Infested Kerrigan

Recently at school, I have been identified as an "authentic atheist" by an intelligent, thinking instructor of mine. He explained I was consistent in what I considered in my ethical perspective, and found that very rare among atheists.

Apparently, this teacher was convinced that most atheists are not consistent in their convictions about "good" and "bad". He remarked that atheists usually, who don't share a common, written, defined moral obligation, suddenly will able to define "good" and "bad" when faced with personal ethical dilemmas. In other words, he felt that most atheists faltered in their ideas about morality when a serious problem hits home, such as fatal illness.

The specific issue that arose, and later was used to categorize me, centered around fatal illness, and whether or not doctors should try to eliminate them. My teacher played devil's advocate, and presented the class with the idea that a fatal disease, such as AIDS, kills people and thus frees up a lot of food and water to be consumed by healthier humans. Thus, AIDS could be a good thing to keep around.

I honestly felt, although not just for the reason about food and water, that fatal diseases WERE positive, mainly because they are the only natural enemies humans had left (besides other humans). Thus diseases like AIDS are population controls. I went further to say that I certainly did not hold myself exempt from this idea, and that if I contracted a fatal disease, I would simply let it take me. I believe it was that statement that revealed me to be the supposedly rare "authentic atheist".

If this made any sense, my questions now for fellow atheists are, do you consider yourselves consistent? Do you really think this "authenticism" is really all that rare? Does my teacher have figurative wool over his eyes? Any other thoughts?

Thank you.

Starboy

If I understand the question, I think it boils down to this. Would an a-theist give up their life for a moral conviction? I have never been tested, but I would like to think that I would. I know that there have been many a-thiest that have served in the military that did give the last possible measure of moral devotion. And I do not know of any actual examples, but I am sure that there have been atheists that have sacrificed their lives for others, such as fire fighters and emergency response persons. I think your professor is another example of someone who thinks that religion == morals.

Starboy

himynameisPwn

Your problem is that while AIDs may control population, its the duty of the individual to live. If you don't live, then your just another organism that was too weak.

Seriously, why in the world would you let a serious desiese take you?

I don't know about you, but evolutions not gonna take me till Im forced to go and my seed is spread around a bit.

K

Infested Kerrigan:

I think your teacher has a rather limited view of consistent morals. He seems to think that morals must be measured against some common standard in order for them to be consistent. Every sane person makes every moral decision consistent with her/his own personal ethics whether those ethics are codified or not.

I would venture to say that it is highly unlikely that even two theists' moral codes overlap 100 percent. I don't believe that the theists' morals lie in their written laws. Instead, they are revealed in the situations where the theists decide to follow the laws and those where they choose to break them. They are also revealed when the theist chooses one law over another when the two are in conflict.

If this premise is true, then the atheist is free to see that his/her moral code is present in every decision made. The theist's moral code is actually obfuscated by the codified moral law that is sometimes adhered to.

I guess it's pretty obvious that I don't believe in objective moral value. I think your teacher feels that morals are only really morals if they do have that standard measure.

I clearly do not speak for all (or necessarily more than one) atheists. 99Percent, would you like to present another view?

99Percent

Thanks, K.

Infested Kerrigan, your teacher is presenting the moral problem atheists supposedly face at the a lack of an absolute moral standard when it lacks a belief in a God. God which is the absolute authority by definition imposes this standard and we mortals have no say or interpretation of these moral rules. This is the easy way out for most people as having to face moral choices is one of the hardest if not the hardest things we do in life, specially after commiting mistakes.

The atheist usually adopts what your teacher is obviously putting to light: moral relativism, aka subjectivism. According to subjectivism, morals are not absolute - the standards of good and evil are relative and subject to interpretation. For example, what is good for society is not necessarily good to you. So what is more important society or the individual. In your teacher's example the relative good and bad is placed not on society but on Earth's environment. Here you seem to reluctant to adopt the idea that what is good for Earth is more important than your own life.

However fairly recently (I think) a new form of atheistic morality has been developing which actually involves an absolute moral good without God and it consists briefly on the individual rational self interest and happiness, as himynameisPwn sort of points out.

At first glance it would appear that what is good for the individual must be bad for the rest of the world and society but that is assuming that the individual is worthless by itself, that it consumes and takes away from everything and everybody else (zero sum hypothesis). This is demostratably false as human beings are organisms that actually produce, make 1+1>2 - through their ability to reason, and only through their ability to reason and to communicate successes and failures and experiences. This individual production inevitably contributes to the good of everybody.

For example in the case of AIDS, if you struggle to find a cure for yourself, this cure will obviously also save millions of other's life. In the case of over population if you find a way to make the production of food from Earth more efficient for your own sake, you save the Earth and improve on the human condition.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

God's supposed moral 'commandments' (of whichever brand of God one believes) are dogmatic, not objective.

The only objective moral standard is one's own judgment, which must result only from the observation and reasoned evaluation of reality as revealed via the senses, and validated by a process of reason.

This judgment is dependent upon the fact that one is alive, and free to use one's mind independently. From there, one realizes that there are other human beings who also must remain alive and free, in order that they can use their own independent judgment, as well.

From there, if one wishes to take the time, and put forth the effort, an entire objective moral system can be developed with a basis in reality, rather than dogma.

Keith.

raistlinjones

There are plenty of secular moral theories. It's interesting that your teacher is looking for consistency - almost noone's belief structure is really totally consistent. Moral theories are rarely consistent either, including (especially?) the ones provided by religions. To some people consistency is really important - to others it doesn't matter at all. I personally try to be as consistent in my beliefs as possible...so now you know at least one other consistent atheist.

ybnormal

Duty to what or whom?

I have no duty to anything or anyone.

Do you not choose your so-called duty?

Are you saying that one who remains duty bound to some group is strong, while an independent who survives and/or dies on his own, is weak?

Starboy

Morals are like the law. The laws primary purpose is not to be consistent but to promote an orderly and peaceful society. The purpose for morals is to help people live in harmony with the society to which they belong. In order to achieve these goals, laws and morals must sometimes be bent if not discarded entirely.

Starboy

K

I think the whole issue hinges on the definition of consistency used.

1. It could mean that a set of rules is followed without exception.

2. It could mean that moral decisions should apply equally independent of the decision maker (I think this is the teacher's definition).

3. It could mean that there is an underlying mechanism that drives our moral decisions.

I'm sure there are many more. The definition I use is the third. I believe that all decisions (not just moral decisions) are made to give the most perceived benefit to the individual at the time the decision is made. Therefore, everyone inevitably makes consistent moral decisions. Whether those decisions are rational, coherent, or predictable is an entirely different matter.