Is Atheism (et al) a Worldview?

[Nimos]

I wouldn't see that as morally equivalent to the choice humans make when killing each other.

Because we don't apply morality to animals in the same way. Probably because we in many cases view them as lesser/primitive beings. But this obviously becomes interesting, when we slowly go back in time and look at our ancestors, at which point does morality not apply to us either?

 

[LuisDantas]

Because we don't apply morality to animals in the same way. Probably because we in many cases view them as lesser/primitive beings. But this obviously becomes interesting, when we slowly go back in time and look at our ancestors, at which point does morality not apply to us either?

When we lack either functional predictive ability or functional empathy.

Morality arises when we have both.

For humans, that would be somewhere within the timeline of development of vertebrates, perhaps mammals specifically. Hard to tell. It seems to me that the decisive factor may be the development of enough memory for behavior-and-consequence patterns to become discernible.

It may currently be a human or at last primate exclusivity, but I am in no position to say for certain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you misunderstand what Im saying, I don't disagree with you. But then again I am in support of subjective morality. My argument is against objective morality.

I am tempted to disagree here.
I consider morality, at best, to be "pseudo-objective". To talk about "subjective" morality insinuates that it is just a matter of opinion. I heavily disagree with that.

Morality is linked to well-being. That is a starting point, which could be called "subjective" since it's not some universal fact that well-being is preferrable over suffering. Then again, if one can't agree with that starting point, then I don't know what one is really talking about when talking about "morals".

As for the difference between well-being and suffering and how one is preferrable over the other... that in itself, doesn't seem any more "subjective" then health vs sickness is.

From this starting point, there ARE objectively right and wrong answers to moral questions, it seems to me. Answers that are beyond mere "intuition". Answers that can be rationally argued through reason and evidence, which are anything but mere "opinion".

You justify killing Hitler etc. because you have reached the conclusion that what he was doing is morally wrong, I don't disagree with you. But a lot of people at the time would have. If everyone agreed that what Hitler did was wrong then he couldn't have done it.

Those who didn't agree Hitler was doing wrong, I would say were simply incorrect - as per my explanation above.
People can be wrong about many things which are not a mere matter of opinion. Moral questions aren't any different.

The question is not about Hitler, but rather, how do you reach the conclusion that our morality is better than theirs if we are talking about objective morality?

Same as we do with other evaluating the validity of answers to other types of questions: by evaluating the arguments and reasoning underpinning the answers to those questions.

Again, if these people that had killed Hitler had escaped to the Allies they probably would have gotten a medal, however, if they had been caught by the nazis they would have been executed.

And the nazis would have been in the wrong by doing so.
And that would be apparant when they would argue their case for why they think their action was good.

In fact, we know that a lot of those who tried to kill him were executed.

So again, Im not asking about whether killing Hitler would have been a good or bad thing. But about the moral justification we think it would have been fine, while others wouldn't, if we are talking about objective morality.

I understand. And as I explained, the answer lies in the argumentation and reasoning the people offer for defending their actions in moral terms.

The same applies here as above.

You have two groups of people:

1. Some that support Hitler
2. Some that don't support him

Each group believes they are morally justified. Group 1, would probably say that it is highly immoral to kill Hitler, because what he is doing it right and good. The other disagrees and thinks he is a monster that needs to die.

Both of us are in group 2, but how is group 1 able to justify their moral standpoint if we are talking about objective morality?

They wouldn't be. Not with a valid argument. That's the point.

We have to talk about morality, Hitler is merely the example used for it because it shows a very clear line between two groups with completely opposite views of what is morally right.

Sure. But as I said, morality isn't a matter of mere opinion. If that were the case, then there indeed is no way to say one is superior then the other.
But it isn't. Once we establish that morality / ethics is linked to well-being and suffering and that a moral judgement must have sound reasoning to support it, then it's a whole other ballgame.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you think the exception disproves the rule.

That's a misrepresentation.

The reality is that a single counter example disproves the types of absolute statements you like to make.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, I don't think we are in any position to change definitions. Again I didn't make them up, this is what they mean if you look them up.

Why, of course we can change definitions. Everyone can.

But I don't think that applies here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But it is hard to even imagine atheism as a core, decisive element of any worldview.

Beg to differ. Atheism is at the core of my world view. There cannot be any Gods and Goddesses and consequently, no god-sent sons/prophets/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.

 

[LuisDantas]

Beg to differ. Atheism is at the core of my world view. There cannot be any Gods and Goddesses and consequently, no god-sent sons/prophets/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.

I guess I don't see that as quite as significant as you do.

 

[PureX]

That's a misrepresentation.

The reality is that a single counter example disproves the types of absolute statements you like to make.

I make no absolute statements. I generalize, as I am a human and cannot therefor state anything, absolutely.

 

[LuisDantas]

I make no absolute statements. I generalize, as I am a human and cannot therefor state anything, absolutely.

I have to say that this does not come across at all clearly in many of your posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It isn't difficult, maybe he poisoned it and got it wrong intentionally.

Nobody spoke about poisoning. The scenario is just killing a waiter because he got an order wrong. He brought you a coffee instead of a soda.
Show me a valid moral argument that justifies killing him.

You can't do it, is the point. Whatever you are going to offer, it's going to have gigantic holes in it.
The suffering caused by killing him/her is going to be magnitudes higher then the suffering caused by giving you a coffee instead of a soda (insofar as we can even speak of "suffering" there....). It is simply not going to add up.

My point is, that you can keep adding stuff to these moral questions until they become so absurd, to which point we are not addressing the moral issue anymore because it is so mudded with obscure circumstances.

It's you who's adding to it. I just gave you a simple scenario of a killing. You felt the need to muddy it by adding the poison bit.
My guess is that you felt like you had to do that, in order to make it sound even only a little reasonable to justify killing the waiter.

IOW: it seems you agree. There is no reasonable argument to be made that justifies killing a waiter for getting an order wrong. You could just say so instead of expanding on the scenario by adding things to it...

Because your obvious reply to me saying he poisoned it, would be to add that he didn't do it, he simply got the order wrong and he is also the friendliest and most caring person to have ever lived and is giving all he earns to the poor.

No, I don't feel any need to add anything to it. I gave you a scenario, a very simple one. He gets order wrong; you get mad and shoot him. Period.
That's the full extent of the scenario. There's no need to add anything else to it. It matters not if the waiter is a douche or a tree-hugging pacifist.

The point is simple: when it comes to moral evaluation, one needs to actually provide a REASONABLE ARGUMENT to underpin the moral judgement.

But this removes what the moral question is about, is killing immoral?

It does not, since it illustrates the answer I already gave you several times: IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT.

The only way to address these questions is if you make equally obscure opposite examples to see if you reach the same moral conclusion.

No. The way to address these questions is to consider the context and evaluate the argumentation / reasoning provided or used to underpin the moral judgement.

 

[Nimos]

When we lack either functional predictive ability or functional empathy.

Morality arises when we have both.

For humans, that would be somewhere within the timeline of development of vertebrates, perhaps mammals specifically. Hard to tell. It seems to me that the decisive factor may be the development of enough memory for behavior-and-consequence patterns to become discernible.

It may currently be a human or at last primate exclusivity, but I am in no position to say for certain.

I agree, you need certain reasoning capacities to even understand morality, to begin with, I don't think a jellyfish understands it. Secondly, you need the ability for feelings or compassion.

If we should judge good vs evil, we need to be able to even understand the concepts. Imagine we arrive at a horrible crime scene, we only witness the physical horrors going on, we don't find "evil" there. It's not like the murder weapon is lying on the ground next to "evil". Evil is experienced or arrived at inside ourselves. This is a complicated process, that a jellyfish couldn't do.

Obviously, the question is how much reasoning and feeling capacity is required to achieve moral capabilities.

 

[Fool]

It was suggested and refuted in another thread that atheism is a worldview. Is it? Is theism? Agnosticism? Apatheism? Ignoticism? Transtheism?

Or are they a part of what constitutes a worldview?

Explain your reasoning.

yes its a world view. a world view is simple a system that the individual has accepted that can't be proven/disproven as an absolute. in order for an individual to function in the world, they have to maintain some form of world view or belief system that they value or don't in relationship to that experience

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Beg to differ. Atheism is at the core of my world view. There cannot be any Gods and Goddesses and consequently, no god-sent sons/prophets/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.

Is the idea of there not being any unicorns or leprechauns also "at the core of your worldview"?

Consider that there is actually an infinite amount of things you don't believe to be real that you could believe to be real.
Would you that those infinite amount of things are "at the core" of your worldview?


I say they aren't.

The only reason why atheism seems significant, is because culturally theists have been screaming for millenia that it somehow is. But really, it isn't.
Something doesn't become significant because people believe it is.

Not believing gods are real doesn't seem any more significant then not believing leprechauns are real.


Aside from forum discussions like this one, gods are complete non-issues in my every day life.
In any given area of my life, they are about as relevant as leprechauns and unicorns.
Which is to say: not at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I make no absolute statements. I generalize, as I am a human and cannot therefor state anything, absolutely.

You might want to try harder then to insert that nuance in your posts.

Clearly, it's not just me who doesn't see that nuance in your statements.
When people consistently don't see such nuance in your statements, perhaps the problem is indeed with the statements.

 

[PureX]

I have to say that this does not come across at all clearly in many of your posts.

You need to look past the style to the content. I have posted thousands of times on this subject, and never in favor of absolutism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You need to look past the style to the content. I have posted thousands of times on this subject, and never in favor of absolutism.

And yet, it doesn't stop you to make all kinds of assumptions about me, for example, merely based on the label "atheist".
And even when I point out to you that your assumptions are incorrect, you tend to pretend to know better then me what my positions and beliefs (or disbeliefs) about stuff are........


You might want to reflect on that.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree, you need certain reasoning capacities to even understand morality, to begin with, I don't think a jellyfish understands it. Secondly, you need the ability for feelings or compassion.

If we should judge good vs evil, we need to be able to even understand the concepts. Imagine we arrive at a horrible crime scene, we only witness the physical horrors going on, we don't find "evil" there. It's not like the murder weapon is lying on the ground next to "evil". Evil is experienced or arrived at inside ourselves. This is a complicated process, that a jellyfish couldn't do.

Obviously, the question is how much reasoning and feeling capacity is required to achieve moral capabilities.

While I was reading through this discussion (and everyone is making some good points here), the idea of "evil" seems a bit complicated, as you say. Murder is considered an evil act, but then, I recall a story about an old west gunfighter named John Wesley Hardin, who was said to be so mean that he shot a man just for snoring. But, from what I've heard, he was snoring very, very loudly.

Evil sometimes manifests itself in such senseless, utterly pointless actions which would indicate insanity or irrationality.

Is evil just a form of human insanity which could conceivably be cured?

 

[Nimos]

Morality is linked to well-being. That is a starting point, which could be called "subjective" since it's not some universal fact that well-being is preferrable over suffering. Then again, if one can't agree with that starting point, then I don't know what one is really talking about when talking about "morals".

This is the argument that Sam Harris (including some others) is making. Yet, I would still say that this is subjective morality because well-being is undefined.

I do agree, that as an overall guideline, it is functional.

As for the difference between well-being and suffering and how one is preferrable over the other... that in itself, doesn't seem any more "subjective" then health vs sickness is.

It is, because health vs sickness is not something we directly control. If we had the option to choose to be healthy over sick, the choice would be easy.
But morality we can in many cases influence. We can teach others our values, children etc. But again, these vary hugely from culture to culture. For instance, well being in some countries where atheism is seen as the devil's work, im not sure that they agree that suffering is all bad if it would get rid of atheists, homosexuals, or whatever they don't like.

From this starting point, there ARE objectively right and wrong answers to moral questions, it seems to me. Answers that are beyond mere "intuition". Answers that can be rationally argued through reason and evidence, which are anything but mere "opinion".

Again, as a starting point.

Lets take abortions? At which point does the well-being of the child matter? What if the mother doesn't want a child but the father wants it? Whose well-being do we prioritize, there are lots of issues with "well-being" when it is as undefined as it is.

What about a child with a horrible disease? is condemning the child to a life of suffering in support of well-being, or would an abortion be best? what if the parents don't want an abortion because they hope that a cure might be found?

Who decides what well-being is here and whose well-being is taken into consideration?

Sure. But as I said, morality isn't a matter of mere opinion. If that were the case, then there indeed is no way to say one is superior then the other.

In that case, what is the solution to the questions above? what is the moral thing to do?

 

[Nimos]

Evil sometimes manifests itself in such senseless, utterly pointless actions which would indicate insanity or irrationality.

Is evil just a form of human insanity which could conceivably be cured?

That is why I don't think evil exists as a thing.

The guy shooting someone because they are snoring too loud is sick in the head. But if a person suffers from a mental issue, calling them evil seems unjustified, they didn't choose to be mentally ill, but their mind is simply screwing them over so to speak.

Im not talking about justice or anything, simply that throwing the label evil at someone like this doesn't seem accurate.

 

[LuisDantas]

You need to look past the style to the content. I have posted thousands of times on this subject, and never in favor of absolutism.

...