Do Athiests have morals?

[LuisDantas]

I like the ability to reason and empathic but its only a minor difference.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What is a minor difference from what else?

I also see this as active reasoning it can't be set in stone. That's a problem with morals there is always an exception to the rule.

Morals are very much the art of learning to acknowledge and deal properly with exceptions. That is why they are not just a simple application of formal logic.

 

[Renji]

One does not need to have religion or be religious to be 'moral'.

 

[JerryL]

But societies and cultures codify morals as well, and citizens are more or less bound to follow them, or jail time can ensue. And (to reflect a parallel thread), I'm not alone in thinking that we can take logical and reasoned approach to codifying universal morals. For example, way back in the 1940s the UN tried to establish a universal human rights declaration. We shouldn't give up on that.

It seems like you are using "universal" in two different ways. One of which assumes they are non-arbitrary and the other of which allows for arbitrariness.

 

[JerryL]

Interesting, Does this mean that empathy is more important than morals and is empathy common to all non-sociopath persons.

There may be other disorders which cause a lack of empathy, but it is an ability of a "normal" human brain (and many non-human species as well).

I could not begin to place "important" labels on either. I lack enough of a frame of reference.

 

[icehorse]

It seems like you are using "universal" in two different ways. One of which assumes they are non-arbitrary and the other of which allows for arbitrariness.

"Arbitrary" - the way you're using it here - is very context-dependent. I'm using "universal" in the same sense that science is universal. I understand that if you take some deep philosophical stance you can argue that science is also arbitrary - that discussion belongs in the philosophy forum . The only assumption I'm making is that WBCC should be in the same realm of universality as science is.

 

[JerryL]

"Arbitrary" - the way you're using it here - is very context-dependent. I'm using "universal" in the same sense that science is universal. I understand that if you take some deep philosophical stance you can argue that science is also arbitrary - that discussion belongs in the philosophy forum . The only assumption I'm making is that WBCC should be in the same realm of universality as science is.

But that's not how, to cite your example, the UN list of "universal rights" exists.

One definition you are using is, in essence, "universal is objective". that is to say, it exists in the objective universe regardless of the observer.

The UN version means "will apply to all people".

First definition "It's universal the humans are mammals".
Second definition "As Earth's overlord, my law that people must wear hats is universal".

 

[icehorse]

I'm not getting your distinction? How is this any different than saying: "murder is universally immoral, AND we have laws to back that up". ?

Let me ask you this, do you agree that the well being of conscious creatures is something that is measurable? (If not today someday, and maybe never perfectly, but with some accuracy.) This is not equivocation. Science often pursues domains that have no clear end goals (e.g. "health" and "nutrition").

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is interesting and difficult to avoid given the premises.

And sure, it is not at all offensive. I just don't agree that one of its premises (that God exists) is true.

Right...it came off, at least to me, as being kind of condescending and dismissive. I'm not saying the person didn't have a right to express their view but that's just how I perceived it. In the end it's just a person's opinion....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Morality is not synonymous with religion. Why would atheists by definition be immoral or even amoral?

Morality can be derived from any number of philosophical systems and processes. Religion is only one of them. Sure, the Torah, the Christian Bible, the Quran, and other such religious scriptures say not to steal and kill: so do a whole bunch of different philosophers, including plenty who either predate the scriptures of Western religion or come from cultures and times that never encountered those scriptures.

And there are plenty of religious people who don't seem to be doing a very good job with the morality their religion actually prescribes. Which seems to prove all the more that religion and morality are not synonymous.

So it seems to me that there are moral people and immoral or amoral people; some of each are religious, and some of each are atheist. It probably depends a lot more on the specific person, and a lot less on what their professed theology or atheology is.

Yep...sounds similar to what I said at comment #42

 

[JerryL]

I'm not getting your distinction? How is this any different than saying: "murder is universally immoral, AND we have laws to back that up". ?

That sentence is ambiguous and could use either definition.

Which is why I pointed out the issue in the first place. It's not a semantic concern, but a real issue of playing with an equivocation fallacy.

Speaking of definitions: you may want to consider that "murder" has a relative definition. What is murder in one location is justifiable homicide in another location.

Killing someone in a duel. Murder in the modern US; not murder 200 years ago in the same US. Killing someone for advocating other gods than the god of your fathers. Murder in modern US, capital punishment in ancient Judea.

So given that there isn't a universal definition of "murder"....

Let me ask you this, do you agree that the well being of conscious creatures is something that is measurable? (If not today someday, and maybe never perfectly, but with some accuracy.)

I'd need a definition of "well being" in this instance. It's ambiguous.

This is not equivocation. Science often pursues domains that have no clear end goals (e.g. "health" and "nutrition").

That's not the definition of "equivocation". I don't think the word means what you seem to thing it means. I'm not sure you are accurately using the word "science" either, but that seems less important at this moment as I believe I can infer your intent there.

 

[icehorse]

Jerry,

I am not endeavoring to create a publishable work here. I'm trying to find the correct level of linguistic precision so that the conversation can move forward, without getting mired in details.

I'll claim that this idea of WBCC is similar to the idea of "health" in the following ways:

- they are both moving targets
- they can both be pursued using scientific values and principles.
- (yes, I think science assumes some values)
- they are both worth pursuing even if neither can be perfectly described or ever perfectly obtained
- they are both "universal"

 

[LuisDantas]

Right...it came off, at least to me, as being kind of condescending and dismissive. I'm not saying the person didn't have a right to express their view but that's just how I perceived it. In the end it's just a person's opinion....

Fair enough. It is also a person's opinion that does not take as a premise that we are inferior or something.

 

[JerryL]

Jerry,

I am not endeavoring to create a publishable work here. I'm trying to find the correct level of linguistic precision so that the conversation can move forward, without getting mired in details.

The issue is that you've used one word to have more than one meaning while not differentiating those uses (you've equivocated).

Please define "universal" as you mean it in this thread.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Jerry,

I'm not evading your question, but perhaps you could help me out. I'm saying that WBCC should be the way in which we tackle moral problems, the same way that we tackle other sciences like healthcare, nutrition and physics. I would call these other sciences "universal". There is no "Islamic chemistry' or "European physics" - they are universal domains. They are NOT specific to a given culture or society. I understand that religious folks have always claimed that morality is in the domain of religion. And we all know that each religion thinks that "its version" of morality is the "correct" version. My claim is that morality (via WBCC), can rise above not only any given religion, but that it can rise above ALL religions and all cultures, and be true for every healthy person on the planet. So, what word would you use to describe this definition.

(You don't have to agree with my claims at this point, we seem to be bogged down in semantics. I think I can hold up my end of the discussion with any linguistic choices you'd prefer - given basic fairness.)

 

[Draka]

"Immoral" is merely opinion that what someone does is wrong in your eyes. Whether it was "immoral" to them when they did it, or ever held the action to be wrong is something within their own mind. Doesn't mean they don't have morals or are an immoral person though. As to actions that most view as "immoral", that is a general consensus of certain things being "wrong" usually because those things are mostly considered a detriment to society. However, as in most things, many of those things are still subjective, like killing. Which is why societies even have justice systems. To determine whether some action, normally considered a "no-no" might have been justified at the time. Making an immoral act moral.

As I said, I do believe everyone has morals. Morals are merely judgments of right and wrong. Declaring something immoral is to determine it wrong. One is not an immoral person. One is not a moral person. Those are judgments people make about others by tallying up what their morals are and passing judgment compared to their own set of morals.

 

[icehorse]

So Draka,

Are you a moral relativist? Or do you think (as I do), that it's possible to derive an always improving set of morals that will benefit all healthy conscious creatures?

 

[Draka]

Who is doing the "deriving"? And why?

Morals are, by nature, subjective, relative, personal. They are internal judgments. They are born from our teachings, our experiences. Now, that is not to say that some morals are not the best for society/humanity. I have not said that the judgments of "moral" and "immoral" themselves are in some way always faulty. But then, one always has to question who is doing the judging and what makes them the ones qualified to do so. That, however, is more a subject of laws, than morals. Trying to legislate a code of behavior is always a matter of law, not morals.

 

[icehorse]

Who is doing the "deriving"? And why?

Experts are doing the deriving. To take an extreme case, we can claim that the Dalai Lama has more moral expertise than the Taliban.

 

[Draka]

Experts are doing the deriving. To take an extreme case, we can claim that the Dalai Lama has more moral expertise than the Taliban.

That may be an "extreme case" as you put it, but in any other case, in cases where laws are being derived from morals, who decides becomes quite the important question. Why do you think we have such angst over elections?

 

[icehorse]

That may be an "extreme case" as you put it, but in any other case, in cases where laws are being derived from morals, who decides becomes quite the important question. Why do you think we have such angst over elections?

I agree. But having adversarial, ancient, uneducated, stultified religions decide, seems like a bad approach. How about if we let folks like philosophers and ethicists and so on lead these projects?