Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I confess to being a little tired of one particular canard; namely that atheism denies morality.  So tired of this, in fact, that I've added an article specifically about it (http://www.jimmo.org/mind/?p=315) on my nascent site.  As there are a few other atheists here, I thought I'd share my reasoning and see if it seeds any discussion :)

I usually try and not let it bother me. It is kind of funny how the groups that call us immoral are the ones who are least moral. Look at all the death and discrimination throughout recorded history of religion.

Why is it so hard to understand that some people can believe in doing the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do, and don't need to worry about some pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by reward for it, or some flaming brimstone punishment if we don't? As if we're all errant little children who need to be threatened or rewarded into just being a good person. In my experience Life seems to have its own way of sorting these things out, and whether you believe in God/dess or not, what goes around does tend to come back around. Even so, doing the right thing is often its own reward.

Didn't read your link cause I'm lazy.

As far as I am concerned, morality has to deal with generally agreed upon, social rules, that have come about in order to make the society stronger and more closely knit, which in turn helps support the survival of the society and it's members.
(if that wording makes sense at all)

It's nothing to do with what a god or gods tell us is right or wrong.
It doesn't even have anything to do with "right" or "wrong" strictly speaking.

QuoteIt doesn't even have anything to do with "right" or "wrong" strictly speaking.

It has to do with justice.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2009, 11:44:33 AM
It has to do with justice.

No it doesn't.
Morality is about survival of the society. Nothing else.
What we call justice is a "part" of morality.
Thus, morality is Not about justice.

Quote from: Miniar on September 06, 2009, 10:09:47 AMIt doesn't even have anything to do with "right" or "wrong" strictly speaking.

I suppose it has to do with it only in the estimation of the society in which those concepts are defined. But I agree that "right" and "wrong" are very relative terms, and are subjective only. I guess I meant "right" in the context of "proper" rather than as a binary opposite of "wrong", but again what is proper in a society is defined only by that society, it's not universal. Some religious types tend to think in absolute terms of universal "truth", which they further contend is handed down by deity, therefore no deity = no morals.

I think atheists have morality they just define it for themselves

Honestly, I would say that atheist morality is a lot more trustworthy and genuine than religious morality.

When you stop to think about it... how to religious people judge morality? By religious teachings. And why do most religious people FOLLOW religious teachings? Because by being moral according to the word of their doctrine, they will be rewarded in one way or another.

In other words, their morality isn't genuine; they're only being good because God told them to.

Atheists, on the other hand, have no real stake in anything, and therefore all of their judgments on morality are fueled by practicality and the social contract. Their morality makes sense, and isn't just a facade put up to get into Heaven.

QuoteNo it doesn't.

Read "Ethical Theory" By Louis P. Pojman
Then you might try " A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls.

Morality is a mutable, subjectively held personal framework of what constitutes "right" vs "wrong".  It is influenced by extrinsic factors, of course, and moral relativism is commonplace (even Calvin and Hobbes (http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg) understood this).

Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2009, 02:17:23 PM
Read "Ethical Theory" By Louis P. Pojman
Then you might try " A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls.

Ah well if it's in a book, it must be right! :)

Lisa, forgive me but you really shouldn't go making terse throwaway comments and then expect everyone to go traipsing down to the bookstore on your say-so.  If you've read and understood these tomes, and believe they make a relevant point, try to at least summarize a key point.  Just throwing out book titles and saying "See!" is a very lazy way to try and make or defend a point.

Quote from: finewine on September 06, 2009, 03:01:42 PM(even Calvin and Hobbes (http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg) understood this).

omg I miss them soooo much!

If it's possible, I think atheists are perhaps more serious and understanding of "morality". Atheists rely on factual information and the belief that mankind is generally good. People of religion seem to define their morality with the dogma of their religious views.

" Just throwing out book titles and saying "See!" is a very lazy way to try and make or defend a point."
And not reading is a way of admitting you are lazy. It takes real work to get a book bought and published not just self published. They also edit and comb a published book for mistakes and stand by it in case of law suits. Anything can be written on the web under a fake name. Books still are more reliable than the electronic media. It would take a book to explain what is in the books. Only the 30 second sound bite mentality wants things in one sentence.

Theory of Justice is not just a book, it's pretty much the book these days when discussing this. Rawls argues that there is both a need for liberty and differences (equality) in modern society and our own lives, and that justice and morality from which it springs is a contract, much like Rousseau and Locke described it, which is a way to balance our needs, and the needs of the greater whole off against each other.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2009, 08:21:11 PM
" Just throwing out book titles and saying "See!" is a very lazy way to try and make or defend a point."
And not reading is a way of admitting you are lazy. It takes real work to get a book bought and published not just self published. They also edit and comb a published book for mistakes and stand by it in case of law suits. Anything can be written on the web under a fake name. Books still are more reliable than the electronic media. It would take a book to explain what is in the books. Only the 30 second sound bite mentality wants things in one sentence.

Unfortunately it's just not possible to read every book out there so you need to qualify your recommendation, as I said before.   Further, tekla just demonstrated that it is possible to highlight why it may be a relevant read, without needing to write another book but in more than one sentence (not that I suggested "one sentence" was sufficient but thanks for putting words in my mouth).

You see, it's not that I actually disagree with the point I think you were trying to make, its just that I think you could make your points more persuasive if you hung a little more meat on the bones, as it were.  Meh, it's up to you - no skin off my nose :)

IMO, atheism in itself - that is, the lack of belief in God(s) - has nothing to do with ethics or morals, except in a very abstract and technical metaphysical sense. I don't derive my ideas of right action and doing good in the world from the probable nonexistence of deity. I derive them from my cultural surroundings, and when I have questions or doubts, I consult philosophers and other thinkers I deem worthy of my time.  That, after all, is what the "atheists have no morals" canard is attacking - the culture of atheists, and of nonreligious people in general.

Somehow religion and morality strike me as an oxymoron.

I only gave a quick summery, in fact, you do need to read the entire book to see the real point.  Not all things are solved in a matter of a few sentences, some are very complex.

Those which claim that atheism denies morality will presumably be the same people who misquote Jesus while sending other people's sons to kill innocent people on the other side of the world.

Quote from: tekla on February 11, 2010, 11:40:59 AM
I only gave a quick summery, in fact, you do need to read the entire book to see the real point.  Not all things are solved in a matter of a few sentences, some are very complex.

Some things are complex.  Biochemistry, for example.  Morality, not so much.  Functional morality can exist without God, and can be explained in a few sentences.

Example:
John's car broke down on the highway.  John doesn't have a cell phone, but many other people do.  He waves a passing driver down so he can make a call.  Because John understands the (very small) inconvenience to the other driver, John gives the man a small sum of money.  The other man makes money (because it is more than it cost him for a minute of phone time) and John saves money (he does not have to walk to the nearest phone booth to make a call).  By helping each other out (the moral choice) both men have gained something through their encounter.

That's functional morality, in a nutshell.  I have a bigger nut, if you need it.  I'll be here all week.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on April 12, 2010, 06:54:31 AM
John's car broke down on the highway.  John doesn't have a cell phone, but many other people do.  He waves a passing driver down so he can make a call.  Because John understands the (very small) inconvenience to the other driver, John gives the man a small sum of money.  The other man makes money (because it is more than it cost him for a minute of phone time) and John saves money (he does not have to walk to the nearest phone booth to make a call).  By helping each other out (the moral choice) both men have gained something through their encounter.

That's functional morality, in a nutshell.  I have a bigger nut, if you need it.  I'll be here all week.

I'm a bit hesitant to use that example. It implies that you'd only make a moral choice if you'd expect the possibility of getting something out of it. Doing something nice just to get a reward (*Cough*Heaven*Cough*) isn't morality, it's bargaining.

Morality needs not to be quid pro quo at least not the way I see it. Stopping to help the other driver may well make me happy in and of itself, as I felt it was the right thing for me to do, I don't think I would expect nor accept any sort of tangible reward even if it was merely compensation. It wouldn't make me feel right if I did, and my morality is pretty much along the lines of doing what feels right to me.

I've experienced much of this christian argument, so I'll inform you all of where they're coming from..

The christians believe that morality is objective, decided by god and prescribed to humanity via the bible; since atheists don't believe in god or the bible, they cannot comprehend where the atheist community derives its own objective morality. Morality MUST be objective, otherwise anybody could invent their own version of the moral code which could incorporate murder as being perfectly moral (gasp! those pesky atheists mite think killing is A-OK!! they must be stopped ASAP!) ironically, Ive found that murder has been deemed perfectly moral in the christian bible in the old testament, furthermore, by the christian's way of thinking about morality - IF god came down from heaven just to whisper into the ear of a faithful psychotic christian armed with a battleaxe that "it is now no longer immoral to kill, i'd like you to kill everyone" then what would be preventing him/her from having a rampage? It scares me to think that christians are one imaginitive whisper for them to kill..

Richard Dawkins makes a very compelling explanation as to the origins of the concept known as "morality" via Darwinian means, which is that we have evolved over millions of years from a primitive species to a social one with a sense of morality, for a society with a moral code will survive and a society without one will surely die out fast!

Philosophers that a person can read to come to a rational consensus about morality without appealing to god:
Kant, Hegel, Kant, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Kamus, Plato, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill,  Heidegger, Derrida, Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli (though he doesn't have a very PLEASANT view of morality) Sigmund Freud, so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Some of these thinkers were theists, but none of them place god as the absolute determinant of morality.  The theists who claim that we can't have morality without god are probably the most wrong people on the planet.  And I'm not bashing their theism, just that they can't imagine a person not killing, raping, and eating babies without a precious god to tell them what to do.  Personal responsibility, most theists have it too.

QuoteI've actually had discussions lately with some religious friends of mine about whether morality is objective or subjective (obviously, they feel it's objective; the word of God and such).

The word of God is subjective as it comes from the mind. Something objective does not need humans. A stone is an object. Feeling empathy is subjective. Hearing the word of God is subjective as not everyone experiences it. Science measuring and repeated experiments getting the same results is objective, beliefs are subjective as they do not need evidence.

^^^^^^^^^^ What she said.

QuoteMost of us naturally feel empathy for others (those without this ability are usually known as sociopaths

Not exactly not everyone feels or thinks the same. It is psychology that is man made that does not have all its marbles in a row. There is nothing wrong about not having empathy. In fact there was no such thing till about the 18 century when a German word for recognizing what the artist was thinking in his work led, to the concept.

Not only that but every two-bit hustler, grifter, con-artist, and predator has empathy aplenty.  That's how they do it.

QuoteThe word of God is subjective as it comes from the mind. Something objective does not need humans. A stone is an object. Feeling empathy is subjective. Hearing the word of God is subjective as not everyone experiences it. Science measuring and repeated experiments getting the same results is objective, beliefs are subjective as they do not need evidence.

This sums up the basics of reality, that if it comes from the dichotomizing processes of mind, it is subjective.  Mind's principle itself is not subjective, so is the physical laws of the external universe.

God is mind's dichotomic pattern of projection, without the projection to sustain, even the concept of god do not exist. Thus all supposed word of god, is subjective projection based on subjective belief that is sustained. Since beliefs and dichotomic actions of mind are subjective, it is possible to live beyond this [dichotomic actions of] mind, and live in more harmony with the objective basis [of mind nature principle] and the objective phenomena [of physical universe].

I deny anyone the right to tell me how i should  live based on the guidence of their invisible boogey man. This is my life I will live my life, I need no good sheppard, I am not a sheep.  I don`t deny that i have standards of right and wrong but they are fuzzy and situational, I don`t believe they were Implanted in me by some act of divinity ,any more thana dog needs a bible to guide him to be a dog. 

Quote from: tekla on April 09, 2011, 08:25:34 PM
Not only that but every two-bit hustler, grifter, con-artist, and predator has empathy aplenty.  That's how they do it.

Yeah.  You have to understand what people feel if you want to be good at manipulating them.  Every scammer and griever I've ever run across knows exactly what damage they are doing to people financially and emotionally.

For me the term "morality" carries with it a lot of religious baggage about "good," "evil" and "sin," none of which exist outside a religious system. I think in a secular society largely made up of agnostics or atheists, it's not so much about what is "moral" or "immoral," but what systems (defined by laws and codes of conduct) advance society and which hinder it from progressing.

Evidently legalizing murder is not particularly useful when it comes to building a stable, free and progressive society, same with theft and so on. All of these laws and codes of conduct are pretty logical.

I think for many the point of contention is "moral relativism," which I think they completely miss the point of most of the time.

 If murder, and theft were both legal, it wouldn`t take long to bury all the thieves.

My sister is a righteous person and won't be judged by God. Many people are righteous and don't know God as i do. I follow a group of people who also believe if your a good person you won't be judged by god as a non believer. They call it three eternal destinies.

From my perspective, morality is defined by life its self. We're capable of understanding that other people, other animals, have the same range of emotions and respond the same to stimuli, and that there isn't an entity dictating that one organism's are more important than another's. The only rational thing to conclude from this is that we must conduct ourselves in a way as to minimize the emotional distress we cause on each other.

Atheism is a negative statement.  It is lack of belief in a god, or, a belief that gods do not exist.  Contrasted to a theist, a positive statement, a belief in God, a belief in something.  If someone claims to be an atheist, the only thing one can determine about them from that statement is that they do not believe in a god.  They may be moral or immoral or amoral, etc. etc.  They may be anything, except a believer in gods.

As far as the case for morality goes, morality should not be a ball and chain around your ankles (hampering your progress in life), nor a threatening whip above your head (do these things or you will be punished).  Morality should be used as a guide to improve and sustain our lives.

Consider a plant.  A plant, like a human, needs certain things for its survival.  Air, water, sunlight, soil.  But a plant has no choice in whether or not it gets these things.  It is rooted in place, without volition, without cognition.  Plants act automatically to gain the things they need to survive; there is no such thing as a "moral" or "immoral" plant.  Even lower animals act automatically to survive.  Would you judge a lion as immoral for chasing down and killing a gazelle?

It is only with rational, volitional animals where morality can apply, when a choice between life and death can not only be made, but understood; and it is the needs of such animals (humans) that must be served by morality.  In such a view, morality is not subjective, based off of a person's (or society's) whims, nor is it given by an omniscient, omnipotent being.  It can and should be determined objectively, through  reason, by looking at what an individual needs to further his or her own life, and acting accordingly. 

Consider for a moment all of the achievements of men that have been made through faith, and all of the achievements of men that have been made through force.  Then contrast these to all of the achievements of men that have been made through reason.  Now tell me which of these three has had a greater hand in furthering human existence.

The idea of "dont anger/kill the other members of your society" is somethig thats is instinctive, humans are pack creatures and it is in our best interest to not anger or lessen the amount of people in our pack so these ideas of morality are just inherently in our brain. This article shows rats have empathetic feeling towards other rats.


http://www.globalanimal.org/2011/12/11/a-friend-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed/60543/ (http://www.globalanimal.org/2011/12/11/a-friend-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed/60543/)