Do Athiests have morals?

[ArtieE]

Murder would be just as wrong even if no human on earth believed it was given God. The objectivity of a concept does not in any way depend on the awareness of what the objective fact is.

True. We evolved a survival instinct and we therefore see survival as good and death as bad. Evolution and natural selection is an objective process therefore murder is objectively wrong and would be objectively wrong even if nobody believed in any gods. But if we can get immoral and irrational people to believe and obey a god they think tells them murder is wrong and that keeps them from going around murdering people religion provides a service to society.

 

[ArtieE]

If God exists then objective morality exists (even if no one knew what it was). If you think anything is actually morally wrong then it requires a transcendent moral law giver to make that true.

No it doesn't. It just requires the understanding that we are a product of evolution and natural selection. A vampire bat will share its food with starving roost mates because that behavior evolved and was selected for since it was beneficial for the survival of the species. When humans share food with others it's the same instinct. So we call the behavior "moral". You may need a god to explain this to you and command you to behave in this manner but moral people don't.

 

[viole]

I am not having a theological debate. I am not trying to convince you what God's morals are. I am making a deductive argument in the form of an if then statement. If God exists then objective morality exists (even if no one knew what it was). If you think anything is actually morally wrong then it requires a transcendent moral law giver to make that true. I am stating conditional facts not a persuasive argument for God or his moral commands.

I am not talking about Thor or Ra obviously. I am talking about what is true of the Christian concept of God. That results in an if that God exists then irrevocably objective morality does. I am not sitting around telling you what he wants, what to do, what I do, or what the bible says we should do. I am stating deductive inevitabilities about the nature of morality given God or without God.

You do realize this is one of the most formidable scholastic arguments relating to morality in existence don't you. You act as if I made this up instead of the most brilliant men in thousand of years of history.

Well, for a change we agree. The sentence

1) if God exists, then objective morality exists

Seems true. Especially if God corresponds to the classical definitions. It is actually tautological, if we define God a the source of objective morality.

What is more problematic is

2) if objective morality exists, then God exists

Especially if you identify objective morality with what God prescribes.

While 1) is tautological, 2) is circular or a non sequitur. 2), under divine command theory, is equivalent to

2a) if objective morality exists and that entails a God to make it objective, then there is God.

Which is hopelessly circular.

In other words: all objective morality argument that assume a God to make the word "objective" meaningful, are hopelessly circular.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

True. We evolved a survival instinct and we therefore see survival as good and death as bad. Evolution and natural selection is an objective process therefore murder is objectively wrong and would be objectively wrong even if nobody believed in any gods. But if we can get immoral and irrational people to believe and obey a god they think tells them murder is wrong and that keeps them from going around murdering people religion provides a service to society.

No if we evolved Murder is not actually wrong it is merely against social morays. Even as far back as the Greeks and Romans they knew this obvious distinction.

Rome divided it's laws into two categories.

Malum prohibitum: Which means laws merely against societal statutes. This would be what your describing and it would be subjective and not actually moral. This is ethics.

and

Malum in se: These are acts which are evil because they contradict an objective standard. This is what I am describing and which could only be true if God exists and this is morality in it's truest sense.


Without God nothing is actually right or wrong, only fashionable acceptable or out of fashion. With God things are right or wrong. Before I invaded another nation or sent someone to the gas chamber I would hope he was actually wrong and not merely unfashionable.

 

[McBell]

No if we evolved Murder is not actually wrong it is merely against social morays. Even as far back as the Greeks and Romans they knew this obvious distinction.

Rome divided it's laws into two categories.

Malum prohibitum: Which means laws merely against societal statutes. This would be what your describing and it would be subjective and not actually moral. This is ethics.

and

Malum in se: These are acts which are evil because they contradict an objective standard. This is what I am describing and which could only be true if God exists and this is morality in it's truest sense.


Without God nothing is actually right or wrong, only fashionable acceptable or out of fashion. With God things are right or wrong. Before I invaded another nation or sent someone to the gas chamber I would hope he was actually wrong and not merely unfashionable.

You keep repeating the same bold empty claim over and over.
Who is it you are tying to convince, us or yourself?

 

[1robin]

No it doesn't. It just requires the understanding that we are a product of evolution and natural selection. A vampire bat will share its food with starving roost mates because that behavior evolved and was selected for since it was beneficial for the survival of the species. When humans share food with others it's the same instinct. So we call the behavior "moral". You may need a god to explain this to you and command you to behave in this manner but moral people don't.

This is just on big fat irrelevant opinion. Again I am making if then deductions. If God exists objective morality exists. If God does not exist then as the philosopher of science (Ruse) said, morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes. Or as Dawkins said:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins

Read more at The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at... - Richard Dawkins at BrainyQuote

You naturalists must live in one narrow and depressing world.

 

[Parsimony]

If God does not exist then as the philosopher of science (Ruse) said, morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes.

Didn't you propose a method for determining morality from a secular viewpoint? That cost-benefit thing?

 

[McBell]

Again I am making if then deductions.

Again, you if/then deductions still do not follow

If God exists objective morality exists.

Nothing but a bold empty claim.

If God does not exist then as the philosopher of science (Ruse) said, morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes.

Another bold empty claim.

You naturalists must live in one narrow and depressing world.

Making bold bold empty claims must be liberating for some people.

 

[McBell]

Didn't you propose a method for determining morality from a secular viewpoint? That cost-benefit thing?

no no.
You misunderstood.
That was only to justify his homophobia without using god.

 

[1robin]

Well, for a change we agree.

Well it's a festivus miracle. Bet you don't get that reference. How about "ok we will call it a draw"

The sentence

1) if God exists, then objective morality exists

Seems true. Especially if God corresponds to the classical definitions. It is actually tautological, if we define God a the source of objective morality.

God is a creator God so inevitably morality would have to be created by him. I don't think that is quite a tautology. It is a close one though. If you keep in mind we are dealing with a description of God given long before cause and effect and moral arguments really existed it is not so tautological.

What is more problematic is

2) if objective morality exists, then God exists

Let me change this a bit and it should present no problems. If objective morality exists then since no molecule or law in the universe has a moral property then it's source must be a transcendent personal mind. My God is simply the best candidate. The entire universe contains is's so the ought's must come from beyond it.

2a) if objective morality exists and that entails a God to make it objective, then there is God.

Objective morality has no natural source so it must have a supernatural source.

Which is hopelessly circular.

In other words: all objective morality argument that assume a God to make the word "objective" meaningful, are hopelessly circular.

Ciao

- viole

I do not agree. If you want I can give you the official philosophical justification of each step of the moral argument. I have seen it and think I can find it.

 

[ArtieE]

No if we evolved Murder is not actually wrong it is merely against social morays.

Nonsense. The objective process of evolution and natural selection evolved a survival instinct so we see survival as right and death as wrong. Just ask anybody who has taken instinctive action to avoid getting killed. Murder causes death and is therefore objectively wrong.

Without God nothing is actually right or wrong, only fashionable acceptable or out of fashion. With God things are right or wrong.

With evolution and natural selection things are right or wrong. But since many people don't seem to be able to understand this, we attribute evolved morals to God and if we can get these people to believe in that God and obey the God's commands problem solved.

 

[Cephus]

True. We evolved a survival instinct and we therefore see survival as good and death as bad. Evolution and natural selection is an objective process therefore murder is objectively wrong and would be objectively wrong even if nobody believed in any gods. But if we can get immoral and irrational people to believe and obey a god they think tells them murder is wrong and that keeps them from going around murdering people religion provides a service to society.

Just to play devil's advocate, I wouldn't argue that at all. Natural selection requires reproduction from the fittest members of the species. Someone who allows themselves to be murdered clearly isn't the most fit, hence it can be a selection mechanism. Further, even for the most fit, after they've reproduced, evolution has no further need for them and murdering them is not, on balance, relevant to the natural order of things. Therefore, you cannot use evolution as a means of coming to a universal and objective morality because it just isn't supported.

 

[viole]

Let me change this a bit and it should present no problems. If objective morality exists then since no molecule or law in the universe has a moral property then it's source must be a transcendent personal mind. My God is simply the best candidate. The entire universe contains is's so the ought's must come from beyond it.

In order to make a meaningful argument, you have to define what objective morality is. In other words, what constitutes its objectivity?

If you do not define that, you can replace "objective" with "jgvdchg" obtaining, thereby, the same meaningful results.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Just to play devil's advocate, I wouldn't argue that at all. Natural selection requires reproduction from the fittest members of the species. Someone who allows themselves to be murdered clearly isn't the most fit, hence it can be a selection mechanism.

If someone allows themselves to be murdered that would be suicide by proxy. His genes would be naturally selected out of the gene pool.

Further, even for the most fit, after they've reproduced, evolution has no further need for them

Of course evolution has further need for them. They will provide a stable environment to ensure that as many offspring as possible survive.

Your reasoning is difficult to understand. Try one clearly stated point at a time.

 

[Cephus]

If someone allows themselves to be murdered that would be suicide by proxy. His genes would be naturally selected out of the gene pool.

It isn't allowing yourself to be murdered, but an inability to stop yourself from being murdered that would make one's genes "inferior".

Of course evolution has further need for them. They will provide a stable environment to ensure that as many offspring as possible survive.

Not so. Once born, anyone can care for a child, that's why we have adoption. And once the children are able to care for themselves, they don't need any parental figures at all. Murdering a 90-year old has no bearing whatsoever on reproduction or children.

 

[ArtieE]

It isn't allowing yourself to be murdered, but an inability to stop yourself from being murdered that would make one's genes "inferior".

Yes, this is correct. Those genes would be naturally selected out of the gene pool.

Not so. Once born, anyone can care for a child, that's why we have adoption. And once the children are able to care for themselves, they don't need any parental figures at all. Murdering a 90-year old has no bearing whatsoever on reproduction or children.

What's the point?

 

[Cephus]

What's the point?

You can't use natural selection or evolution to make murdering a 90-year old immoral because they are outside of the window where evolution has any use for them.

 

[ArtieE]

You can't use natural selection or evolution to make murdering a 90-year old immoral because they are outside of the window where evolution has any use for them.

Living together in communities helping each other increased all our chances of survival. So behaviors like the Golden Rule and helping each other evolved and were selected for by evolution because they enhanced all our chances of survival. A 90-year old can help a lot of people, hence murdering him is immoral and against evolution and natural selection.

 

[Cephus]

Living together in communities helping each other increased all our chances of survival. So behaviors like the Golden Rule and helping each other evolved and were selected for by evolution because they enhanced all our chances of survival. A 90-year old can help a lot of people, hence murdering him is immoral and against evolution and natural selection.

The Golden Rule didn't come from biological evolution, it came from the same place all morals come from, enlightened self-interest.

 

[ArtieE]

The Golden Rule didn't come from biological evolution, it came from the same place all morals come from, enlightened self-interest.

"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest." Wikipedia

And when we started living in communities a person who acted to further the interests of others also automatically furthered his own self interest. So this behavior evolved and was selected for.