Atheism

@Thomas,

I think our morals come from an over all sense of what's good for the society as a whole. like others I think they come from many places. I believe they started to develop way earlier than religion did. In many ways I think religion developed much later as a way to codify the morals of the society. I also believe that our morals today come from many places and are there for many reasons.

1 Reply

@littlek,

Quote:

Bullshit.

Steady on Madam. People might think atheists are stupid if they see them posting arguments of that nature.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Thomas has reminded me that one could establish a utilitarian standard of ethics and morality that could, in the example then at hand, justify action to prevent the excessive harvesting of whales. That however may not justify the sometimes violent actions being taken by advocates to stop those who don't agree, leaving yet another moral question.

1) I notice you're hedging your proposition with the word "may".

2) Why would it be a problem if Utilitarian ethics failed to justify violence? How would it be morally invalid to conclude that violent resistance against whaling is morally unjustified, whereas non-violent resistance is? In fact, the distinction seems utterly reasonable to me.

3) Utilitarian ethics evaluate if an action is morally justified by looking at its expected consequences, weighing the balance of suffering and happiness caused by those consequences, and comparing them to other actions one might have taken. In the case of violent vs. non-violent resistance against whaling, a Utilitarian would compare the increased suffering of the whalers and their customers with the decreased suffering of the whales.

Sure, different Utilitarians can come down on either side of this tradeoff, depending on how heavily they weigh the suffering of animals. But Christians, too, have been known to come down on different sides of moral questions. So if that doesn't condemn Christian standards of morality, it doesn't condemn Utilitarian ones, either.

georgeob1 wrote:

In short ... it doesn't go very far with respect to what most folks mean by morality.

I just described to you how Utiliarian morality works in principle. What more do you want from a standard of morality?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

People might think atheists are stupid if they see them posting arguments of that nature.

On the other hand, they might think they're forthright and honest

1 Reply

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

I think our morals come from an over all sense of what's good for the society as a whole.

I agree. And in the particular variant of morality that I subscribe to, "what's good for the society as a whole" is evaluated in terms of what's good for each individual, and by summing up over all individuals.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

People such as spendi spread the mud. They don't have the integrity to investigate these lies first. Which is why I have him on ignore and respond to nothing relating to him.

I know why Ed and Setanta have me on Ignore. It is a convenience. They only wish to debate with those who they agree with or those who it is easy for them to contradict. They are frightened of the real arguments because they feel undermined by them.

Another wonderful example of the joys they seek to share. The Ignore function was not introduced so that participants in a debate could avoid the posts of other participants and thus fake being in the debate.

I would be ashamed of myself if I continued in a debate whilst ignoring what others in it were saying simple because I couldn't dispute what they said. And as for trying to claim the high ground----that is simply ridiculous.

What mud? What lies? Those are assertions. How on earth does he know anyway if he has me on Ignore.

0 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

But spendi brings up a telling point. Why the misconception that atheism equals immorality and deism fosters morality?

Atheism is amoral. There is no such thing as immorality to an atheist. There is nothing to derive morals from. And deism does not necessarily foster morality. It is the only source for morality. That it doesn't always do so is neither here nor there.

2 Replies

@spendius,

where is this written Spendi?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

As Dostoyevski's Ivan Karamazov said in the novel of that name, "without God nothing is forbidden". You probably won't accept that as Dostoyevski was a believer, but it does express a fairly constant theme in both philosophy and literature.

It expresses an obvious and incontovertible fact George. You really are too sweet.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Then Ivan Karamazov is correct.

Thus utilitarian ethics could be used to rationalize euthanasia for folks over a certain age, based on actuarial data and the current state of unfunded financial obligations for various government social programs, deemed to be necessary for the good of the society as a whole. Same goes for very sick people or perhaps those with chronic debilitating ilnesses that are very expensive to treat. It might be a simple mattter to demonstrate that the funds so saved could signifcantly benefit the lives of a greater number of younger people with a far greater total life expectancy. One is reminded of the Nazi slogan "Life unworthy of life".

This is, of course, a dramatic extreme. However, I am illustrating a serious point ... one that has bearing on events in recent history. If the utilitarian standards of the existing, or new evolving society are the norm for morality then ultimately the euthanasia of "mental defectives" ; the "elimination of the (Leninist) irreconcilables" and perhaps even the Jews or any other group deemed to be alien is permissable. In each of these cases the movement behind these deeds based its actions on such atheistic utilitarian morality.

Equivalent actions have been done at the hands of believers, but those actions violated known moral restraints. Modern history strongly suggests that despite their imperfections in action, these restraints are not without significant value.

2 Replies

@littlek,

Quote:

You can't tell me that all religious people share exactly the same values in respect to abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc. Every single person, religious or not, adopts his or her own set of moral standards.

You are confusing religious people with those who say they are religious. The whole point of religion is to define a fixed set of moral standards. Deviations from it are heretical no matter how devout the outward appearence of the deviants. You are suggesting a recipe for division, confusion and anarchy.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

but it does express a fairly constant theme in both philosophy and literature.

Refer to my previous post. Philosophy and literature, through the ages, have been swaddled in layers of religious dogma. This is one of the easiest ideas for an atheist to grasp.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

@littlek,

You have merely evaded the question. I'll restate it.

Do you believe there are objective standards of morality that don't depend on your views or the views of a culture with which you may be associated? If so, what is the basis for them?

It is a fairly simple question.

It's a very simple question George. Evading it is a form of Ignore. They can't answer it so they indignantly won't. Ignore is a function of the emotion of indignation.

Good job they don't have power isn't it?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Thus utilitarian ethics could be used to rationalize euthanasia ...

If old and incurably sick people themselves explicitly ask to be euthanized, I don't see that this is necessarily the morally wrong outcome. It's their life to end -- not yours, not the Catholic Church's, not god's. On the other hand, if you're talking about involuntary euthanasia, I don't think Utilitarianism could be used to rationalize it -- given the alternative of raising taxes to fund the now-unfunded social programs.

But even if I conceded, for the sake of the argument, that utilitarian ethics could indeed rationalize involuntary euthanazia: How does that compare to Judeo-Christian ethics, which you appear to advertize as the solution to my problem? Judeo-Christian ethics can be, and have been, rationalized to justify things as dreadful as ...

Slavery. Both the old and the new testament are clear that the Bible's "God" character is cool with slavery.
Women treated as chattel owned by men, as opposed to full human beings with equal rights. (Ditto.)
Stoning kids to death for disobeying their parents. (Explicitly condoned in Leviticus, not repeated in the New Testament -- but not repealed either.)
Stoning women to death for having sex out of wedlock. (Ditto.)
Stoning people to death for engaging in gay sex. (Ditto.)

So, even if utilitarianism, or atheistic morality in general, has a problem with overreaching, and even if their idea of the moral good is problematic sometimes -- how can you argue that theism solves that problem?

2 Replies

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

Refer to my previous post. Philosophy and literature, through the ages, have been swaddled in layers of religious dogma. This is one of the easiest ideas for an atheist to grasp.

Perhaps you read only cheap literature, and little classical philosophy. It appears you also believe we are in an age of rapidly advancing enlightenment.

History does not support your nonsensical assertion.

1 Reply

@panzade,

what he means, panz, is you and I are not well enough read for consideration in an argument such as this...

let the educated people talk, we should.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

You are wrongfully applying your interpretation of historical Judeo Christian ethics (mostly old testament) to all notions of the existence of God.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If the utilitarian standards of the existing, or new evolving society are the norm for morality then ultimately the euthanasia of "mental defectives" ; the "elimination of the (Leninist) irreconcilables" and perhaps even the Jews or any other group deemed to be alien is permissable.

"Mental defectives" -- only if their brains are so damaged they can't possibly experience pleasure or pain. For details of just how narrow this exception is, see Peter Singer: Practical Ethics. And in this case, I see it as morally defensible. Everything beyond that, however, is a scarecrow you've made up on the spot, without any regard of what utilitarian philosophers are actually arguing. Certainly nothing like the Holocaust or the Stalinist purge of the Kulaks could be justified on Utilitarian grounds.

And again -- even if, for the sake of the argument, I conceded that this was a problem with utilitarian ethics, how is it different from Judeo-Christian standards of morality? The Bible is fine with genocide! If you disagree, tell it to the people of Jericho, whom Joshua slaughtered wholesale for the sole crime of being in his people's way. For his genocide, God didn't punish Joshua with as much as a look of disapproval.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are wrongfully applying your interpretation of historical Judeo Christian ethics (mostly old testament) to all notions of the existence of God.

If your interpretation of Leviticus's plain language is different, then theism is not an objective standard. After all, there are tens of millions of Christians who do interpret the Bible literally. And if the theism of Christianity is not an objective standard, then you are in the same boat as we atheists are. Just like us, you have to figure things out for yourself from intuitions, observations, and man-made theories.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Quote:

On the other hand, they might think they're forthright and honest

That's worse than "bullshit" pan because it says the same thing less efficiently.

Why was what I said "bullshit"? That's what an intelligent person would address. Otherwise we all end up shouting "bullshit" at each other.

A friend of mine goes on a debate forum which permanently bans anybody indulging in such crass methods. As any golf club would. That Bob allows people to besmirch his site in that way is a matter for him. And America sitting on its hands allowing such things without a peep of opposition amazes me.

It's tantamount to wallowing in stupidity.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know