Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

[PureX]

I agree. They are a crucial part of human well-being. It isn't just pleasure and survival that lead to fulfillment. It is all of the emotional aspects of life. And *those* emotional consequences have to *also* be taken into consideration when asking about morality.

Simply false that these are a separate reality. They are a crucial part of what it means to be human, but they are ultimately, I believe, based on physical reality. That does not lessen their value or change their moral impact.

Of course it does. As you cannot recognize them as being transcendent of physical reality. Or of being a higher purpose then the fulfillment of physical reality. And they are not mere "emotions", they are ideals. Just as the mind is not the brain. But again, this is something you are unwilling and perhaps incapable of recognizing.

Correct. Those wonderful emotions that give life meaning are ultimately, I believe, physical. They are not 'transcendent'. But that does not mean they are not real emotions that need to be considered when looking at consequences of our actions.

And I find it sad that you need these to be transcendent to find them important.

 

[PureX]

Admirable virtues, but I'm still not clear about what makes an action moral or immoral. I don't think an action is necessarily moral if done by an honest, loving, beautiful person..
What determines morality; what is its foundation? What is moral
action attempting to accomplish?

Q: Why do you say these virtues are gifts, as opposed to personal qualities or accomplishments?
Why do you imply that non-believers tend to be more concerned with their own pleasure or survival, rather than altruistic, social causes?

Morality is an ethical assessment of behavior. The question would be what is the source of our chosen ethical imperatives. Most materialists think it's all just physical mechanics. Most of the rest of us consider there to be a higher (transcendent) calling, or purpose. Although we do so by faith, not fact.

 

[Valjean]

Morality is an ethical assessment of behavior. The question would be what is the source of our chosen ethical imperatives. Most materialists think it's all just physical mechanics. Most of the rest of us consider there to be a higher (transcendent) calling, or purpose. Although we do so by faith, not fact.

OK, so what is this high/transcendent purpose, and whose purpose is it? What is the source?
How does it work? Is it deontologic?

Morality is an assessment?
Your moral behavior is faith-based?

 

[Polymath257]

Of course it does. As you cannot recognize them as being transcendent of physical reality. Or of being a higher purpose then the fulfillment of physical reality. And they are not mere "emotions", they are ideals. Just as the mind is not the brain. But again, this is something you are unwilling and perhaps incapable of recognizing.

I just don't see the evidence that is the case. I can *imagine* it. I can *fantasize* about it. I can *speculate* about it. But there is no *evidence* of it, so it isn't something I base my decisions upon.

And no, being an atheist does NOT mean these notions are foreign. They are universal human *emotions*, some even shared by other great apes. As shared *values*, they are common principles upon which to base morality. And because these values are (mostly) shared, the *consequences* of adopting them are also shared. This makes for a value system more likely to lead to human fulfillment. And that is a wonderful consequence.

I find it sad that you can only value those things that are not physical. I find it sad that you seem to require more than the wonders of the world around us for you to feel valued. I find it sad that your morality has to be based on some 'transcendental ideals' as opposed to simply what works for us humans.

Morality is an ethical assessment of behavior. The question would be what is the source of our chosen ethical imperatives. Most materialists think it's all just physical mechanics. Most of the rest of us consider there to be a higher (transcendent) calling, or purpose. Although we do so by faith, not fact.

Whether an action is ethical or moral depends on its consequences in the lives of actual people. If you consider that to be just 'physical mechanics', then I find that to be very sad and a bit terrifying.

As I see it, *we* determine purpose. It isn't something 'outside' of us, but rather *our* values and goals that produce purpose. Some goals are shared with other species: survival, food, shelter, companionship. Others seem to be unique to humans: knowledge, curiosity, music, art, literature. These are *human* endeavors and goals. They are part of what makes us distinct as a species.

But that doesn't make them anything other than physically based. It seems to me that you vastly underestimate the variety and awesomeness of physical existence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Morality is an ethical assessment of behavior. The question would be what is the source of our chosen ethical imperatives. Most materialists think it's all just physical mechanics. Most of the rest of us consider there to be a higher (transcendent) calling, or purpose. Although we do so by faith, not fact.

You seem to be disregarding what is more than likely the correct explanation: ethical imperatives come from rational analysis of observable facts.

 

[PureX]

OK, so what is this high/transcendent purpose, and whose purpose is it? What is the source?
How does it work? Is it deontologic?

We don't now. But logic would dictate that these questions be asked, and that they do have answers. The physical realm of existence does not require the metaphysical (spiritual) realm that we humans embody. Yet for some reason, we do. To the degree that if we ignore this aspect of our existence we will certainly destroy ourselves and everything around us. Almost as if we are "unnatural" beings.

Morality is an assessment?

What we call "morality" is a behavioral assessment, yes. An assessment based on our chosen ethical imperative(s).

Your moral behavior is faith-based?

The imperative(s) I choose are faith based. But so are everyone's. All human philosophy is based on a combination of faith and practical reasoning.

 

[PureX]

You seem to be disregarding what is more than likely the correct explanation: ethical imperatives come from rational analysis of observable facts.

We are not rational beings. We use logical reasoning to get what we seek, but we do not serve it. We serve something greater than that. For some, that something greater is the fulfillment of imagined desires, and of course their continued survival. But for others it is the higher calling of those gifts of the spirit that I mentioned above (love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honesty, equanimity, beauty, honor, and wisdom).

 

[PureX]

I just don't see the evidence that is the case. I can *imagine* it. I can *fantasize* about it. I can *speculate* about it. But there is no *evidence* of it, so it isn't something I base my decisions upon.

Yes, and that is the unfortunate trap inherent in excessive skepticism. That insistence on having to know in advance, via "evidence".

As I see it, *we* determine purpose.

And yet you have determined that there is none. That it's all just random, accidental physical mechanics, and the make-believe it generates in us.

 

[LuisDantas]

We are not rational beings. We use logical reasoning to get what we seek, but we do not serve it. We serve something greater than that. For some, that something greater is the fulfillment of imagined desires, and of course their continued survival. But for others it is the higher calling of those gifts of the spirit that I mentioned above (love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honesty, equanimity, beauty, honor, and wisdom).

I do not know why you say that.

 

[Stonetree]

ou seem to be disregarding what is more than likely the correct explanation: ethical imperatives come from rational analysis of observable facts.

Don't you find that morals are simply actions that support societal stability?

 

[Valjean]

We don't now. But logic would dictate that these questions be asked, and that they do have answers.

I agree the questions should be asked, though what logic has to do with this I have no idea.
What makes you say there are absolute answers, other than your a priori belief in a predetermined, transcendent purpose? Any objective support?

The physical realm of existence does not require the metaphysical (spiritual) realm that we humans embody. Yet for some reason, we do. To the degree that if we ignore this aspect of our existence we will certainly destroy ourselves and everything around us. Almost as if we are "unnatural" beings.

What actual evidence supports this conclusion, or supports the existence of a meaphysical/spiritual 'realm,' for that matter?

What we call "morality" is a behavioral assessment, yes. An assessment based on our chosen ethical imperative(s).

Morality is action. The morality of an action, as you say, is determined by the ethical imperatives you base it on.
What I want to know is:
1: what personal moral imperatives should be based on, e.g: expedience? consequences? threat/reward? divine command? social norms? and
2: ...what the purpose or goal of morality is.

The imperative(s) I choose are faith based. But so are everyone's. All human philosophy is based on a combination of faith and practical reasoning.

Faith in what? What are the function or goal of these faith-based decisions?

 

[Valjean]

We are not rational beings. We use logical reasoning to get what we seek, but we do not serve it.

But we can use rationality to make specific decisions.
Logic is an epistemic modality; a tool to determine the soundness of a conclusion or the truth of a claim.

We serve something greater than that.

Greater than what? And how are behavioral choices or an epistemic modality a "service?"

For some, that something greater is the fulfillment of imagined desires, and of course their continued survival. But for others it is the higher calling of those gifts of the spirit that I mentioned above (love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honesty, equanimity, beauty, honor, and wisdom).

What is the source of this higher calling? What evidence is there for this source?
I'm assuming your belief is faith-based, ie: not founded on evidence.
Is it rational to believe unevidenced things?

Those 'gifts of the spirit' are fine qualities, to be sure, but they're personal choices, not commands or existential realities writ in stone somewhere. Nor are they tied to any specific purpose or outcome. They're more motivations than fundaments.

My actions are mostly dictated by the consequences I expect them to achieve.
The virtues you cite are motivators, and may help determine what goal I aim for, but my specific moral choice of moral action is based on situational analysis and the liklihood of an action achieving the chosen, virtue motivated goal.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, and that is the unfortunate trap inherent in excessive skepticism. That insistence on having to know in advance, via "evidence".

Aren't unevidenced decisions pretty much a roll of the dice?

And yet you have determined that there is none. That it's all just random, accidental physical mechanics, and the make-believe it generates in us.

Wouldn't rational analysis of the physical mechanics of a situation or action more likely lead to effective action than faith would?

 

[Valjean]

Don't you find that morals are simply actions that support societal stability?

That's usually cited as a goal, yes, though in practice it's applied mostly to one's in-group, leading to intergroup conflict and instability.
"Social stability" is often the claimed goal of dictators, conservatives and religious zealots. As a goal, it has a history of suppressing diversity, novelty, progress, dissent and personal freedom.

Actions aimed at goals like social stability are consequence-based actions, are they not?
I find morals more to be actions chosen to achieve social, environmental or altruistic benefits, and minimise harmful results.

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't you find that morals are simply actions that support societal stability?

Not particularly.

Ethical communities will of course tend to be more stable, but that is not a main trait of morality.

The ability and willingness to make empathy and reason meet and support each other is. Even when that involves shaking up the society.

A classic example is, of course, the realization that slavery is immoral.

 

[blü 2]

On the other hand, modern archeologists have learned a LOT about Roman society from the ruins of Vesuvius. In Herculaneum (which is often forgotten compared to Pompeii), there is a library of scrolls that has been preserved, although carbonized. We are finally getting the technology to virtually unwrap them and read them for the first time in almost 2000 years.

Yes, you and I think that's very good, stimulating, exciting, lovely.

But the point I'm making is that I'm not so sure that the Herculaneans would agree.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In their way they can, not what i consider moral but none the less they have am image to portray

I think that's a subset you're talking about.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting that none of the atheists here cared to comment on their apparently amoral belief that 'the end justifies or condemns the means'.

"Atheists tend to decide whether or not something is moral by the consequences of a behavior, rather than the morality (intent) of the action that caused it."

Is it?
Theists often do the same, but include Gods judgement, heaven or hell as 'consequences'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If theists want "group cohesion" they probably don't want war.

Actually, war is a historically effective way to drive cohesion in-group.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If I have an affair with your wife and you never find out to be hurt, this is OK to the atheist.

Sorry, what now?