Is Atheism (et al) a Worldview?

[ADigitalArtist]

I think we might be talking past each other or using the words differently.

Objective moral truth means that there is a moral agent who has established a set moral truth, meaning that certain actions are inherently good or bad.

The obvious agent, in this case, would be God but could be anything who has established such truth.

The approach you are describing is subjective morality, where we as humans establish what we believe is morally right or wrong. Which I think is what we have been doing since the beginning and also why our morality seems to be changing throughout history.

Subjective morality doesn't mean individual morality, that each person just makes up whatever they believe is right or wrong. But is arrived at based on a lot of things, one of them being our evolutionary history and culture.

Looking at a person like Hitler for instance, he didn't arrive at his morality all on his own, he was influenced by the time he lived, the culture he was raised in etc. All these allowed for his morality to dominate in the time he lived and convinced a lot of like-minded people that this was an acceptable thing to do.

The same way people in earlier history arrived at the moral "truth" that slavery was perfectly acceptable. If there was no moral foundation for slavery at the time, it wouldn't have occurred. The same way that we today for instance don't support beating children, even if some individuals do it, there is no moral foundation for such morality to get hold in today's societies. However, if everyone thought that beating children was a moral thing to do, it would be extremely common to do it. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that hitting children was considered perfectly fine, it wasn't uncommon for my parents for instance to get a slap here and there by the teacher if they didn't behave well.

Again if there is some objective moral truth, then hitting children would always be considered morally wrong. Yet there is no evidence for this being the case as I see it. History simply doesn't seem to support it.

The real kicker is challenging the ideas that:
-a creator makes inherent moral properties just by creation. If I use a straw to push paint on canvas, which was not what the straw was created for, that doesn't make it inherently evil or wrong, even if the creator said so.
-That someone outside that might-makes-right paradigm couldn't challenge the morality that agent outlines through other ostensibly objective criteria, such as utilitarian or consequentialist criteria.
-That agent doesn't also have a bias they are subject to, making their outlook also subjective.
-That an ostensibly objective agent's pov is accessible when *we* are all subject to biases and limitations. Making our beliefs and interpretations inherently subjective.

Imo even with a god or gods subjective morality is inescapable.

 

[osgart]

Objective truth is that something is true without an observer, and in this case, the observer would be humanity.

Murder is murder but is murder always morally wrong?

Would murdering Hitler have been wrong? If it is objectively true that murder is wrong, then killing him would also be, despite how many bad things he did. Obviously, Nazi supporters of Hitler would have said that murdering him would be wrong, while the rest of us, probably agree that it would have been good.

It would not be murder to kill Hitler. Murder and killing are vastly different. Killing is in defense of innocence. Murder is only to end innocent life. People are not careful in defining this major distinction. No wonder there's so much moral confusion out there.

Innocence has no malicious intentions. Guilt is malevolence.

I know in fact that morally I have no malicious intentions, never did. Yet I am capable of killing to protect innocent life. Killing is a defense. Murder has no just cause.

There's an intrinsic inner reality where people can be aware and know themselves.

Morality is about examining one's own personal motives, and intentions. I cannot do morality for other people. I can sense with reason and experience with knowledge and evidence about what is just or unjust in regards to others.

 

[Nimos]

Imo even with a god or gods subjective morality is inescapable.

I would agree, also humans go against the morality of God, which is essentially why people are called sinners. To me, it is weird that a God would allow sinful morality.

This again, to me seems that subjective morality is more likely to be true, even with God(s).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So murdering Hitler would be wrong?

Killing Hitler would not be wrong, nor would it be called Murder. I believe the correct term for killing a head of state is assassination.

 

[Nimos]

Killing is in defense of innocence.

No, animals kill each other. Nothing to do with defense. Humans kill and eat animals as well.

The most simple definition of "killing" is causing death.

Murder is only to end innocent life.

That is not the definition of murder.

1. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

So even if Hitler did bad things, it would still be unlawful to murder him. The same way as it would be unlawful to murder a rapist. No one is allowed to do something like this in a lawful society. So the same rules would apply to Hitler as to the rapist if we are to follow the same moral standard.

Morality is about examining one's own personal motives, and intentions. I cannot do morality for other people. I can sense with reason and experience with knowledge and evidence about what is just or unjust in regards to others.

Then you are not talking about moral truth. You ought to be able to make the argument that murdering Hitler would be wrong, obviously not that he shouldn't be punished for his crime, but simply that murdering him is morally wrong. The same argument that a starving child stealing food from a store is doing something morally wrong, and should be punished for such crimes according to whatever law there is.

One of the big issues with moral discussions today in my opinion is that they tend to get muddy with "human" concepts such as "murder", rather than dealing with the basic concept of the action.

Murder is essentially the same as killing meaning the death of something.

The problem with this "mud", is that you can make moral questions like:

"Is it wrong to hurt baby?"

Obviously, the answer would be yes, but let's for the sake of argument say that someone said no. Then what you do is expand on the horror so to speak until you make the person seem like a complete maniac if they don't answer what you want them to, so I ask again:

"Is it wrong to peel the skin of a living baby for fun?"

And you could essentially continue like this making it more and more obscure. But I don't think you can have a moral discussion based on this, you have to break down it down and look at the basic concepts.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

No, just like non belief in big foot is not a worldview. Atheism is non belief in gods, nothing more.

 

[Nimos]

Killing Hitler would not be wrong, nor would it be called Murder. I believe the correct term for killing a head of state is assassination.

Again, this to me falls in the idea of "mudding". Look at post #185

And killing Hitler would be murder according to the definition of murder, assassination is also fine, but is also illegal and is still murder.

I think that is a huge issue with moral discussions today, there are too many terms and jumping loops trying to justify moral actions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Again, this to me falls in the idea of "mudding". Look at post #185

And killing Hitler would be murder according to the definition of murder, assassination is also fine, but is also illegal and is still murder.

I think that is a huge issue with moral discussions today, there are too many terms and jumping loops trying to justify moral actions.

Although I think there is exceptions to this, murder is usually defined as unlawful killing. An act of war is not considered murder because wars are not governed by the law of the land.

The main reason the frontal cortex evolved in humans is to help us learn the nuances of when something is right in circumstance X and wrong in circumstance Y. For example, it would be wrong to lie on my income taxes, but okay to lie to your wife when she asks if the dress makes her look fat. It is exactly this area of the brain which is meant to help us understand when killing, which is usually bad, is sometimes the moral choice.

 

[Nimos]

Although I think there is exceptions to this, murder is usually defined as unlawful killing. An act of war is not considered murder because wars are not governed by the law of the land.

The main reason the frontal cortex evolved in humans is to help us learn the nuances of when something is right in circumstance X and wrong in circumstance Y. For example, it would be wrong to lie on my income taxes, but okay to lie to your wife when she asks if the dress makes her look fat. It is exactly this area of the brain which is meant to help us understand when killing, which is usually bad, is sometimes the moral choice.

That is how we justify moral issues, we add exceptions. Killing a person like Hitler is acceptable, because we just call it something else or apply some rules that specifically apply to people like him that we don't like.

Kind of like it is completely unacceptable to shoot someone. Yet, if you are a soldier and in war, no issue.

But it makes it extremely complicated to talk about morality like that, it is too easy to justify things like this.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Kind of like it is completely unacceptable to shoot someone.

Well, that all depends on the circumstances. Like I said, not all killing is bad. Sometimes killing is the moral choice. If someone is aiming a gun at innocents, the moral thing is to shoot him first.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I started off a Christian then became an atheist. My world view didn't change that I'm aware of. It did however change when I got lymphoma.

In what way did your world view change with lymphoma? If you don’t mind me asking.

A friend of mine had it and made a full recovery btw. I hope you do too.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, that all depends on the circumstances. Like I said, not all killing is bad. Sometimes killing is the moral choice. If someone is aiming a gun at innocents, the moral thing is to shoot him first.

“Thou shalt not kill” is unequivocal in English (and Greek, apparently). Is there really much more room for interpretation and nuance in the original Hebrew?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

“Thou shalt not kill” is unequivocal in English (and Greek, apparently). Is there really much more room for interpretation and nuance in the original Hebrew?

That is a mistranslation. The commandment is thou shalt not murder. There are actually many sorts of killing that the Torah supports, such as killing animals for food, capital punishment for some crimes, going to war...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Murder is murder but is murder always morally wrong?

Yes, by definition of the word "murder". A "murder" is literally defined as an unlawful / immoral killing.
Killing isn't necessarily wrong. Murder is a type of killing that is wrong.

Would murdering Hitler have been wrong?

Depends on the circumstances, motivation and timing.

If it is objectively true that murder is wrong, then killing him would also be, despite how many bad things he did.

No, as the circumstances would determine if it was a righteous killing or a murder.
Context - it matters.

Obviously, Nazi supporters of Hitler would have said that murdering him would be wrong, while the rest of us, probably agree that it would have been good.

Again, depends on the context / circumstances / motivation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So murdering Hitler would be wrong?

If the circumstances of it would be such that it would be labeled murder, then by definition of that label: yes.

Off course, assuming that labelling is justified according to the circumstances of the killing.

If for example Hitler was executed during a covert operation by special forces during the war, then it wouldn't be correct to call it murder.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, this to me falls in the idea of "mudding".

No. It falls under the idea of "using words correctly".

And killing Hitler would be murder according to the definition of murder

Seeing how "murder" is defined as "unlawfull killing", then assassinating the dictator that is waging war on the world and organizing genocide, wouldn't exactly fall under that..................

, assassination is also fine, but is also illegal and is still murder.

Assassination the aggressor in a time of war is not "illegal"....
In fact, legal authorities would be literally trying to organize missions for their military to do exactly that.
If succesfull, those soldiers wouldn't be thrown in jail for "murder". Instead, they'ld be given a medal for being heroes.

I think that is a huge issue with moral discussions today, there are too many terms and jumping loops trying to justify moral actions.

I'm sorry you think moral reasoning is too hard. You seem to prefer a more black and white world where there are no grey area's or moral dilemma's or where there aren't hard / complicated moral arguments to be made. Well, sorry, the world is complicated.

Especially in morals... context, circumstances and motivations / intentions matter.
What is morally good (even a moral duty) in one situation may be horribly wrong in another scenario while they are essentially the same actions.

Killing Hitler in an attempt to end a world war and an ongoing genocide, is morally not the same as killing the waiter at the restaurant because he got your order wrong.

In both cases, the action is the same: a human dies by the hand of another human. But clearly you can see the difference and how one isn't morally wrong while the other is. Right?

 

[osgart]

No, animals kill each other. Nothing to do with defense. Humans kill and eat animals as well.

The most simple definition of "killing" is causing death.


That is not the definition of murder.

1. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

So even if Hitler did bad things, it would still be unlawful to murder him. The same way as it would be unlawful to murder a rapist. No one is allowed to do something like this in a lawful society. So the same rules would apply to Hitler as to the rapist if we are to follow the same moral standard.


Then you are not talking about moral truth. You ought to be able to make the argument that murdering Hitler would be wrong, obviously not that he shouldn't be punished for his crime, but simply that murdering him is morally wrong. The same argument that a starving child stealing food from a store is doing something morally wrong, and should be punished for such crimes according to whatever law there is.

One of the big issues with moral discussions today in my opinion is that they tend to get muddy with "human" concepts such as "murder", rather than dealing with the basic concept of the action.

Murder is essentially the same as killing meaning the death of something.

The problem with this "mud", is that you can make moral questions like:

"Is it wrong to hurt baby?"

Obviously, the answer would be yes, but let's for the sake of argument say that someone said no. Then what you do is expand on the horror so to speak until you make the person seem like a complete maniac if they don't answer what you want them to, so I ask again:

"Is it wrong to peel the skin of a living baby for fun?"

And you could essentially continue like this making it more and more obscure. But I don't think you can have a moral discussion based on this, you have to break down it down and look at the basic concepts.

I find this assessment and definition to be senseless and missing the point. It sounds like you are saying that the military would be in the murder business, and all matters of ending life are murder. There's nothing obscure about murder vs. killing. You are muddying the waters by saying murder is killing. Hitler is too dangerous to be left alive.

Animals kill to survive another day. The universe has no moral compass but morality is real nevertheless. Murder though has malicious intentions, and cannot be justified for one thing. Killing animals within reason is justified by the necessity to survive and use the animals for necessary food. Murder is for wicked power and pleasure in ending life and is highly immoral. Killing is different because it has no malice and can be justified. There's no pleasure in ending life if you are a killer. Morality is the internal motives behind the action that drive it to happen. Ethics is how we control behaviour and apply morality in situations.



Your lumping all killers in with murderers. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is how we justify moral issues, we add exceptions.

No, it's not about "exceptions". It's about CONTEXT.

Context matters.
cfr: killing a genocidal maniac waging a war as the aggressor vs killing a waiter for getting your order wrong.

If you are just going to focus on the "killing" part and completely ignore the circumstances, context and motivations, you're simply going to fail in your moral argument.

Killing a person like Hitler is acceptable, because we just call it something else

No. Not because we "just call it something else". Rather because of the circumstances, context and motivation. And we call it something else as a direct result of those circumstances, context and motivation. It's not some trivial or arbitrary labelling. There are reasons there.

or apply some rules that specifically apply to people like him that we don't like.

Again, not merely because we don't "like" them.
Rather because of what they did / are doing. And what is prevented by taking them out.

I think it's a bit strange that we really need to explain this.

Kind of like it is completely unacceptable to shoot someone.

Again: context. It matters. Wheter it is acceptable or not is 100% determined by the context in which that happens.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

But it makes it extremely complicated to talk about morality like that

Really? This is still rather the easy stuff...... killing hitler for his war aggression and genocide vs killing the waiter for getting your order wrong.
This doesn't require hourse of moral debate to determine which is ok and which isn't.

Your complaint to all this is "moral reasoning can be hard". Sure. So what?

, it is too easy to justify things like this.

Is it?
Let's see you justify killing a waiter for getting your order wrong.
Let's see how "easy" that is.

 

[Yerda]

Yes.

No one shares the exact same world view, but the idea that no gods exist is basically an opinion based on a materialist world view.

Sometimes the materialist worldview follows from the atheism, it was that way for me when I thought of myself as a materialist.

Broadly speaking, there is an "athiest worldview" in that we can certainly see common features and points on agreement among a vast majority of atheists on questions of metaphysics and ontology etc. More precisely atheism is a postion on a single question and doesn't neccessarily entail a postion on any other question.

I wouldn't say that being an atheist commits anyone to any particular conclusion regarding substances, mind-body questions, what is "real", however. There are atheists who believe in afterlife, reincarnation, Karma, philosophical idealism, panspychism, moral realism, etc etc.

 

[Nimos]

I'm sorry you think moral reasoning is too hard. You seem to prefer a more black and white world where there are no grey area's or moral dilemma's or where there aren't hard / complicated moral arguments to be made. Well, sorry, the world is complicated.

Especially in morals... context, circumstances and motivations / intentions matter.
What is morally good (even a moral duty) in one situation may be horribly wrong in another scenario while they are essentially the same actions.

Killing Hitler in an attempt to end a world war and an ongoing genocide, is morally not the same as killing the waiter at the restaurant because he got your order wrong.

In both cases, the action is the same: a human dies by the hand of another human. But clearly you can see the difference and how one isn't morally wrong while the other is. Right?

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.

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.

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?

Assassination the aggressor in a time of war is not "illegal"....
In fact, legal authorities would be literally trying to organize missions for their military to do exactly that.
If succesfull, those soldiers wouldn't be thrown in jail for "murder". Instead, they'ld be given a medal for being heroes.

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.

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 find this assessment and definition to be senseless and missing the point. It sounds like you are saying that the military would be in the murder business, and all matters of ending life are murder. There's nothing obscure about murder vs. killing. You are muddying the waters by saying murder is killing. Hitler is too dangerous to be left alive.

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?

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.