Often, in discussions between religious and non-religious, the adherents of a ‘faith’ system will assume that the absence of belief in a higher power renders the unfaithful incapable of socially responsible behavior.
A recent comment on a post about being an atheist at work:
“Rather do bad unto others and rape kids, its more fun and holds no consequences after you have died. Hopefully no-one will remember you and your life is meaningless, why not marry a hooker instead of a normal girl, its more fun, no-one will judge you when you destroy a child running it over with your SUV and get away with it. Your emotions are only on a physical level, shag your girl, get her pregnant and then move on. Take what you want and screw the rest.”
Granted this example is extreme in nature and rather ignorantly worded, nonetheless it is based on the same premise, those without higher power belief are debased and naturally prone to what believers call “immoral” behavior. But the premise is flawed, humans are social animals and as participants in the ‘pack’ dynamic if we act in a wholly selfish manner we run the risk of being ostracized from the group which can have dire consequences. Early man relied on the pack to aide in survival, modern man cooperates within society for survival to a smaller degree, but more so for comfort, convenience and improved living conditions. Overarching throughout the human culture and the pack mentality of many animals are indications of empathetic behavior, ‘feeling’ the pain of other individuals in distress or discomfort, which also influences cooperation. Pre-dating modern religions, “Do Unto Others”, most likely had its origins in encouraging societal cooperation and not as a moral absolute.
The religious adherent who posits that only for fear of wrath from a ‘mighty’ god or eternal damnation should humans choose to be ‘moral’, does not reason his behavior, does not contemplate the implications of his actions upon others, he justifies an absolute list of prohibitions solely with an eternal wager that may or may not prove true in the end.
Much slander has been heaped upon ‘subjective’ ethics, when in reality only through assessment of individual situations can we consider extenuating circumstances and make more humane, empathetic decisions. For instance, if you believe that a god with a controlling hand in human life calls believers to ‘heaven’ at will by snuffing out their lives (sometimes seemingly prematurely), the idea of euthanasia for terminal patients should not be an issue of contention. Rather, the life saving/extending measures being used to sustain the corporeal being, regardless of brain function or wishes to the contrary, should be protested by those of faith with claims of ‘his will’ for the patient to die. But, an absolutist and rigid (not considering circumstance) interpretation of doctrinal scripture leads many of faith to associate end of life compassion and assisted suicide to end suffering as ‘murder’.
Ethics by the non-believer can consider extenuation of circumstance and use empathy to inform a decision to reduce suffering or to benefit a greater ‘good’, morals from religious doctrine are often times outdated and less humane than reasonably acceptable. We only need to consider such recent or current scriptural endorsements such as slavery, stoning, genocide and misogyny. Ethically reasonable people can determine these are quite possibly inhumanely ‘wrong’, while doctrinal fundamentalists must say “if once good, always good”.
I find subjective ethics infinitely more ‘morally’ sound than rigid, ancient accepted norms.
Go to my blog and look at the explanation of Secular Humanism, you sound exactly like I do and it’s nice to know people have the same views.
Well-reasoned. The English could use some work, but the overall argument is very sound. Good work.
There is no such thing as “subjective” ethics, as ethics by definition refer to eternal and unchanging principles.
Subjectivizing ethics and referring to the social constraints of “the pack” inevitably leads to individuals determining that they can and should do as they please and that the only limit is getting caught. If the source of morality is empathy generated through evolution, the realization of this relationship allows individuals to mimic empathy while engaging in all kinds of unpleasantness — and to acquire greater access to social goods in the process. Read Glaucon’s recitation of the parable of Gyges’ Ring in Book II of Plato’s Republic and see where so-called “adaptable ethics” gets you.
Where you really mangle things is in your conflation of ethics as a whole with both religious ethics and morality and in the extent to which you demonstrate no knowledge of either deontology or consequentialism. You also erect a straw man in your first paragraph: no sane adherent of a faith posits that faith itself renders the faithful “incapable” of socially irresponsible behavior. Do not Christian doctrines that all people are depraved in sin vitiate this contention? What they might say instead is that belief in a higher power, whether religious or teleological in origin, acts as a limiting factor on completely free action (ie. action without reference to ethics or morality).
All ethics are subjective. They must, by definition, regard involved stakeholders, personal values and sense of virtue.
All you’re arguing here is moral relativism vs. moral absolutism.
There is no set code of morality for humankind. Cannibalism, human sacrifice, pedophilia… all of this society’s greatest taboos were practiced openly by another culture at some point in time. It’s all relative.
In actuality, belief in a higher power has created some pretty heinous atrocities. Perhaps by our standards, the most heinous.
I posit that those involved in religion are capable of the most evil amongst us. Blind faith in a doctrine can impair the better judgment of an otherwise free-thinking and acting human being.
There’s one thing I would disagree with you on, dr g, which is the issue of subjective or arbitrary ethics. The moral nihilist or some moral relativists will tell you that what we define as “ethics” is wholly subjective (that is, not objective). It’s rather easy to see this when we apply it to examples, such as utilitarianism or Kantian ethics.
Morally depraved people will be morally depraved, with or without the guidance of religion. Religion is not a guarantee of moral integrity, as can be seen throughout history. Your argument is kind of baseless.
Dr g..
Subjective (adj): “Particular to a given person; personal” “Relating to the real nature of something; essential.”
Ethics (n): A set of principles of right conduct.
Used in conjunction, and with the added explanation (“…in reality only through assessment of individual situations can we consider…”) it seems to me that BGH is arguing against maintaining a set of rigid “moral principles” whilst paying no attention to the situation at hand, such as in, for instance, the example of euthanasia.
There certainly are situations in which some individuals determine that the only limit to their actions is getting caught. However, this is obviously a minority school of thought; after all, if it were the majority, societies would quickly descend into chaos in the event that societies managed to be formed at all.
Where you really mangle things is in misreading BGH’s first sentence, which states:
“Often, in discussions between religious and non-religious, the adherents of a ‘faith’ system will assume that the absence of belief in a higher power renders the unfaithful incapable of socially responsible behavior.”
At no point does BGH state that the faithful claim they are without “sin.” Rather, he states that the faithful tend to assume that those without faith are often incapable of acting without “sin.”
this article seems to be attacking a straw man about theism. the theist argument is not saying that atheists are morally inferior to theists. yes that type of argument has been picked up by some religious people and has been responded to by some atheists. but its a straw man in the sense that its a poorly reasoned distortion of the original argument.
the original argument asserts that on an atheist scheme, it is an impossibility for objective morals to exist. as a result, atheist ethics are based on preference or group consensus (or both).
there are some implications about this that atheists may find difficult to accept. heres two:
1. some evil action, like rape, isnt actually wrong in any objective sense. it is merely not preferable. but if we should ever find ourselves in a situation in which rape is either preferable or supported by a majority of society, then rape is a good thing. as far fetched as that might sound, if the atheist account is true, it would seem that survival value is the ultimate motivation for ethics.
thus if the worlds population were nearly wiped out by some terrible event, and only three people survived, at least one of each sex, then if two of the three agreed to it, rape would be a good thing since it 1) was preferred, 2) had greater group support, and 3) promoted survival of the species (if only for a little bit).
2. if atheism is true, then atheist ethics are not intrinsically superior to theistic ethics since both sets of ethics are created by their respective people groups. this gets at the heart of bghs article. he might say that his atheist ethics are more logically sound than theistic ethics (something i dont concede), but even this wouldnt be enough to make it preferable. no ethical code could be said to be superior, unless one could give an objective criteria for what constitutes superiority. on the atheist scheme, the only objective criteria possible would be that of species survival. thus if some crazy religion established a set of ethics that promoted species survival better than any other ethical code, but it required a belief in a ridiculous deity in order to make its ethical system coherent or acceptable, then it would be more rational for the atheist to adopt said religious ethics of the crazy religion. hardly an appealing circumstance.
these two implications do not prove atheism false. they are merely logical implications of ethics on an atheist scheme.
“1. some evil action, like rape, isnt actually wrong in any objective sense. it is merely not preferable. but if we should ever find ourselves in a situation in which rape is either preferable or supported by a majority of society, then rape is a good thing. as far fetched as that might sound, if the atheist account is true, it would seem that survival value is the ultimate motivation for ethics.
thus if the worlds population were nearly wiped out by some terrible event, and only three people survived, at least one of each sex, then if two of the three agreed to it, rape would be a good thing since it 1) was preferred, 2) had greater group support, and 3) promoted survival of the species (if only for a little bit).”
I, an atheist, have no trouble accepting that statement. It makes sense, assuming that otherwise humanity would die out, and the majority of people, myself included, don’t want that.
As for your second point, I think the main point of BGH’s post is the ‘adaptable’ part. While both theist and atheist morals are reasoned, atheist morals can adapt and change as what is considered ethical in society adapts and changes. This is what makes them preferable over theist morals, which are taken from a set text, and are fixed, unchanging rules. Take homosexuality as an example, only hardcore religious types are against gays, the rest of us, no longer following the religious law (which was law 200 years ago), accept them for who they are.
Its not a case of being more or less logically sound, but of being able to be suited for the situation. There are times when rape and cannibalism have become necessary for survival. The theist set of morals requires in those situations the death of the species or the individual, the atheist set of morals adapts and allows survival. Also, I reject your assertation that the only objective criteria possible is species survival, and even if it was, that wouldn’t make it the most important criteria for a set of morals, hence even if a religion had the best set of ethics which promoted species survival, that wouldn’t make it the most rational set of ethics for anyone to adopt.
No absolute ethical code could be considered superior, but a dynamic one, that changes as required, just like a species through evolution, will always be superior.
In summary, I find your first point easy to accept, as, I assume, would most other atheists, along with a number of theists, and I find your second point not so much hard to accept as it is something I see as an invalid premise coming to an illogical conclusion.
there is a way that seems right to man but leads in the end to death, what seems logical isnt always the right answer. Rape is not acceptable no matter the situation.
Snowdenn-
Thank you. Though I tend to side with atheism in arguments of this type, I am so happy to find someone of faith actually give a reasonable, coherent thought. You are honestly the first example of such a thing, and i really wish that were different (for both sides, honestly).
Dr G makes some very excellent points above, but I also wanted to add my two cents.
First, your initial argument is, as stated above a straw man. The argument that you quoted (which is, as you stated, ignorantly worded) but I think you missed the point of the argument that was being posited, however crudely it was put across, at least when reasonable theists forward the argument.
The essential problem with subjective ethics is that you have taken certain values, namely empathy, and decided that this is the litmus test for determining moral actions. Now, while that assumption in itself has quite a few flaws, as there are situations where you might feel empathetic for someone you should not, but lets take that as an assumption. So, I believe your argument is that this sense of empathy was developed via an evolutionary pack instinct. This does not justify however, why we STILL use it as a means for making moral decisions.
My favorite example of this is Machiavelli…he was a fan of subjective morality as much as anyone. His idea that you should use or appear to follow whatever the ideas of desires of the people were in order to gain power perfectly demonstrates the problem with using an evolutionary holdover as our means for justifying moral decisions. There is no reason why we cannot simply ‘not follow’ those old evolutionary instincts, the same way we no longer hunt for our food.
Under this philosophy, morality, and empathy simply become useful tools that can be used for personal gain. The problem is that when we say that something is ‘wrong’ (such as murder) we want to claim that it is absolutely wrong for everyone. It is not simply a tool that we can use or not use, and it is not simply a preference, and it is not simply some evolutionary impulse. If morality, and the thing that drives it, is simply some hold over from our climb out of the primordial soup, than as soon as we realize that the choice to follow or not follow that morality is simply that…a choice. In the same way that I choose to have chocolate cake, and you choose not to.
For morality to actually work the way we want it to, for it to be meaningful, for it to be useful for claiming that some things are wrong (for everyone), then it must be something more than an evolutionary holdover. Instead, morality must be something absolute, the same for everyone, and applied to everyone equally. The only way that works is if something higher than all of us is the one defining morality.
If it were true that morality is absolute, there would be no choice in the matter. If it were prescribed, there would be no variation. If morality is the same for everyone, there is no choice in actions, because there would only be one action to take for any given situation. There is no such thing as an evolutionary impulse; there are only the biological impulses, and those described in the much softer social sciences. But I can state with affirmed belief, corroborated by experience, that the CHOICE in morality is what makes it meaningful. To have the choice and to choose what one believes is right is perhaps the greatest human capacity.
But “meaningful” is subjective, isn’t it? That is why you and I can have different perceptions of it. It is the basis of all philosophy as well as the simple and cliched anachronism: what is the meaning of life? Time and time again it has been demonstrated that meaning is subjective. Once again, it is subjective because we are capable of disagreeing with one another. So if meaning is subjective and, indeed, morality is meaningful, then morality must be subjective by default.
However, though that is simple, the reality is not. You have put morality as a subclass of meaning; but this is not how it works. Our morality guides our actions. That is, it gives us guidance on the choices we must make. It molds our perceptions, and strengthens our resolve. It allows us to reason with our actions.
Reasoned thought is an action. If morality guides are actions, then reasoned thought is guided by morality. However would we determine meaning except by reasoned thought? If reasoned thought determines meaning, then meaning is dependent upon (at least in part) by morality.
So as the story goes: if meaning is subjective, and meaning is reliant on morality, then morality is subjective; unless the subjective nature of meaning is inherited in some yet-to-be posited portion of human existence.
In my humble conclusion: the origin of morality is not the issue. The origin does not determine its current properties. The origin is a beginning, from which we must build upon… to move on, essentially, to form our own opinions and to guide our own actions. It is by our inner guidance that we can achieve elegance in our thought, conciseness in our reactions, and dexterity in our abilities. Only in that simplified beauty will we find true wisdom of the kind that is often gifted with age.
“If it were true that morality is absolute, there would be no choice in the matter.”
Either our definitions of morality are widely out of whack, or that statement simply does not make any sense. Simply defining an absolute morality (making things, such as rape or murder, wrong for everyone) does not imply a lack of choice. People can still choose to make wrong choices. Morality is not about what we DO, it is about what we SHOULD do. I think that if every one of us was honest with ourselves we would admit that there are certain actions we have taken, at some point in our lives that did not match up with the moral code (wherever that code came from) that we thought we SHOULD follow. The study of morality is not about those instances in which we fail to follow the idea code of conduct, but what that code of conduct SHOULD be.
“CHOICE in morality is what makes it meaningful”
You say this is based on experience and affirmed belief, but that is not really a logical proof for anyone else adopting your view that choice defines the ‘meaningfulness’ of morality. I assume that your implication there is simply that we must have free will in order to make punishment or reward valid responses to people who either break or exceed the moral standard, and if that is what you are implying, I agree.
Your next points that ‘meaningful’ can be subjective is true, so far as people get meaning, or fulfillment I think would probably be a better word from different things depending on subjective personality. It is your next point where we disagree again:
“You have put morality as a subclass of meaning; ”
When exactly did I do this? Once again, I may not entirely understand your usage of the word meaning, but I did not at all imply that morality should depend on whether it was meaningful.
I made the point that a subjective moral systems does not make sense, because you always have to base that subjective moral system on some sort of ultimate ‘good’ to which you aspire. In the above example, that good was empathy, but in Utilitarianism (though it is not necessarily a subjective moral system )it is often human happiness, or whatever. In all of these secular morality systems they affirm that things like human life and human happiness are valuable, and should be preserved. They then attempt to claim that it is wrong not to do those things.
The problem is that such claims really only make sense if you have a reason why human beings are more valuable that an ant or a gnat. My point was that in order for morality to make sense, and in order for it to MEAN something when we say “He is wrong for murdering people” we need an external force which defines that moral system and applies that system equally to judge all people. When I say ‘meaningful’ there, as I stated above, I am saying that you are not simply stating a preference (I would PREFER that you did not murder my mother) but instead you are stating an absolute fact (It would be WRONG for you to murder my mother).
In the first case you are simply stating, subjectively that it would be inconvenient to you if someone were to murder your mother. However, if you have a subjective moral system, then it makes the first statement equal the second statement. If right and wrong are simply individually defined subjective realities, then you can make no claim against someone when their subjective moral reality violates yours.
Morality, the way we use it every day, only makes sense if it is objectively applied to everything based on an absolute standard. It is very similar to the law in that way. If everyone were able to define the law for themselves, then I could go out tomorrow, and steal my neighbors TV, because that would be legal ‘for me.’ If that sounds ludicrous, it is because IT IS. Legal systems are put in place to be an impartial judge based on a fair equal system that is applied to everyone universally. Similarly, morality makes absolutely no sense as a concept if it is entirely subjective.
“Either our definitions of morality are widely out of whack, or that statement simply does not make any sense.”
If there is an absolute standard, and that absolute standard is applied to everyone in their turn, then there IS no choice in action, because the end product of an absolute morality is punishment on the basis of what another being (human or not) decides is morally right.
“When exactly did I do this? Once again, I may not entirely understand your usage of the word meaning, but I did not at all imply that morality should depend on whether it was meaningful.”
“For morality to actually work the way we want it to, for it to be meaningful, for it to be useful for claiming that some things are wrong (for everyone), then it must be something more than an evolutionary holdover.” – You
Not so much morality, but the type of morality. And, if you indeed think that morality should not depend on whether or not it is meaningful, then it must, in nature, be subjective… according to your own logic.
“If right and wrong are simply individually defined subjective realities, then you can make no claim against someone when their subjective moral reality violates yours.”
Perhaps the line of subjectivity stops when one’s actions begin to take away the choice of another person?
For instance, it would be wrong to commit murder, would it not? Why? Because murder takes away the choices that the victim would make, or takes away the choice of life and death. But, in another instance, there is something like gay marriage, which holds to a subjective morality. Why? Because there is nothing inherent about gay marriage which takes away choices from other people.
Does that make sense? That’s what the meaning of subjectivity in morality is. The objectivist view extends too far into people’s lives.
“In the first case you are simply stating, subjectively that it would be inconvenient to you if someone were to murder your mother.”
Do your really think that if something is subjective, then right and wrong are stricken from a vocabulary? The whole point is what is right or wrong from individual to individual… and people DO live that way, deciding for themselves what is right (without religion in many cases) because they are without a central government or legal system. Almost like a self arranging flock of birds, societies based on common morality are built and we get the element of culture.
“Legal systems are put in place to be an impartial judge based on a fair equal system that is applied to everyone universally.”
And the Judge determines the sentence subjectively on the basis of how serious the crime was. These decisions vary from country to country, province to province, and county to county, because they are subjective.
“If there is an absolute standard, and that absolute standard is applied to everyone in their turn, then there IS no choice in action, because the end product of an absolute morality is punishment on the basis of what another being (human or not) decides is morally right.”
Your proof:
1. If morality is absolute
2. Then that morality is applied equally to everyone
3. Therefore there is no Choice
That simply does not follow. In the same way that we CHOOSE to follow the law or not (which is an equally applied standard) we can choose right or wrong under an equally applied morality system.
“Not so much morality, but the type of morality. And, if you indeed think that morality should not depend on whether or not it is meaningful, then it must, in nature, be subjective… according to your own logic.”
As I said, I think there is a difference in our definition of meaning. I have defined it as a description of a morality system in which it allows for punishments to be doled out when people do wrong. (we punish murders and rapists because they are wrong) I do not entirely understand your definition, or the logic of mine, to which you are referring. And, based on my definition I see no correlation between meaning (or the ability to dole out punishments) and subjectivity.
“Perhaps the line of subjectivity stops when one’s actions begin to take away the choice of another person?”
Your entire next point hinges on this statement….which you have offered NO reasonable justification for. Why should we care if we take away the other persons choices. You have now made the implication that people’s choices are a universal good, and that good is true for everyone absolutely. As someone who advocates a subjective morality system, how are you justifying that human choice is the sole factor which should be applied to EVERYONE’s morality system. Isnt that just your subjective view of morality?
I hope you see the inherent contradiction there.
“Do your really think that if something is subjective, then right and wrong are stricken from a vocabulary? ”
Yes. I do, for the reasons stated above, which you do not actually respond to. The fact that people make moral choices is irrelevant. I admit that evolution could have put in us a predisposition towards acting morally and positively toward our fellow man, but that does not prove that things like murder and rape are WRONG, it just proves that they hurt the survival of the pack. As I stated in my original argument, if you realize that is simply pack instinct, you can always choose to ignore it.
Your retort does not actually answer my original question about how subjective morality becomes anything other than personal preference. And if subjective morality is simply personal preferences, then words like right and wrong do not make very much sense because they refer to objective standards.
“And the Judge determines the sentence subjectively on the basis of how serious the crime was. These decisions vary from country to country, province to province, and county to county, because they are subjective.”
You miss the point of the argument. In the legal analogy, God, or whatever higher power exists out there, would be the judge that could in theory subjectively judge situations (and actually does do that in the Christian Bible). Your statement does not at all refute my point, and if anything strengthens it. In order for us to be able to make moral decisions outside our country (for example stopping Hitler in WWII) we must refer to a moral standard that is bigger than ourselves, and higher than all of us, and applied to everyone equally.
The rest of your argument doesn’t need to be gratified when I can answer the following:
“Isnt that just your subjective view of morality?”
Yes, and that’s fine. That’s what I act on. That’s my standard. It doesn’t mean I’m incorrect, or that I’m right. It’s just who I am, and that’s all I can hope to be.
The problem with absolute morality is not so much that it is impossible, it is that it fails to encompass the majority of humanity. If there is absolute morality, then it will always be based on a minority of actual views.
That, I feel, is incorrect.
“In order for us to be able to make moral decisions outside our country (for example stopping Hitler in WWII) we must refer to a moral standard that is bigger than ourselves, and higher than all of us, and applied to everyone equally.”
Why must we refer to a moral standard, I ask? The reason why there was opposition to Hitler was because it was in the Allies’ interests. Not because of some (probably originating from propaganda) glorious moral dilemma.
The fact is that society is composed of individuals, and yet it is our collective morality that drives our decision making. I’ll remind you that there has been progress made beyond what was considered, at the time, to be the “absolute” moral standard in the past. I suspect that will continue to occur, because morality changes over time… because it is subjective.
“And if subjective morality is simply personal preferences, then words like right and wrong do not make very much sense because they refer to objective standards.”
If I place a box inside another box, there are several dimensions to the system. The outer box has length, width, and height; and the inner box has its own relative dimensions.
Because the out box has length, width, and height, does that mean that the inner box does not have dimensions?
Likewise, if I am placed in a society with morality based in binary modality, and I have my own relative morals (also with right and wrong), does that mean that my morality does not have right and wrong? Does that mean that society does not have right and wrong?
So there I demonstrate that morality is also relative, and thus subjective. In this, there is a subjective point of view, we may see the moral scene from more than one angle.
“It’s just who I am, and that’s all I can hope to be.”
SO you agree then, that anyone who does not follow YOUR standard, but instead follows their own standard is not wrong, they are simply different.
A serial killer for instance, is not wrong, he is just different.
“The problem with absolute morality is not so much that it is impossible, it is that it fails to encompass the majority of humanity. If there is absolute morality, then it will always be based on a minority of actual views.”
So, you seem to be saying morality systems that apply to the majority of people are better (or good) and those that do not are worse (or bad). That seems to be an absolute judgement that you are using to apply to all people across multiple systems.
“Why must we refer to a moral standard, I ask? ”
We don’t. Assuming that you are comfortable saying Hitler was not just wrong, he is just inconvenient. Assuming you are comfortable saying that rapists and murderers and racists, and thieves are not wrong, they are simply work against our interests. Also, assuming you acknowledge that the terrorists that perpetrated the 911 attacks were not wrong, but simply following their own standard of collective morality, and their actions were no different than our actions in WWII.
I am not comfortable saying those things. If you are, then our discussion probably has no where to go from here because there is a severe disconnect between us.
“Likewise, if I am placed in a society with morality based in binary modality, and I have my own relative morals (also with right and wrong), does that mean that my morality does not have right and wrong? Does that mean that society does not have right and wrong?”
You misunderstand my point. The fact that you are a part of a society or a box within a box is irrelevant. That was not my point at all. My point was that if morality is subjectively defined then right and wrong do not make sense. IT doesnt matter if the society is defining right and wrong, or the individual. In either case, what they really mean is simply “Is this convenient for the society.” or “Is this convenient for the individual.” (as you alluded to above) That means that Yes, those words with their current definitions no longer really apply.
“So there I demonstrate that morality is also relative, and thus subjective. In this, there is a subjective point of view, we may see the moral scene from more than one angle.”
You don’t actually demonstrate that. You have assumed it and used what you were trying to prove as part of your proof. You HAVE demonstrated that it is possible to have an ethical system which is relative, but that is not in question. Obviously that is possible, as you have one. That does not prove that morality and right and wrong is actually relative.
Finally, so as to try to simplify this debate, let me ask you a simple question:
Do you think that Rape, murder, etc are WRONG for everyone? If so, why? If not, then if someone murders your mother, would you truly feel that person was not WRONG to do that?
“Do you think that Rape, murder, etc are WRONG for everyone? If so, why? If not, then if someone murders your mother, would you truly feel that person was not WRONG to do that?”
Yes. But I would not say that everyone thinks that way, or that everyone should follow my standard to the letter. And, in some cases, (say my mother intended to cause somebody lethal harm), then murder might be justified.
Those are extreme examples, though… they involve infringement on intrinsic rights (which are purely social, but still apply).
“In either case, what they really mean is simply “Is this convenient for the society.” or “Is this convenient for the individual.””
It has nothing to do with convenience. It is based in instinctive morality and a survival imperative. If it weren’t the product of our past, we would not have it. As simple as that. Just as the color of hair varies from individual to individual, so should their instincts, and thus their morality. It doesn’t in any way gut the terms right and wrong. It’s just the relative positions of individuals governing the way that they perceive morality.
Just as an addendum, when I say that there is no choice, I mean that there is no choice to act to the contrary… because the alternative to not obeying (even if the action is against what you feel is right) is eternal separation (if that is, indeed, the absolute morality to which you are referring).
Still does not follow…(see logical non-proof above) the entire point of moral choice is choosing between right and wrong. That choice is not interrupted by an absolute moral standard.
Let me try another example. In math, there is one correct answer. 2+2 = 4. It always equals four. Now, does that children always answer that 2+2=4? No, they sometimes are mistaken and think that it equals 3 or 5. Does that make their ‘choice’ or answer meaningless? No, they make incorrect answers, and through those experiences learn how to correctly do math.
I really do not understand that point you are trying to make to be honest, so if you could expand on it or explain it in a different way, it might make more sense to me.
To borrow your math example: 2 + 2 has infinite solutions. 17 – 13, 25 % 7, 40/10… etc.
The point is that there is no correct way to live life. There are good points and there are bad points. People become so consumed with defining what is right and what is wrong that they forget to listen to themselves: what they want and what they need. Morality cannot be absolute; for if it is absolute, there is no chance that we can possibly know what that is. Having unyielding standards is the source of all bigotry; because we fail to see the wider picture, and focus on the minute work of determining what is right and wrong.
Understand: morality better be subjective, because if it isn’t, then we’re all screwed. Because, if it isn’t, somebody’s going to be right. And I bet you a million dollars that nobody has gotten it yet.
In any case, I’ve spent enough time on this subject. It’s certain that I have more important things to do (deadlines on work coming up).
It was enjoyable having this discourse with you. Thanks.
There is no such thing as “adaptable ethics”. There should be context indeed to *apply* ethics, but the “golden standard” for applied ethics is always (or should be) of an inherently subjective nature. Such ethic values may indeed cultivate and “take shape” from family, education and generally accepted social (and religious) values, but the final definition of what ethics is comes from the inherent *need* and *motivation* (conscious or not) that drives every single individual to, finally, manifest ethics as *choice* and so behave one way or the other.
@gus. let me clarify my assertions about superiority and survival value. operating under the assumption of atheism, it may well be that no ethical is superior, but merely preferable. that was the implication of my first point about rape. hitler is brought up ad nauseam in these types of debates, but its cause hes a good example. if preference is it at the end of the day, then it seems easy to justify the holocaust. it was merely preferable for nazi germany. or if its an issue of group preference, then all that needs to happen for those atrocities to be justifiable is more people to think it was. that is, if enough of your peers change their minds about the evils of the concentration camps, well, then they are no longer evil. but no ethical system would have a greater claim, since they would all be subjective to peoples preferences. i think youve conceded as much.
as far as i can see, there are two possible objective criteria for the atheist that might supplant preference. one is logical consistency. the other is survival value. i assume the former because its been brought up, and the latter because most atheists believe darwinian natural selection is a sufficient account for human identity, origins, and anthropological explanations in general. that is, atheists for the most part believe that human behavior and existence is best accounted for by evolutionary development. on this account, survival is king.
given the two: logical consistency and survival value, i think the latter is the better choice for the atheist. why? because natural selection doesnt adapt for truth, but for survival. if there is divergence between truth and survival, then truth loses out. this shouldnt be a controversial point.
even by both your and bghs account, adaptation is good for ethics. if thats the case, then it would seem to favor a criteria based upon survival rather than logic. in fact, if logical consistency was your criteria, then brutal yet simple ethical systems would be superior. i think most, theist or atheist, would prefer logical consistency in their systems, but i think its a desired trait rather than an ultimate objective.
thus my assertion that on an atheist scheme, survival value seems alone as having any possible objective value as criteria. im not sure if you are responding that adaptability is a third alternative, as you reject that survival is the most important criteria. nor have you offered any other alternatives. so i will maintain that on an atheistic account, survival value is preeminent.
ive already explained why it is superior to logical consistency, but heres why its superior to adaptation: in natural selection adaptation is only useful insofar as it promotes survival value. that is survivability uses adaptation rather than the other way around. to put it another way, adaptation is merely the means to survival, which is the goal. any adaptation that is disadvantageous is quickly eliminated. species do not survive to adapt, rather, they adapt to survive, making the objective of adaptation subordinate to the objective of survival value.
but even if we were to concede that adaptation is some sort of ultimate criterion, this still does not logically eliminate religious ethical systems. were some religion to posit such fluidity and adaptation, and better than an atheist system, then by your account you would be more rational (regarding ethical systems) to adopt the religious system. the problem still stands. especially on grounds that according to atheism, religion simply is a human construct that includes a false belief in a deity. theres nothing intrinsically non-adapative about such a construct, and as ive said, if it is more adaptive, then it is superior according to what ive understood you to say.
last, i noticed that you said that i have both an invalid premise and an illogical conclusion. i think ive addressed the former, but im not aware what the latter would be.
@ryan. thanks. i, too, am a little frustrated with the types and levels of arguments going on about theism.
“i, too, am a little frustrated with the types and levels of arguments going on about theism.”
Indeed, any person would find the labeling of certain groups frustrating, especially when forcing such strong opinions, Swiftian though I may be.
It’s not just more sound to live a life based on reasoned ethics, it takes much more courage and strength.
Yes folks, it’s much easier to just latch onto a belief system, however demanding, and a hope in an eternal reward and toe the line till you kick the bucket. There is a misconception among the religious that because a religious life is strictly demanding that it is morally superior.
A consciously moral life is not merely demanding, it is rigorous. It holds one to a standard that can only be applied by rigorous self examination and change, two things which are in fact discouraged prescriptive spiritual paths.
It takes more moral fortitude, self honesty and determination to reason and choose your way through the ambiguities of life without any hope of a cosmic pat on the back or fear of a cosmic kick in the teeth, however you prefer. It requires courage, strength, honesty, pure motive and selfless intent to live a moral and ethical life simply because it’s the right thing to do.
As a theist (of sorts), I honestly find these ideas to be better for theistic morality as well, so thanks…sincerely.
If someone is forcing you to do something good and selfless, does that count as moral behavior by christian standards?
what about doing something good for a reward? if not, why?
now consider this… If you are a true christian and you believe in heaven and hell and all that… is eternal damnation a viable option? is a true believer ever going to say, “meh, I’ll take my chances with hell”?
and isn’t heaven the ultimate reward?
if you are a true believer, then you have no choice in the matter. you believe in hell and want to avoid it at all costs. I mean come on… what can compete with hell? and who wouldn’t want heaven, aka the never-ending orgasm? but if you have no choice in the matter, are you really acting morally?
IF you are a christian and you are following God’s law, then you do so because you want to get something out of it. eternal bliss (the carrot) and eternal damnation (the stick). It is completely self serving. and on top of that, God thinks you’re an ass.
@good ol neon:
By the same measure, you can make the argument that any action, however benign or malign, is self serving – whether it’s sky-god or that warm fuzzy feeling or social/tribal connectivity or the savory smell of bacon in the morning.
Taking cheap shots at Christians can be fun and cute, but I didn’t think that was the point of the article.
@jamasiel
I never said the point of the article was that. and I take offense at your suggestion that I’m making a cheap shot.
perhaps you believe its a cheap shot b/c you believe that people are incapable of acting altruistically. and perhaps that’s true, however, I doubt many christians would ascribe to that. after all, altruism is part of Jesus’s message.
I honestly do not understand how you can have both faith and morality in the christian world-view.
Hi there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts – I felt it was only reasonable to let you know that I’ve responded to them on my blog.
These have been some very interesting comments, and I’d love to give all my thoughts, but it looks like I’m way out of my league. But there is one point I would want to mention because I don’t think it’s been brought up (or it has and I just didn’t understand all the big words).
I would tend to side with the atheist, but for the sake of argument, I would concede that a theistic view on morality is better. But by better, I mean that, if there was a God, and he did indeed lay out His rules, then obviously living by them would be the best route (I’m also assuming a GOOD god that has our best interest in mind).
BUT just because theoretically it would be better, doesn’t make it true. For example, I wish there were a Heaven. I would love to know that people who live a morally good life will be rewarded for eternity and that people who do terrible things will be punished. But just because I wish it to be true, doesn’t mean that it is.
I realize that the point of the article is more to argue that subjective ethics are superior to rigid ethics. I guess my point would be this: the whole debate is moot. Either there is a God who knows what is best for us and has set His rules, in which case we should live as he says we should because who we are to disagree, or there isn’t a God, in which case there is no absolute authority on morality and subjective ethics is really all you have. Do you pick some random religion and hope for the best, or not?
I, personally, have no freaking clue.
JB, I love your honesty. It is refreshing.
What you are referring to seems very similar to something called Pascal’s Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal‘s_wager) which essentially claims it is better to ‘bet’ that there is a god because if you are right, you gain everything and if you are wrong, you lose nothing. It is a very good insight, although in my opinion, not enough of a reason to ‘pick a religion.’ I believe in Christianity because I believe it is the most logically consistent world view I could find. (the runner up would be what I call Hedonistic-Atheism) But regardless of what your currently believe, I encourage everyone to never stop seeking truth, and to find something (Anything) that you truly believe in, and can explain WHY you believe in that thing. Because it is always better to be hot, or to be cold, than to be lukewarm and sitting on the fence.
As for the debate, as a theist, I love debating about morality. The reason is that ethics is one of those fields where atheism has a very large problem to overcome, and it can often be used to persuade people to consider the logical inconsistencies with their view. (See my other posts here for more explanation on that)
Also, ethics happens to be a fun topic of conversation regardless, which is also why I enjoy it.
if its truth you seek Call upon the name of Jesus with a sincere heart and He will answer because He would desire all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth and there is a heaven and a hell. I just came back from Worcester where 3000 men met to lift up the name of Jesus and His presence there was so strong.
Prove it.
I am an atheist, and if the survival our our race depended on subjecting anyone to rape, then I wouldn’t condone it. Perhaps that’s what morality is – willing to do the right thing – in this case, not subject a woman to pain, humiliation, forced pregnancy, labor, possible death – even if “survival” depended on it, or you could get away with it.
Because if you are at the point where you are raping your fellow humans, forcibly impregnating them, for the “survival” of the species, then you have more things wrong than rape will solve. Sex slaves are not the answer, boys.
Perhaps we are getting things mixed up – rape fantasies (“It’s not like I *want* to rape a woman – but dang it, our survival may depend on it, from my point of view”) and situational ethics, morality, whatever.
Here’s how atheist can distinguish themselves from religious morality-masters: whoever takes the high road when they don’t have to.
Whoever takes the high road when no one is looking.
Whoever takes the high road because it’s the high road, and not because god, (or one’s messianic beliefs that they need to “save” the world by forcibly repopulating it), forces them to take the high road.
Frankly, think about it.. if the world is having those kinds of problems (lack of humans) it’s probably nature’s way of saying we’re done as a species, and we weren’t successful enough to survive. I can live with that. I don’t see it as giving anyone the right to rape a woman.
Sorry to stick with this one point, but it seemed to be the focus of a number of comments.
@cathy. as near as i can tell, i started the discussion about rape. i did so because it is particularly abhorrent for most people. so im trying to use something that we instinctively find horrifying to point out a problematic implication of atheism.
if there is no external measure from which morality is gotten, then morality is dependent upon personal or group preference. this is the situation the atheist finds herself in. by atheist lights, theres nothing that makes rape wrong besides your disapproval (or cultural disapproval). these are subjective justifications for morals.
so when you say “willing to do the right thing” the question remains: what is the right thing? what makes it right? who decides?
you could say it just is a brute fact. but a racist could claim the same about lynching and racism: it just is right. and who would get to decide what these brute facts were? seems very arbitrary.
you could say because most people say so. but if you accept that, then if someday our society condones something on par with nazi germany, then that becomes ok since most people have said so.
sorry cathy, but theres no objective “high road” to take on an atheist system. any “high road” is simply what youve determined it to be. and the problem you face is if somebody elses high road is radically different from yours (and perhaps even evil to you), well, theres nothing that says yours is truer.
thats the difficult situation the atheist finds herself in. im not saying rape is good, right, or preferable. in fact, im counting on people to think: hey theres a problem with an ethical system on which rape or other heinous acts can be morally justified. this doesnt necessarily prove atheism is false. its just a consequence that atheists have to face logically if their system is true.
the one exception i can think of for the atheist, in terms of some sort of external justification for morality is survival value. why? because most atheists rely on darwinian evolution and natural selection to tell the human story. so the one possible purpose that humans can objectively have is to survive. its a bit of a stretch, but its the only option to objective morals you have. otherwise, youre stuck with subjective morals and all the problems i mentioned above with other people having contrary morals to yours.
but if survival value is the objective justification for morality, well its easy to see how that gets quickly problematic. because rape, torture, murder, etc are just as easily justifiable by survival value. hence the last people in the world scenario. my argument is this: if the theist is right, then its always wrong to rape regardless of how you or everyone else feels about it, because its wrongness isnt dependent upon you or anyone else. but if the atheist is right, then its possible to come up with scenarios in which rape isnt morally wrong, such as the survival situation. and your intuition seems to agree with me that somethings wrong with that.
look, atheism has a lot going for it. its got momentum in many fields and i might even concede that there are some topics in which atheism seems advantageous over theism in terms of explanatory power (though really, only one or two possibilities come to mind). but meta-ethics isnt one of them. if atheism has an achilles heel, meta-ethics might be it. and if i was an atheist that would be one of the most difficult explanations to give in any satisfactory sense. thats why you have people like gus above who are willing to bite the bullet and say, yeah, it seems unavoidable that rape can be justified by certain situations on an atheistic system.
i think your instincts about it are right: there seems to be something wrong with that conclusion. but if its the logical outcome, then your forced to either accept it or go back and rework the premises. me, i think the premise of atheism is false.
Sorry Snowdenn, But it’s not hard to figure out what “the right thing” is without external forces bearing down on us. Rape is wrong because you are forcibly taking and hurting someone else for your own ends or pleasure. You can’t get away from this basic truth. It’s the definition of RAPE. The fact that we have defined it so is what makes us human.
You said:
“if there is no external measure from which morality is gotten, then morality is dependent upon personal or group preference. this is the situation the atheist finds herself in. by atheist lights, theres nothing that makes rape wrong besides your disapproval (or cultural disapproval). these are subjective justifications for morals.”
Since there is no god, you are in exactly the same boat. You just tell yourself that your god disapproves of rape. (oh? Does he? not really.) You’ve *invented* an external measure from which your morality is gained. Mine comes from within and is extremely clear to me. Yours comes from within too, you just don’t recognize it anymore, having dressed it up in a god-suit.
cathy, it may be that im not being clear.
im merely trying to point out a logical implication of atheism regarding moral systems. it may be that i am wrong, but its going to be difficult for me to see that if you just restate your points. assuming that we are aiming for rationality here, it would make more sense for you to either accept my claims or SHOW that they are false. merely restating your claims or stating mine are false does not SHOW that they are false.
ill start with your argument about it not being “hard to figure out what the right thing is” and the basic truth of rape being evil:
im not making an epistemological (knowledge) claim about whether we can or cannot FIGURE OUT what “the right thing” is. this is not the theist argument.
im making an ontological (existence) claim about whether “the right thing” even EXISTS.
im claiming that if atheism is true, then “the right thing” cannot exist. why? because on this view, the only thing that could make something right is if people say it is right. how could something just BE right? how could morals about humans pre-exist humans before they evolved and arrived on the scene? they couldnt. they could only have been developed by humans. which means morals arent things that exist independently (objectively). they are things that humans create (subjectively). if humans create morals, then morals are really just what humans want. in other words, what is morally good is simply what is humanly preferred.
so if humans want to save and protect each other, then those things are morally good. but if humans want to hurt and destroy each other, then those things are morally good as well. because what is morally good is simply a system of ethics that humans have created. there is no objective truth about the matter. theres no truth about the matter at all (as you said). it reduces to you PREFER rape or you dont.
put another way,
you cant simply say an action just IS right. because then its YOU whos saying so, making the action right simply because YOU prefer it.
if you do that, then anyone else can do the same thing and claim an action is right simply because SHE prefers it. there would be no reason why your claim is more valid than hers.
but what if you claim that rape is wrong and she claims that it isnt? you cant both be right.
thus both of your claims about what is right are really just claims about what you prefer.
you cant claim that rape is wrong as a basic truth. because there is no truth about the matter. what is there to make it true, that rape is wrong? when you say rape is wrong because it is harm or coercion, you are simply adding an extra step: what makes harm or coercion wrong? on the atheist system, theres nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong about them, they are just not preferred. again, if you just say it simply IS wrong, then you have no greater claim than somebody who claims it isnt.
to make it clearer, think of ethical systems as sets of rules to govern behavior between people (e.g., you shouldnt hurt other people). if atheism is true, then it seems more likely to say that people created the rules rather than saying that the rules just magically existed before people existed. if people created the rules, then no rule is independent of people. the rules are subject to the desires of the people. so if one rule says rape is wrong, then rape is only wrong as long as that rule exists. and if that rule changes, then the morality of rape changes.
this is the logical implication of the atheist system.
i know you have a problem with that. but that means either rape is truly evil or you are being irrational about the matter. but for rape to be truly evil, it has to be evil whether or not people think it is evil. which is an impossibility on the atheist view because nothing exists besides people that can determine whether something is evil or not. which ends up meaning rape is not really evil, it is merely undesirable.
and youre right, if there is no god, then im in exactly the same boat. and there might be all sorts of problems with theistic morality and so on. but notice i havent really made any claims about theism. ive just tried to describe the situation youre in if atheism is true.
if you cant accept that, then i think a good question to ask yourself is whether this is because there really is a truth of the matter about rape being evil. something thats a logical impossibility on the atheist view. or you could say forget logic and rationality. fair enough, but if logic and rationality go out the window simply because you want to preserve your contradictory beliefs that rape is truly evil and atheism is really true, then i would question how logical or rational your beliefs about atheism are (since i have the same intuitions about rape being evil).
(@chris too)
ok… I’ll bite….
I think there is a sitaution however, when a subjective opinion crosses over and becomes universal, at least among member of the same society.
like “Infringing on the rights of others” is wrong or “Forcibly taking and hurting someone else is wrong”
at a certain point, a subjective idea just makes sense and if everybody agrees on that point, then it becomes something more. its not just an opinion. and you can argue that it comes from a “higher” “external” force. that of the society.
so you can till argue that its anthropocentric, simply decided upon by society and I agree. but the fact that all members agree to the rule takes it to a new level. it is no longer something I decided to enforce on others. it’s mutually agreed upon as the best thing. at that point its pretty much objective (at least to the members of that society). and defined by a power higher than the individual.
The reason people have an intuition about rape being evil is because they have something called conscience which tells them diff between right and wrong its the way we were created.
@Cathy
I don’t think you see the problem here. You are trying to claim on the one hand that:
“Sorry Snowdenn, But it’s not hard to figure out what “the right thing” is without external forces bearing down on us. Rape is wrong because you are forcibly taking and hurting someone else for your own ends or pleasure. You can’t get away from this basic truth. It’s the definition of RAPE. The fact that we have defined it so is what makes us human.”
In this statement YOU have defined several moral absolutes for EVERYONE.
1. Rape is Wrong
2. Forcibly taking and hurting someone else is wrong.
3. Infringing on the rights of others for your own pleasure is wrong.
Those statements are all well and good, and I happen to agree with each on of them, but later on, you state:
“Mine comes from within and is extremely clear to me. Yours comes from within too, you just don’t recognize it anymore, having dressed it up in a god-suit.”
So based on some feeling from within YOU…you have decided that the ENTIRETY of the human race should follow that feeling. You are not only not advocating subjective ethics, you are advocating OBJECTIVE ethics defined solely by YOU.
If someone else comes to a different conclusion, based on the feelings that come from WITHIN him, you are saying that he is wrong, and you are right. How in the world do you justify that logically?
Now, as I said, I happen to agree with your moral conclusions, but I justify it logically because those moral truths are not being defined by me, but by something above me which applies the same moral rules to all human beings equally. Because of that background, I can then say (with logical consistency) that someone is WRONG for raping another individual, not because it violates a moral feeling from WITHIN ME, but because it violates a moral law of right and wrong defined by a power above all of us, and applied to all of us equally.
I see my mistake is that I jumped into a discussion where the most important point is THE DISCUSSION TERMS – the logical/philosophical how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin-let’s-discuss-this-with-all-the-big-words-we-learned-in PHI200-angle, while I am banging my head against a wall, talking to NO ONE apparently about the silliness-of-discussing-angels-when-they-don’t-exist-angle. Sorry, I only got through Western Religion, Eastern Religion, Philosophy of Logic, and Philosophy of Religion in college. Obviously, I’m inadequately prepared for talking to the big boys about rape. I’m only female after all, and rape, if anyone (the godless males and the men of belief) decides it makes sense, should be good enough for me.
We are comparing apples and oranges and while I’d sure like to see common language trotted out instead of the cool-sounding-ologies, it appears that that IS what it’s really about, in the end.
Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten most of the vocab from my two logic classes, so you win. yay!
(I thought this was a discussion on why it’s possible to be moral and atheist, but now I see that as long as the “logic” angle slows me down, I can’t weigh in. MY BAD.)
Carry on, Boys.
ps – Snowdenn, I never used the word evil.
Cathy, I apologize if I offended you personally, as no such thing was intended. I was not attempting to engage in a worthless discussion, nor was I attempting to in any way minimize the horrors of rape, or your perspective on that issue as a woman. The issue we have been discussing regarding rape could easily be replaced with a discussion of murder, genocide, racism, theft, or any of the other ills that plague our society. Rape was simply an example brought up earlier.
I also was not attempting to use any high-sounding language meant to confuse or misdirect this issue. If you need clarification on any of my points, feel free to ask, and I will happily give it. I will happily take the time to explain any points I may not have been clear on, or expand on any of my statements.
However, I do have to point out that you getting offended and attacking us personally is not helpful to your argument. I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but I was not (nor, do I believe was snowden) was just criticizing the logical fallacies of your statements. I would urge you to consider that if it seems we have backed you into a corner where the views that you hold do not make sense, to at least consider the fact that may be because there IS some logical problem with those ideas.
Also, please understand that we are NOT advocating, supporting, or defending rape. This argument is not about rape, nor were any of our points about whether you could have a moral atheist. You can. The point is that a moral atheist, who believes others should follow similar ‘basic’ rules of morality (do not murder, do not steal, etc) is logically inconsistent. The only way a moral atheist WOULD be consistent is if they had a moral theory that was essentially:
“I am going to act morally, but if anyone else decides to murder or steal from me or those around me, I will accept that is their moral belief, and I will not interfere or try to push my moral view on them.”
The problem is that this philosophy, while consistent, would not allow you to claim that any action that any other person took against you or someone else was wrong. We could not claim Hitler was evil, we cannot claim serial killers are bad, and we cannot condemn the thief that stole our laptop.
@cathy. a couple things. as far as i can tell, no ones been insulting you. at most ive said you have a choice between being irrational (holding contradictory beliefs) and changing one of your beliefs.
meanwhile, aside from sarcastic remarks about “big boys” and male oppression, you seem to be implying that if somebody disagrees with you, its possible that they are condoning rape. or that men are not able to find rape as morally abhorrent as you. not only do i disagree, i think these are attacks rather than arguments.
admittedly, ive introduced some less common terms. i wasnt aware that this would change anything about the argument. nor was i doing it to bully anybody–if anything, much of the contents of my comments are made with the awareness that other readers may be following the discussion, in which case such terms might clarify rather than confuse the issue. in any case, i dont think ive used any terms without explaining what they mean. but i would agree with what you seem to be implying: usage of bigger terms doesnt automatically make one right. just like resorting to subtle ad hominem attacks (comments about the opposition rather than their actual points) doesnt automatically make one right either.
and youre also right that this is a discussion about being moral and atheist. and as chris mentioned, the argument being made by theists isnt that atheists cannot have morals. its that atheist morals are not objective and therefore subject to personal (or group) preference.
in common language my point is: you cant have your cake and eat it too. either atheism is true and you have to give up the idea of objective morals, or objective morals are real and you have problems with atheism.
also, im not sure why you mention that you never used the word “evil.” thus far, ive been using “evil” synonymously with “wrong,” which is a word you have used, but if you think theres a distinction between the two, that would be interesting to hear.
last, for what its worth, i chose rape as an example because its more visibly wrong than many other actions. that is, it seems more people instinctively agree that it is wrong, whereas people can think of ways to justify theft or murder. indeed people often watch movies with plenty of murder and theft without blinking an eye whereas rape scenes are much more uncomfortable for people to see, even in fiction. i wanted to use a more universally acknowledge evil to point out that it cant really be evil if atheism is true and ethics are subjective.
@good old neon.
earlier i tried to say that atheist ethics are ultimately subject to personal preference or group preference, but started to just use preference generically to save time. i think the universal ethics (on the atheist system) more or less reduces to the personal preference and is just as problematic.
heres some reasons why:
no action, including rape, ever has complete universal consensus as wrong. that is, youll always find some people who think its okay. history and the news are filled with examples of this. its true that some people who do evil feel guilty about doing it, and are therefore aware that their actions are evil. but there are more than enough examples of people who do evil with no remorse or thought that it is morally wrong. we generally call them psychopaths.
but this leads us to a second problem: if no ethic has universal support, then it would seem that by “universal” we really mean “majority.” this opens up all sorts of problems. for one thing, “majority rules” seems to imply that “might makes right.” but more uncomfortably, it means that any time society gives general approval to something, it isnt really evil. thus if american society started reverting back to pre-civil war ethics of racism and slavery as legitimate institutions, then those things, if they had enough support, would no longer be evil, but good.
moreover, activists such as gandhi and martin luther king jr. could only be retroactively deemed as moral IF they were successful. at the time, when they are going against the grain, they would simply be immoral. and they would still be immoral if the change that they desire never came about. this is because they are the minority that rejects the “universal ethic” of the day. rather than showing us whats actually right, they are simply trying to convert others to their way of thinking.
but something about that doesnt seem right. it seems like people like gandhi and king rise up against actual evils, even those accepted by society as a whole, and point out a good that is not yet accepted. but this would be an impossibility if morality is justified by universal (or majority) support.
you might think, as relative moralists often do, that special exceptions could be made for your examples of “infringing on the rights of others” or “hurting someone else.” but then you are resorting to special pleading. in fact, there are many people in the world who dont care at all about these examples. suicide bombers, for example, dont think that not hurting others is a universal good. whos to say that you are right and they are wrong? because there might be more of you? then youre back to the “majority makes right” problem. or because or society operates better on your principles? (which is another common argument). then the problem becomes, why should we desire society to operate better? what intrinsic value is there in that? and it seems at best that the atheist can punt to survival value. but as ive tried to point out, survival value as justification for morality introduces a whole host of problems in which seemingly deplorable things are justifiable.
@snowdenn
ok. I see what you’re saying and I agree to a point, but I’m still fairly attached to the possibility that we can forge a universal morality based upon the golden rule and human rights. perhaps its a naive hope.
(I think in general, incest is a universal taboo, but that’s not important. its an interesting case though.)
psychopaths… yeah, that’s a tough one. for now I’m just going to say that’s an extreme case.
“majority rules”… ok, I see what you mean. however, what if society, like science, is a matter of time and evolution? right now is the best we got, but perhaps eventually we’ll find a better understnading?
ultimately, I’m unsure if there really is any truth to words like good, evil, morality, etc. if we look at biology, its dog-eat-dog. If we look at human society and history, it’s not that different from the animal kingdom. on a national/societal level, basically it is might makes right. we use fancy words and sophisticated concepts to mask the reality and justify violence or whatever. it sounds cynical, but if that’s how it appears… maybe that’s how it is.
@good old neon. yeah. if i were an atheist, i would end up more or less where you are: hope that someday people will get it right. at least “right” as i see it. but a realization that in the end, the concepts of good and evil are illusory.
but it seems unlikely with adaptation and population growth that humans would converge rather than diverge in ethics, and the solution seems to be trying to find a way not to destroy ourselves (e.g., space exploration and colonization). i think stephen hawkings has said as much.
so then as an atheist, i think one of the big questions would be: which is more important to me: individual survival or species survival? assuming that the two can be separated (which firemen, soldiers, and any other self-sacrificial persons can be examples of). and if this one existence is it, and this is all i have, then i think dalton trumbo is right and nothings worth dying for. meaning individual survival wins out: even at the expense of others. thats liable to do some crazy things to my ethics, my worldview, and even personal relationships. quite bleak, but there you go.
First off, WoW, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blog/forum on the topic of (a)theism where the comments were so intelligent and respectful!
Second, I am an Atheist with a strong Christian background and upbringing. I have never hated religion, nor do I consider religion necessarily ‘bad’. I simply chose to disbelieve in the fairy-tale myths after several years of searching for a higher truth.
To the point. The author describes a moral framework that is fluid (he uses the term ‘subjective’ though IMHO this may not be the right word). He criticizes Theists for following a rather rigidly structured moral framework, as prescribed by centuries-old tradition. His criticism is based on a belief that a fluid framework would lead to a greater flexibility in regards to moral ‘grey zones’ like homosexuality, while maintaining the same high standard of ethical behaviour which Theists generally accredit to themselves.
The theist arguments against the above all seem to center on the idea that without rigid rules, and some kind of stick/carrot to enforce them (aka Heaven and Hell), human nature will inevitably lead to a watering down of even the most strict commandments to such a degree that events like the Holocaust could become morally acceptable.
I would like to propose that you are both correct and you are both wrong. The author is wrong in believing that purely fluid ‘subjective’ morality can provide a better framework for ethics simply because Human kind is endowed with instinctual empathy. It is wrong to believe this because we know from history that a community is *not* made up of intelligent, educated individuals who understand the impact of their decisions on others. Rather, communities (outside of intellectual oases like Universities, or professional organizations) are made up of mostly self interested and uncommitted individuals. Such communities will, over time, develop fragmented and opposing moral views. This fragmentation leads to schisms which lead to opposing parties that lose all sense of empathy. In a nut shell, empathy is only one Human instinct, many others are at play against it.
“Ethics by the non-believer can consider extenuation of circumstance and use empathy to inform a decision to reduce suffering or to benefit a greater ‘good’…”
The logically contrary statement is that the non-believer may also choose not to be empathetic, but to be critical, spiteful, hurtful, and even hateful in their decisions. The believer is expected to lay aside all these instincts in order to follow a rigid moral code. What system is better? It is hard to say, but I would like to point out that our judicial system of laws, checks and balances was itself designed to try to remove instincts like empathy and hate, replacing them (as best as possible) with rational deduction and investigation. Would you rather that our system of laws attempted to include instincts like empathy? What then of hate and spite? Clearly, there must be a rigidity to any ethical framework simply because the instinct of Human nature is not only empathetic, but also at many times self-interested.
However, consider that our legal system has no God. Where then is the carrot and/or stick which so many theists say is a requirement to keep selfish individuals from going astray? Clearly, history and experience show that Humans are more than capable of following a set of laws without an Ultimate threat (and I’m discounting Capital Punishment because the U.S. is the only Westernized nation in the world that still condones it, but it’s criminal record would indicate that CP does not in fact deter crime in any way). So, what is Christianity without God? In my opinion, it is still a wise set of rules that evolved specifically to give the uneducated masses a simplified set of rules that stayed anchored against the sea of self-interested instinct. However, like any religion, it has become dogmatic and unchanging even when logic would dictate a better ethic (e.g. the Pope criticizing the use of condoms to fight AIDs in Africa, what a f*cking retard).
Despite this, Christianity has not stopped evolving. Throughout history religions have been re-worked many times. How many forms of Christianity are there today? Do they all subscribe to the same set of rigid rules? No. Rather, the religion has evolved by splintering into new groups. The group with which the masses agree most (subjective/fluid choice) generally grow to become the dominant ‘faith’. In this sense, religion is like an organism that replicates and spawns children that share some genetic resemblance to the parent, but with adaptations that account for current trends in the environment. The problem, of course, is that the myth replicates with them.
It is the myth of religion that becomes the problem. Where an atheistic Christianity would accept criticism of the dogma and remain more fluid, a theist Christianity cannot abide it. The result is that schisms become bloody and violent affairs. The parent religion is set against its progeny simply because it’s dogma cannot accept modification that might anger some mythical God. Thus, fluidity is lost, and instinct again becomes the basis of rationalization.
So, would atheistic Christianity be any better? As a framework for ethics, I believe so*. I believe this because I believe that an atheistic Christianity would be more fluid and accepting of change. However, history has shown that atheistic belief systems cannot, by themselves, overcome instinct. Buddhism, for example, is technically atheistic in that there is no God (no, Buddha is not a God, why not read up on Buddhism and educate yourself). However, the Japanese didn’t let their ethics get in the way when they raped and killed thousands of Chinese in WW2. Clearly, instinct (both good and bad) will always over rule any ethical training under some circumstances (usually extreme).
What is my conclusion then? In summary:
- Theistic Religion provides a simplified set of rules that can anchor masses of people, educated or not.
- Theistic Religion carries a mythical legacy that inhibits rational criticism of it’s dogma.
- Theistic Religion creates bloody and violent reactions when opposing views stray too far from dogma.
- Subjective/instinctual laws will not necessarily be empathetic or free of cruelty.
- Thus, Atheistic Religion (ethical framework) should provide a set of rules created through logical deduction and reasoning (not empathy or instinct).
- For Atheistic Religion to be better than Theistic Religion it must avoid falling into the trap of dogma. This means it must be open to criticism of it’s laws and recognize opposing evidence and reasoned arguments.
- Since reasoned arguments are rarely simple, Atheistic Religion will always be harder to spread among the uneducated masses than Theistic Religion. Unless Atheistic Religion can find a way to simplify it’s message and it’s rule making process, it will always be at a disadvantage. I.e. people don’t want to think about Religion, they just want a framework that lets them know what is expected of themselves and others in their community so they feel like they are on a level playing field.
Consider, though, that our judicial system already provides a structured set of values. Laws are created and enforced, yet malleable enough that they can be struck down or re-imagined even by a single persistent individual.
What then is the purpose of Religion at all? For the purpose of creating an ethical framework: none. It is my belief that you should subject yourselves to the law of blind justice and hold your beliefs in yourself as philosophy. *Do not judge others*, but be an active participant in the legal system that protects you. In conclusion, follow exactly what Jesus told you to do. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and unto God (or your own heart) what is God’s.
It has always been a source of boundless amusement for me personally to review the rants of atheist who believe in “Subjective ethics and moral relativism”.
Atheists by your own definition are not bound by any ethical or moral standards, therefore, your point of changing your morals or ethics on an ad hoc basis shows clearly indicates a “It’s right for now” approach to your thinking. By constantly trying to rationalize your behavior, actions or decisions that may have a consequence that society deems to be aberrant, you are basically dodging guilt.
Gus clearly shows this point most clearly when trying to rationalizing how rape can be justified if the eyes of a group mentality. The despicable notion that any idea put forward, no matter how ghastly or depraved, can be rationalized and agreed upon can make it a societal benefit is indeed depraved in his thinking. Let’s take his argument at face value and that a large meteor hurtling the through the solar system slammed into the earth wiping out the entire human civilization in an apocalyptic firestorm and there were three people left. By arguing that the two men agreed that raping a woman would have some tangible benefit (other than sexual pleasure) does not make it any less of a rape.
Rape is act of violence against another person. Since the woman in your argument did not consent to the act, it would be an act of violence against her no matter how you tried to rationalize your decision. If you are truly serious about rape being necessary for the survival of the species, please supply specific examples.
Gus also mentions that theists are against homosexuality based on unchanging archaic texts that fail to move with the times, again, your argument cannot be fully substantiated even through atheism. Strictly speaking, homosexuality is an aberration. I can say that without question when you drill down what the meaning of life is: to propagate and ensure the species. Homosexuality by its definition runs contrary to this belief, therefore, homosexuality must be considered outside the norms of species survival. Without invoking any theist beliefs, the continuity of the species would not ensure homosexuality to continue as the species would fail to breed and die out
Your arguments are nullified easily at this point.
To Shaun:
Your arguments fail to make sense to mean. I think that through something called “moral clarity”, one can differentiate from choices that are, for simplistic terms, good and bad. While your argument, albeit overly simplified, lacks, in my opinion, the correct order.
Morality is the basis of reason. Therefore, by having the foundation of reason by morals, these morals would not be subjective rather static. While stating that that choice can dictate our actions, I would agree. One can choose to be immoral should they so desire to do so.
“Morality is the basis of reason.”
Evidence and contingency is the basis of reason. It’s funnily stupid to call my argument overly simplified and then make such a bold statement as this.
“Without invoking any theist beliefs, the continuity of the species would not ensure homosexuality to continue as the species would fail to breed and die out”
I’m sure extinction is imminent with seven billion people on the Earth.
If you truly think that a sect of the human population is an aberration, then it is you that is the aberration.
How arrogant it is to claim to know the meaning of life. How condescending. How reprehensible. This is civilized society, and there is no room in THIS world for any more conceit.
Sean, your argument is quite confused and could have use some more thought before posting.
You claim that Atheists would support the idea that rape is morally ‘ok’ under certain circumstances in which it might be required. For example, if there were only a few of our species left it might be necessary to force women (or men) to procreate against their will.
However, you then go on to claim that the purpose of your Religion is “to propagate and ensure the species”. You use this silly idea to condemn homosexuality, even though there is much evidence that having a small percentage of homosexual individuals actually improves the propagative rate of our species. That is a tangent from the central fallacy though. You see, if “propagating the species” is the one true purpose of your Religion then you have just claimed that rape is morally ‘ok’. Clearly, if only a few humans were left and it were necessary to force some to propagate in order to save the species, your Religion would not hesitate to enforce that commandment. Thus, by your own argument you have condemned yourself and your Religion in the same way you thought to condemn Atheism.
Hence your statement “Your arguments are nullified easily at this point” is a silly fallacy of ignorant reasoning.
“Morality is the basis of reason”
No, it is not. Morality is a learned trait of human experience, and as such is in fact a product of reason, not it’s basis.
“One can choose to be immoral…”
Imagine what a community would be like if there were no common values. Some individuals might work together, but others might find it easier to simply steal or live off the efforts of the others. Without a common set of mores, how would the productive members know that what they are doing is ‘right’ and what the leeches are doing is ‘wrong’? How would the productive members protect themselves, and punish the leeches? Clearly, Humans need common morals since without them we would be unable to interact with each other with any sense of trust. Trust is very important to our species, without it all of civilization would fall. Thus, the one true purpose of Religion is to create a community that can trust each individual to behave in an expected manner because they all subscribe to a common set of mores.
So, the point to all this is that choosing to be ‘immoral’ is only wrong when the Religion says it is so.
However, choosing to be ‘immoral’ is not always the wrong thing to do. Religion cannot abide change because doing so undermines it’s authority and that undermines the trust of the community. The reliance on dogma and myth is a mistake that was made out of human ignorance. In the past it was necessary because educating every individual of the community about the reasoning behind their set of mores was impossible. By convincing these individuals that a God commanded them to follow these simple rules, and that this God wanted you to spread ‘the word’, Religion found an amazingly efficient manner in which to spread it’s set of mores. The more people that ‘believed’ in it, the more it spread. This was, in fact, a valuable contribution to society way back in the past when education was impossible. The spreading of a common set of mores meant that ever larger numbers of people could ‘trust’ each other and interact on an equal basis.
As an example of why this was so important, imagine an individual that wished to buy some land to farm. He does not have enough money to buy the land himself, but he knows of another individual that could lend him the money he needs. Because these two individuals are Christian, they know that they both share a set of values that condemns stealing. Thus, the two can interact in a social environment in which they trust each other and are not worried about having to constantly watch the other. This reduces the time wasted on ‘watching the other guy’ and improves the efficiency and productiveness of their joint venture. This ‘smoothing’ of social interaction is what Civilization is built upon.
Thus, Religion is really just a mechanism for enabling social trust. The myth part of Religion is merely a mechanism for spreading a set of values among ignorant ‘believers’ without having to expend enormous effort to educate them. What is wrong with Religion is that it cannot trust other Religions when they don’t share the same myth. In the past when two myths were found in the same community it inevitably led to conflict and bloodshed as neither set of believers could fully ‘trust’ the other. Thus, the unchanging dogma of Religion is it’s own undoing.
Today, however, we have the ability to educate individuals about the reasoning behind our moral choices. We can teach children why it is wrong to steal, why it is wrong to kill. We don’t need to rely on myth to spread our values. We have a judicial system that is separated from Religion by Constitutional laws. This separation of Church from State is actually meant to protect Religions from each other. Since Religions rise and fall like leaves in the wind, the founders of the United States wisely chose to remove (or at least minimize) their presence from the law making process. Doing this meant that Religions could co-exist under a shared set of moral values (laws) that ensured trust even between disparate groups of believers. Today, secular law is the true moral standard. Individuals know not to steal because the law will punish them, not because of God. This is why Atheism is suddenly growing in popularity. Many people have come to the realization that their moral values are not in fact handed down by God, but rather they are created through a democratic process separate and protected from the foolishness of Religion. The more people realize how foolish they have been, the more Atheism will spread. In our world, this *is* the moral choice.
@sean
“Strictly speaking, homosexuality is an aberration. I can say that without question when you drill down what the meaning of life is: to propagate and ensure the species. Homosexuality by its definition runs contrary to this belief, therefore, homosexuality must be considered outside the norms of species survival. Without invoking any theist beliefs, the continuity of the species would not ensure homosexuality to continue as the species would fail to breed and die out”
wrong, wrong and wrong. plain and simple, you think its an aberration b/c of your religious beliefs. If you had any evidence to logically back that up, you wouldn’t have said all that crap.
1) “meaning of life is: to propagate and ensure the species.” hmmm. again religious belief, but for the sake of the moment, lets call this a given.
2) “homosexuality must be considered outside the norms of species survival” ok. then by this ahem “logic”… couples who cannot concieve also are outside the norms of species survival. and therefore they are aberrations and should not be allowed to marry and should be object of scorn everywhere… right?
what about gay animals? are they sinful abberations as well? on a completely evolutionary perspective, they should’ve doomed the population long ago, right?
many, many animal species do produce gay individuals. gay swans still stay together for life just like hetero swans. how can nature create an abberration?
It seems to me that one of the greatest weaknesses of atheism and agnosticism is it’s lack of a central leader and/or consistent ideals. Granted, there is always bound to be some sort of disagreement between various atheist, as well as consequential branching off of one set of atheistic beliefs from another, but that is bound to happen. There is no accepted atheist manifesto to speak of; or at least not one that I am familiar with.
At the same time, perhaps this is a strength of sorts. After all, it forces most individual atheists to think through their own theories, and, in what personally feels like a very persecuted position, to bounce their own ideals off of personal friends who share their ideas. The lack of centralization, however, leads to a great fragmentation in the beliefs, as well as their reasoning, is shared between atheists.
That being said, Sean, I think it is necessary to say that, in the eyes of an atheist, your moral compass guide is as prone to error as anyone’s. The difference is that you base your actions on the words of a book, regardless of its veracity. Countless murders (and genocides) have been rationalized by a religious belief, and there are passages in the bible as well that condone rape(Judges 19:22-29), incest (Genesis 19:30-36), stoning your children to death if they refuse to listen (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), murdering non believers (Numbers 16:23, 31-33) and various other acts that, by all but the most heinous of ethical standards today is considered unacceptable. Do you rape, commit incest, stoned disobedient children and murder those who disagree with your beliefs? Then, assuming your are a Christian, you are not following your religious guide; instead, you are following the laws of man.
“That being said, Sean…”
Not to rain on a fellow Atheist’s parade, but Christianity does not (or is not supposed to) take it’s moral guidance from the old testament. The New Testament is meant to be interpreted as a release from the laws of the old testament. Jesus died in order to release you from the laws and penalties of the what came before. Jesus’ message was that laws should come from the heart, and should be interpreted with empathy. He was fighting against the dogma of his time. Through my own journey’s I’ve come to see Jesus much as I see Atheists. He wasn’t really concerned with the myth crap, he was concerned with how tied down, cruel and dogmatic religion in his time had become. Unfortunately, his efforts just led to the creation of another religion that eventually became exactly the same thing he was fighting against.
In any case, as delicately as I can say it, using quotes from the old testament against Christianity is ignorant.
true. jesus was pretty awesome. unfortunately most christians use old and/or new to back up their ideological position. so, unless someone makes that distinction and specificaly frames the new/old in similar terms as yourself, I think its pretty much open season
Barius,
Having grown up Christian and been unfamiliar with the distinction you have made between old and new testament, I am curious where in the Bible it specifically states that the Old Testament’s stories are moot, and that the New Testament contains all of the moral precedents worthy of following. If your statements have been made based on what you have been personally taught, then you are no more abiding by the Bible than you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you follow, and are still, therefore, following a human-devised moral code.
I never stated anything about religion. please show me where i did.
You did not state it directly, but it is inferred in your arguments.
“Atheists by your own definition are not bound by any ethical or moral standards”
You apply a Religious mentality by branding a group with opposing views to your own as inferior. You use a fallacious argument that is clearly wrong since Atheists follow laws and have moral standards just as much as any one else.
“Strictly speaking, homosexuality is an aberration.”
Clearly a Religious argument with no factual basis.
“Morality is the basis of reason”
Another statement that is typical of a Religious mentality. Morality is not the basis of reason, but rather reason is the basis of morality. Religion teaches you the incorrect version because it expects you to apply their moral standard before applying reason. This is one of the fundamental errors that Atheists rail against, and which Theists cannot seem to free themselves of.
I never stated anything about religion. please show me where i did.