate description of all atheists. But, more importantly, there's a huge difference between taking cheap shots at atheism and showing how theism has an advantage over atheism. The atheist can just as easily respond that the theist's motivation for moral behavior is selfish: fear of avoiding hellfire, promise of eternal bliss in Heaven, etc. These are the reasons that are supposed to make theism "morally advantageous" over atheism, but notice that they are all selfish reasons. Here's another example of theistic selfish reasoning:

The above paragraph is a perfect example of why definitions of terms is so important in moral philosophy. What do you mean when you say that an act is "okay"? What do you mean when you say that "anything goes"? It appears that you're equivocating moral permissibility with moral accountability. Even if someone is not held accountable for an action, that does not mean the act is permissible. Therefore, your claim that if an "all-knowing force does not exist, then anything that benefits you is morally permissible" is false. From the fact that an all-knowing being does not exist, nothing at all follows about the existence of valid moral principles.

And even without God, there is still moral accountability: to oneself, to one's family, and to one's community. Finally, who is God accountable to?

What I said was that no one has any guarantee they will be able to commit an evil act and not be caught later.

But this isn't unique to atheism. Think of the almost daily suicide bombings committed by theists in Israel. Those theists believed that acts of terrorism were in their self-interest. And I'll ask the question again, why should God be moral if doing so goes against his self-interest?

Again, this problem isn't unique to atheism. Theism has the same (or a similar) problem. If a theist believes God has commanded him to rape a woman, why shouldn't he commit rape? If committing the rape benefits his selfish desires in some way, why shouldn't he rape?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Haran

Michael,

Thanks for your apology and your thoughtful replies. I get the impression that you don't think I'm trying very hard to understand this issue from your point of view, but I truly am...

I don't care about other people's theories. Can you at least understand my confusion here? I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clear. Let me try again. As an Atheist, only humans (or maybe animals but they won't tell ) can find out anything about what you do or have done in life. Does that not give you the freedom to do anything covertly that you wish even if it hurts others that are not your immediate friends (or even if they are, does it matter?)? I'm sorry if these questions offend, but there's some kind of disconnect here that I am just not seeing. As I noted earlier, there are plenty of people who would risk jail or their life to benefit themselves, and do.

Finally, you mention all the horrible things that religion has done, but you fail to take into account (in my opinion) the degree to which these people follow the ideals of their chosen religion. For instance, the WTC "bombers" committed several grievious "sins" - suicide, gambling, drinking, and killing of other Muslims. Just like you would deny the types of Atheists who might do some of the horrible things I suggest, those of religious persuasion would deny that these people were very in-touch with their religion.

Further more, there are examples of mass murderers who seem to have been atheists and did exactly what I describe because they obviously had no fear of being judged for their actions after death... Take for instance, <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/ct2/chat/" target="_blank">Eric and Dylan</a> of Columbine (who mention (among other things, something Eric said or at least song lyrics they believed - not sure which - I HAVE COME TO ROCK YOUR WORLD - I HAVE COME TO SHAKE YOUR FAITH - ANATHEMATIC ANARCHIST - I HAVE COME TO TAKE MY PLACE - Do you think they thought a punishment of any kind awaited them after they took their own lives as Suicide Mass Murderers?)... Michael, there are other examples if you'll honestly look for them. I just don't see how you can say that Atheism provides any better answer since some Atheists also seem to be capable of these things.

Finally, you and Lowder have both mentioned something to the effect that Atheism has no real set of morals...everyone can believe as they wish. This seems to dodge the question to me. Atheists can and are obviously grouped/associated by their unbelief (a - theist - though perhaps this is a misnomer since it presupposes God). They can also be grouped by the fact that they all seem to me to believe that only other humans can punish them for "bad" actions - i.e. there is no higher "all-knowing force" that will see/know all of their actions and judge them for the ones they commit in private away from other human eyes. Since they can be grouped this way, it seems to me that the rest of what I have stated above applies to the whole...without this "Santa Claus in the sky who knows everything you've done and will judge you for it", where, honestly, is the incentive to do anything "good"? I just don't see it...

Thanks,
Haran

Haran

I don't doubt that it is not a description of all atheists. However, I don't understand why you don't take advantage when you can covertly get away with it, while maintaining the outward appearance of being good. This is a tough thing to admit to, I grant you...

I'm not sure that I have a big problem with what you've stated here. To me, it is possible to believe that our selfishness, carried to an extereme, is "bad" (sin?). The fact that we all have it sounds eerily similar to that concept (which I don't even know if I completely subscribe to) of original sin... Perhaps we need religion to fight off these "extreme" forms of selfishness with the threat of an "all-knowing being" who will judge our actions? Wishful thinking or a leap of faith? Maybe. Still seems like a better alternative to me...

Haran

goody2shoes

Thank you for the insights into your philosophy and thought processes. I really do appreciate them. I shall endeavor to choose the details of what I write such that what I mean and what you think that I mean more closely coincide. It may not work but it is worth a try.

Goody

goody2shoes

MadMordigan

However, I don't understand why you don't take advantage when you can covertly get away with it, while maintaining the outward appearance of being good.

Why don't we jump off cliffs if we know we won't fall on the rocks below?

Seriously, why don't you teach us how to be guaranteed to covertly get away with anti-social actions.

jlowder

There is no doubt that atheists have committed murder, just as theists have. But you've picked a fallacious example. There is no evidence that either Dylan or Klebold were atheists.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then there is no afterlife and hence no possibility for punishment (or reward) in an afterlife. But so what? Three points to consider:

(1) This doesn't mean that theism is true. I could just as easily argue, "But if children don't believe in a magical being called Santa Claus, children will have no reason to behave correctly when adults aren't looking, therefore Santa Claus exists!"

(2) Theists have a parallel problem. If God commands a theist to perform an evil act, the theist is not going to be punished in the afterlife for committing that act. On the contrary, he will be rewarded eternally!

(3) Do you think God thinks any kind of punishment awaits him after he commits an evil act? Why should God be moral?

I don't think atheism provides a better answer or a worse answer.

This isn't quite right. Here's an analogy: any possible belief about the shape of the planet earth is consistent with atheism. But that doesn't mean that atheists are justified in holding just any belief about the shape of the earth. Similarly, atheism does not entail any moral beliefs. Just about any moral belief (except the DCT) is logically consistent with atheism. But that doesn't mean that atheists are justified in holding just any moral belief. So it is not accurate to say that atheists can "believe as they wish" about morality.

You don't see it because you're confusing the existence of moral principles with accountability for one's actions. Suppose for the sake of argument that if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability at all. It still wouldn't follow that no moral principles are true. For example, the truth of the moral proposition, "One ought not to torture newborn babies for fun," does not in any way depend on whether people who do torture newborn babies are punished. So even if atheism entailed no moral accountability at all (which is false), it would still be the case that atheism did not entail any particular view on ethics.

JJL

P.S. The word "atheism" isn't capitalized.

jlowder

There are several reasons why:

(1) I don't desire to do that. It's not my personality.

(2) Even if I did desire to do that, I would have no guarantee that I could "covertly get away with it." Again, prisons and jails are filled with people who thought they could get away with crimes. Many marriages have ended when one spouse caught the other cheating.

(3) You seem to have a very naive view of human nature, a view that presupposes humans have no social desires or emotions at all. Those social desires and emotions provide motivation from refraining from the sorts of activities you seem to have in mind.

Consider the example used previously in this thread about committing adultery. A man's desire for sex might make the possibility of committing adultery with a young, attractive woman appealing. But men also have other desires that, in the long run, outweigh the desire for sex through adultery. Larry Arnhart explains this very well in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0791436942/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Darwinian Natural Right.</a>

I wrote:

You responded:

Earlier you had claimed that atheistic morality was selfish. The point of my reply was that, even if your claim were correct, theism isn't any better. To say that religion "fights off" extreme selfishness is nonsense. Religion motivates people to behave in one way and not another by appealing to their selfishness. Being good just to avoid Hell or just to go to Heaven is selfish behavior. So theism hasn't decreased selfish behavior. On the contrary, it encourages it!

Jeffery Jay Lowder

P.S. Since Catholic priests believe in an all-knowing being, why have some Catholic priests sexually abused children? I guess there is more to it than whether one believes in an all-knowing being.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>