The supremacy of the ethical

[BioMors]

"What about those people who did something they felt was right at the time, yet later came to regret when they had more info? Obviously information plays a big part."

They felt it was right at the time they did it, the aftereffects have no consequence in their decision. However, in respect to that fear, that is why I’m a non-interventionist when it comes to matters in which I can’t be rather certain of the right course of action.

If my friend(s) wanted to kill somebody I would first ask them why and try to discuss it with them- ultimately I don’t know the person they want to kill, nor how many others that individual might harm in his/her lifetime. Without knowing any more information than simply ‘my friend(s) wants to kill this person’ I would feel compelled to abstain myself from intervening if I could not first learn more of the situation.

An online acquaintance once presented me with the scenario: I’m on a space ship traveling to a new planet, within the ship is the entire human population of the universe searching for a new home. A suitable planet is found, but that planet already has life- I don’t know if it is a civilization or merely a few scattered clusters of amoeba- but unless I push a button on the ship to eliminate the pre-existing life from the planet the ship cannot land and all of humanity will be doomed. Do I push that button? Of course not.


“Logical moral arguments are the hardest to make because they have to explain why a certain action is necessarily right, now and for all time.”

I don’t believe one must necessarily explain their beliefs. It is right simply because I say so. If you want more elaboration, there’s this little known instinct called love and it causes me to empathize with other living things- if you hurt them you hurt me a little too. Thus: stop killing stuff. There are no fallacious arguments because it is simply a premise. Moral arguments not based off of a premise are doomed to failure before they even start. If your premise is “society must thrive” you needn’t prove it, it’s just your opinion. However, not basing an argument off of instinct can be dangerous because in order to follow that premise to its very end you might have to make moral sacrifices in the name of society.

“An important difference is empathy . It makes a huge difference if someone just acts because their religion dictates it, or whether they take the consequences of the act on others into account.”

Many religions dictate empathy; that’s what Jesus was all about—love your neighbor and you’ll do what’s right all by yourself. However, in regards to the difference; if the outcome is essentially the same empathy is merely a novelty. It’s a romantic ideal that has nothing to do with the result. Whether you’re following a rule, “don’t hurt people”, or going by an empathetic instinct, “I don’t want to hurt people because I feel the pain they feel so it will hurt me too”, the outcome is essentially the same.

Also, whether you are an atheist or theist you’ve got a mixture of the two. For a theist it comes from a very old book and what they learn as a child, and for an atheist it comes from their laws and what they learn as a child.
Try not to assume just because there are set rules the only reason somebody follows them is fear of a god (or the authorities).

“However, I believe that the very fact we are participators in the world and that we are largely the same implies that we can get at least some way along the road to moral objectivism.”

That’s just a matter of instinct, and theists aren’t immune to instinct any more than you or I- the bible was written by observation of human instinct as divine inspiration.

The Categorical Imperative is fine and dandy, but it has little to nothing to do with atheism- it’s simply a set of rules like any other. It has its good points and its bad.

“So I believe that objective morality exists, but only for the individual - and it doesn't depend on his own feelings solely, but simply acknowledges the impact that society has on himself.”

I disagree, once you begin acknowledging the impact on society and following the ‘Categorical Imperative’, you’re setting up a rule book of your own no different than theistic rules. You simple replace “what god says” with “what is best for society”. If you want to argue the superiority of the categorical imperative over theistic laws, then that is another subject entirely, and not an issue of atheism versus theism.

 

[Alaric]

They felt it was right at the time they did it, the aftereffects have no consequence in their decision. However, in respect to that fear, that is why I’m a non-interventionist when it comes to matters in which I can’t be rather certain of the right course of action.

Surely you are more inclined to some than to others? Life doesn't require perfect information, and you can never be certain of the right course of action. If I told you now that if your friend wanted to kill me, and you let him, and I managed to get away, that I would come after you and knock you senseless, or at least be very angry, would it help in your decision-making? The perceived consequences are vital to decision making.

An online acquaintance once presented me with the scenario...

Why 'of course'? Why does the native life have precedence over humanity? Using the C.I., you seem to be saying that life on a planet is more valuable than one off it, which is a little weird, especially since life is based on survival of the fittest. I would prioritize intelligence, ie primitive life is not as valuable as humanity, but that's a reflection of my own priorities. Neither is objectively 'right'.

I don’t believe one must necessarily explain their beliefs. ...

That's not what I meant - a logic moral argument dictates the correct behaviour now and for all time.
But anyway - the thing is that personal opinions aren't just necessarily to be respected; we can change each other's values by debating the consequences.

Many religions dictate empathy; that’s what Jesus was all about—love your neighbor and you’ll do what’s right all by yourself. However, in regards to the difference; if the outcome is essentially the same empathy is merely a novelty. It’s a romantic ideal that has nothing to do with the result. Whether you’re following a rule, “don’t hurt people”, or going by an empathetic instinct, “I don’t want to hurt people because I feel the pain they feel so it will hurt me too”, the outcome is essentially the same.

Coincedentally perhaps, but rule-following is more rigid, while wanting to cause as little suffering as possible means that you are a lot more willing to listen to those who claim that your actions hurt others unintentionally.

Also, whether you are an atheist or theist you’ve got a mixture of the two. For a theist it comes from a very old book and what they learn as a child, and for an atheist it comes from their laws and what they learn as a child.

No, the mixture is what they learn as a child, experiences they have had, their own fears and desires, and the amount of thought put into it. It's amazing how many people act in contradiction to their values simply because they don't realise that they are contradicting them.

The Categorical Imperative is fine and dandy, but it has little to nothing to do with atheism- it’s simply a set of rules like any other. It has its good points and its bad.

No, because true theists do not follow it.

I disagree, once you begin acknowledging the impact on society and following the ‘Categorical Imperative’, you’re setting up a rule book of your own no different than theistic rules.

Nope, that why I said that the C.I. doesn't dictate specific rules; it only demonstrates that your actions must be in sync with your values. What those values are is up to you, however people aren't that different, so we'll tend to more or less the same if we just think it all through.

 

[(Q)]

I would simply state to my friend that if he wished to kill someone he had better do so on his own time and not mine.

 

[BioMors]

“Life doesn't require perfect information, and you can never be certain of the right course of action.”

Not completely certain, of course that’s impossible, but rather certain.

“If I told you now that if your friend wanted to kill me, and you let him, and I managed to get away, that I would come after you and knock you senseless, or at least be very angry, would it help in your decision-making?”

If my friend wished to kill you, by the information that I now possess, I would advise him against it because you seem like an okay guy. Plus I’d miss the debating. If I had no idea of who you were then my personal safety would certainly come to mind, but only after that of my friend because he/she is more directly involved. Either way, I wouldn’t be ‘letting him’ kill you; I might simply be doing nothing if I had no information on the subject whatsoever. Ultimately, I would attempt to stall him until he gave me more information so I could analyze the situation. I don’t mean to say that knowledge of consequences has no impact on decision making if that’s what you’re interpreting?

“Why 'of course'? Why does the native life have precedence over humanity?”

Not necessarily, there could be a thriving civilization on that planet that I would personally prefer to humanity- possibly a utopian paradise. Unless I have some information to judge what is being destroyed I’m not going to make that decision- I won’t stand in the way of somebody else who wishes to push the button though.

“Using the C.I., you seem to be saying that life on a planet is more valuable than one off it”

I don’t see how I’m saying that. My personal preference just comes into mind when a civilization such as ours, savage and war torn, could possibly override something far better. Humans are not at the epitome of my moral standard, thus because something better could exist on the planet, I wouldn’t risk it. Until humans reach the point where none of them would risk this incident and possibly destroy another civilization to save their own they will not be at the epitome of my moral standard- and if they were at this point they would all be just as willing to die as I rather than destroy all life on a planet that is not their own without knowing anything about it. Make sense?

It is your prerogative to base your morality of the premise of intellect, but if you do so, do you avoid hypocrisy by valuing more intelligent groups of humans over less intelligent? Do you value the mentally retarded no more than a rodent? If you adopt a premise to which you wish to compare moral right it must be consistent lest you admit you function more on instinct than you seem to think.

“a logic moral argument dictates the correct behaviour now and for all time.”

It can dictate behavior, but in a way no different than any rule book. It’s just an equation whether it has been worked out for every circumstance or not it must encompass them all. Regardless, the premises upon which the arguments are founded are just as arbitrary as any in the bible.

“Coincedentally perhaps, but rule-following is more rigid, while wanting to cause as little suffering as possible means that you are a lot more willing to listen to those who claim that your actions hurt others unintentionally.”

Many of the rules that have been established by now are very general. Wanting to cause less suffering is a rule in itself, and while it may be a superior rule to some, it isn’t inherently different in concept. Do this, don’t do this, desire this, don’t desire this- it’s a guideline like any. Some rules are more lax than others; I don’t think any generalizations can be made to this end.

“No, the mixture is what they learn as a child, experiences they have had, their own fears and desires, and the amount of thought put into it.”

I’m not clear on what you’re disagreeing with here.

“It's amazing how many people act in contradiction to their values simply because they don't realise that they are contradicting them.”

It indeed is, but it happens with atheists and theists alike- we aren’t omniscient.

“No, because true theists do not follow it.”

I don’t know that that’s necessarily true, many theists have congruent values to their religion by the time they have matured, and many who become atheists continue to carry on in the exact same manner. Wanting to please their god is part of their desires and value system as well, and keep in mind plenty of theists ignore the rules of their religion too

 

[Alaric]

It can dictate behavior, but in a way no different than any rule book. It’s just an equation whether it has been worked out for every circumstance or not it must encompass them all. Regardless, the premises upon which the arguments are founded are just as arbitrary as any in the bible.
...
Do this, don’t do this, desire this, don’t desire this- it’s a guideline like any. Some rules are more lax than others; I don’t think any generalizations can be made to this end.

If I have certain values or desires, then these are the foundations of my actions. Logic is then used to determine, given the information available, what course of action is best. The 'passions' in the beginning are far more important to me than any rule, because a rule isn't necessarily fulfilling any passion. Also, by examining the consequences of my actions I can determine what my real values are. Some values or desires override others.

The only guideline I've presented is the C.I., which doesn't dictates any specific actions at all.

It indeed is, but it happens with atheists and theists alike- we aren’t omniscient.

The trouble is that religions dictate certain specific rules that must be obeyed. In doing so, theists don't even get around to thinking which course of actions best suits their passions.

I don’t know that that’s necessarily true, many theists have congruent values to their religion by the time they have matured, and many who become atheists continue to carry on in the exact same manner. Wanting to please their god is part of their desires and value system as well, and keep in mind plenty of theists ignore the rules of their religion too

I agree, that's why I said 'true' theists.

As soon as you submit yourself to some God, or legal code, or person, you are surrendering the ethical. You are no longer taking responsibility for your actions; using the C.I., you are saying that it's okay for anyone to blindly follow anything they like, no matter what they demand. You are taking a leap of faith that your submission will pay off, and this is surely unacceptable to anyone. Morality implies considering the consequences of your actions on others, and religion suspends this; ergo religion is immoral. If theists do submit to the supremacy of the ethical, then they are admitting that they do not have faith in God.

 

[BioMors]

“If I have certain values or desires, then these are the foundations of my actions. Logic is then used to determine, given the information available, what course of action is best.”

Unless you pay very close attention to every decision you make, you probably aren’t consciously analyzing each of them using logic. Thanks to billions of years of evolution, animals with brains have internal mechanisms that calculate the potential rewards and pains of each conceived course of action.

“Some values or desires override others.”

I’m not sure where you think we’re disagreeing here. You seem to be describing the basic functioning of a brain in the decision making process.

“The trouble is that religions dictate certain specific rules that must be obeyed. In doing so, theists don't even get around to thinking which course of actions best suits their passions.”

I think I’m starting to understand where you are mistaken. Being religious doesn’t supercede the fundamental nature of the human brain, or CI as you might call it, but is an effect of it. The fact is that these people believe that their god exists- and this information (valid or not) affects their decision making process just as similar information affects the decision making process of atheists.

You must consider for a moment that their god is real. You know this; it has come to you in broad daylight and informed you of its existence. This god has also informed you that if you don’t do what it says, it will fling you into a fiery pit for all eternity. Furthermore, to demonstrate this, it takes you on a tour of this hell. After the tour the god informs you that if you DO do what it says, then you will be admitted into a place where you are made happy (likewise you are given a tour of this heaven). Now, after the encounter, the god sends you on you merry way. If this doesn’t affect your actions I don’t know what would. If it is your imperative to not be sent to hell, then you are likely to follow the rules. If it is your imperative to be admitted into heaven, you are also likely to follow the rules. In addition, you may come to respect and love this god over time, and simply wish to follow the rules because of this.

To a theist, the information about their god’s existence is just as clear. They aren’t immune to the fundamental processes of the human brain in favor of rules- the rules are followed as an effect of the process.

With a less far fetched analogy-
Say you have met an authority figure, a police officer perhaps. He or she has informed you of laws, and their consequences if broken. You may or may not choose to follow them for the same reasons as a theist chooses (or not) to follow rules in a religious community.
Assume you have an aging relative you have great respect and love for, this relative asks you to do them favors, if you choose to do them you do so for many of the same reasons a theist may choose to follow their god’s whim.

I could go on and on- but this CI you speak of, if it is the simple nature of the human mind as I understand you mean it to be, can have no immunities. Religious individuals go by their instincts and are affected the same way by knowledge of rewards and consequences as atheists are.

What exactly do you feel is the difference? Because one exists and one doesn’t? Can you prove your aunt Edna or your local authorities exist? Does it matter? No, it doesn’t matter if they exist or not, it only matters that the person believe they exist in regards to whether they are considered in the decision making process.

“As soon as you submit yourself to some God, or legal code, or person, you are surrendering the ethical.”

If you are saying that Atheists take no consequences, rewards, or instincts into account when making their decisions... what are they guided by then? This is simply how the human brain works, the only way you could even start an argument against that is to invent a concept like a magical ‘soul’ that guides atheists in their decisions.

“You are no longer taking responsibility for your actions; using the C.I., you are saying that it's okay for anyone to blindly follow anything they like, no matter what they demand.”

How are you saying anything about faith by having it yourself?

“Morality implies considering the consequences of your actions on others, and religion suspends this; ergo religion is immoral.”

1. Morality is completely subjective, it doesn’t necessarily imply anything of the such- seems like somebody’s got a bit of moral absolutism still rattling around in their head

2. Religion does not suspend this. Depending on how you define religion, it is simply believing that a god(s, etc.) exists.

3. Even if religion did imply following all the rules absolutely, there are MANY situations outside the rules in which the individual makes choices independent of their fear, or love for, their god. This would also mean that anybody who commits a sin is an atheist regardless of belief.

4. Even if the rules were fully limiting and all encompassing (which no religion I know of has), and being of that religion implied that they all must be followed completely (as if anybody really could), it is still that person’s decision whether or not they wish to believe in that god and follow that religion- they aren’t prevented from breaking one of the rules and becoming an instantaneous atheist by the premises above if they disagreed via their CI.

5. If the religion’s rules were all encompassing, totally limiting, being of a religion implied total and absolute adherence, and the person never had any choice but to believe and it was impossible for them to break one of the rules or to remove themselves from the religion no matter what- then they would be a robot. If you are arguing that this is the case then I agree; robots don’t tend to make decisions- but this is not the case and theists are not the same as robots.

“If theists do submit to the supremacy of the ethical, then they are admitting that they do not have faith in God.”

There is a big difference in having faith in a god’s existence and having faith that they should do anything the god tells them. We must assume only that somebody who is religious believes in the existence of their god. Faith regarding the absolute submission to the god it irrelevant- very few people have 100% faith if any. This is what all the stories are about regarding 'what’s his name' who was told to kill his son- he could still believe Mr. Yahweh existed but choose not to kill his son because of his ‘CI’. His imperative was greater to please his god than it was to insure his son’s survival- the CI as you call it is still in place, just weighted more heavily in the “do what god says” category.

Ultimately, are you saying this ‘virtue’ of faith is a bad category in their CI? That it is a bad value to have weighting their decisions? I hope that’s not what you are basing this argument off of because that’s an entirely subjective statement and has no place in a logical argument. Personally, I agree that (depending on what they think their god wants them to do) it may not be a good thing to have weighting people’s decisions, but that is irrelevant.

Even if “Faith = immoral” could be established as an absolute value, which it cannot, not all people who believe in a god(s) choose to submit or are required to by their religion.

 

[Alaric]

Unless you pay very close attention to every decision you make, you probably aren’t consciously analyzing each of them using logic. Thanks to billions of years of evolution, animals with brains have internal mechanisms that calculate the potential rewards and pains of each conceived course of action.

Yep, and we rely on them until someone taps us on the shoulder and claims we shouldn't be doing what we're doing. The resulting discussion on personal desires vs. the consequences to others is morality.

I’m not sure where you think we’re disagreeing here. You seem to be describing the basic functioning of a brain in the decision making process.

What I meant was that we all have multiple desires, and many are in conflict with each other, forcing us to prioritize some over others. Part of the whole free will thing!

I think I’m starting to understand where you are mistaken. Being religious doesn’t supercede the fundamental nature of the human brain, or CI as you might call it, but is an effect of it. The fact is that these people believe that their god exists- and this information (valid or not) affects their decision making process just as similar information affects the decision making process of atheists.

Well no wonder you disagree - you must think I'm mad! C.I. = Immanuel Kant's 'Categorical Imperative'. Crudely: 'Act only if you would want your action to become a universal law.' So, if you rob someone, you are saying that it's okay for anyone to rob that person in that situation.

The way in which the decision making process is altered is to override morality and ignore the logic of the C.I. Like, "It is the will of Allah that I hijack a plane and fly it into a building, but anyone who did the same to us would be evil and go to Hell." Logic simply forbids this statement, because if they acknowledged the C.I., by doing the act they are saying that it's okay to kill civilians if you feel the end justifies the means. In which case they should have no problem at all with us nuking Mecca. Naturally, they would have a huge problem with this, so they are not being logical. They are ignoring their responsibility to the rest of humanity to act in a way that reflects their ideal world - al Qaida complain precisely that the US are following their own beliefs in Saudi Arabia to the detriment of the locals.

You must consider for a moment that their god is real. ...
To a theist, the information about their god’s existence is just as clear. They aren’t immune to the fundamental processes of the human brain in favor of rules- the rules are followed as an effect of the process.

A moral person would not behave immorally just to get into heaven. This is the point - belief doesn't matter. To paraphrase Dirty Harry, you gotta ask yourself one question. Do I want any schmuck to blindly follow the voices in his head to the detriment of humanity, or not? If you allow this, you are taking a huge risk, but then the rewards might be great. The world would decend into chaos if this was allowed, but then, without it, perhaps no one would get into heaven. The moral person has a responsibility to society not to; the existentialist has a responsibility to himself.

I could go on and on- but this CI you speak of, if it is the simple nature of the human mind as I understand you mean it to be, can have no immunities. Religious individuals go by their instincts and are affected the same way by knowledge of rewards and consequences as atheists are.

I hope the above has convinced you that instinct and rewards are unacceptable foundations for social behaviour.

What exactly do you feel is the difference? Because one exists and one doesn’t? Can you prove your aunt Edna or your local authorities exist? Does it matter? No, it doesn’t matter if they exist or not, it only matters that the person believe they exist in regards to whether they are considered in the decision making process.

If I couldn't provide proof of my vision of God, I have no right to act for God to the detriment of you.

1. Morality is completely subjective, it doesn’t necessarily imply anything of the such- seems like somebody’s got a bit of moral absolutism still rattling around in their head

Yeah, I always get hell from other atheists for this. I was a complete moral relativist once, but not quite anymore. Your individual values and current worldview are the foundations of behaviour, but you can act logically, or you can reject that idea that your actions have any impact on others (or claim that it's irrelevant). If you are moral, your beliefs will dictate specific actions that are a logical consequence of your beliefs.

3. Even if religion did imply following all the rules absolutely, there are MANY situations outside the rules in which the individual makes choices independent of their fear, or love for, their god. This would also mean that anybody who commits a sin is an atheist regardless of belief.

The point is that theists have faith that God is the highest, and therefore trumps any imperfect human morality. True Christians don't ask whether the Ten Commandments are moral or not - they just obey them.

4. Even if the rules were fully limiting and all encompassing (which no religion I know of has), and being of that religion implied that they all must be followed completely (as if anybody really could), it is still that person’s decision whether or not they wish to believe in that god and follow that religion- they aren’t prevented from breaking one of the rules and becoming an instantaneous atheist by the premises above if they disagreed via their CI.

Breaking a rule, or even disagreeing with them, means that they believe in the religion in the same way an atheist believes what he believes - based on consequences and evidence. In which case they can be moral like I demand, but also making their beliefs completely irrelevant to their behaviour.

There is a big difference in having faith in a god’s existence and having faith that they should do anything the god tells them. We must assume only that somebody who is religious believes in the existence of their god.

But do you acknowledge that they must base their morality as I have described above, not on the teachings?

 

[BioMors]

“The resulting discussion on personal desires vs. the consequences to others is morality.”

Consequences to others isn’t an inherent factor in morality if one has apathy towards them, though that’s likely an entire discussion of its own.

“Well no wonder you disagree - you must think I'm mad! C.I. = Immanuel Kant's 'Categorical Imperative'. Crudely: 'Act only if you would want your action to become a universal law.' So, if you rob someone, you are saying that it's okay for anyone to rob that person in that situation.”

In that case, CI is entirely subjective. The deviation from the specific can have infinite variations. In one sense it’s the old, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, a fundamental rule upon which many religions are founded. Atheism follows no one philosophy so you can’t generalize in that manner.

You are first making a mistake in setting the Categorical Imperative as an absolute and exclusive good. Non-relativistic premises like this are illogical, and tend to confuse people thus hiding the circular logic deep within an argument. CI is not an absolute good, that’s just your opinion.

Secondly, not all atheists inherently follow the CI as you seemed to suggest (this is why I took it to mean a more fundamental operation of mental processes). I do not necessarily follow this golden rule because it is either based upon a subjective set of premises or when taken objectively and in a relativistic sense it is completely impotent.

As a quick example: you rob somebody- why are you robbing somebody? What kind of person are you robbing? What kind of shoes are you wearing while robbing them? Where were you robbing them?
The details of the situation can be honed into a degree that makes it completely impossible for that exact situation to ever occur again. The decision to identify each of these details as significant (down to every quark present at the time) is a subjective one- in this the categorical imperative is incredibly subjective.

When lacking any details it is… nothing.

I will elaborate with a couple of expanded examples if need be, but I may have to do that later as I do not have sufficient time at the moment.

“by doing the act they are saying that it's okay to kill civilians if you feel the end justifies the means.”

No they aren’t, they are saying it is okay to do the will of Allah no matter what he wills. It is just as okay for them to crash airplanes when Allah wills it as it is for the US to blow up Mecca when Allah wills it- if they believe Allah wills it then it is okay no matter who he wills to commit the action. The fact that Allah is fictional has no significance at all. Their CI is god’s will specific, and because for them Allah is the one and only god it couldn’t work for “make believe” gods of other religions. You have to consider it from their point of view, because it is their opinions that have significance to their actions, not yours.

“They are ignoring their responsibility to the rest of humanity to act in a way that reflects their ideal world”

What responsibility? Sounds like more subjectivity on your part. You may not like it, but it doesn’t make it illogical or immoral. In their opinion you are ignoring your responsibility to Allah.

“A moral person would not behave immorally just to get into heaven.”

And a moral person doesn’t behave immorally to avoid jail? This applies to atheists and theists alike, your whole argument is based upon distinction between the two. If a statement applies to both it really doesn’t have any weight.

“The moral person has a responsibility to society not to; the existentialist has a responsibility to himself.”

More subjectivity, it sounds like “benefit society” is dogmatically engraved in your head- nowhere is it absolute that what is right is the benefit of society.


“I hope the above has convinced you that instinct and rewards are unacceptable foundations for social behaviour.”

Of course they are acceptable for some people. I go purely by instinct and am considered quite moral. You see, the only thing needed to direct instinct at benefiting society (since this you feel is the ultimate right) is a love of humanity. Love is a simple instinct, but it does a great deal. Not considering this, we also have laws in effect that guide action by fear of consequence (this fear doesn’t affect me much, but for most people it helps).

“If I couldn't provide proof of my vision of God, I have no right to act for God to the detriment of you.”

How do you figure that? That’s completely subjective, “right” doesn’t exist, I agree I would be displeased, but displeasing somebody isn’t inherently wrong.

“Yeah, I always get hell from other atheists for this. I was a complete moral relativist once, but not quite anymore.”

Moral absolutism is inherent only in religion, if you aren’t a relativist I’d hardly consider you without dogma of some kind. The definition of religion is flakey at best, just because you don’t believe in god doesn’t mean you don’t have faith in the supernatural (moral absolutes are supernatural). This is what I mean when I say there are very few people I would consider true atheists. Forgive my use of pop culture, but I accept the possibility of a being such as “Q” from star trek, even a being that created our universe- hell, this could all be a computer simulation. However, those could all be explained within the bounds of science. Believing for a certainty that they exist may seem silly because we really can’t know these things for sure, but moral absolutism is logically impossible. Some religions rely on only misplaced belief without moral absolutism which is really only misinformation at the worst. Because people so often define religions with and without moral absolutism in one group, and “atheists” with and without moral absolutism in another it’s hard to separate them in argument as they should be. The moral absolutism crowd and the relativists are the most similar despite any belief or lack thereof of a powerful being or creator.

Regardless of the arbitrary nature of the classifications, they should not logically be grouped in that way. Are you a relativist, or aren’t you? As far as logical analysis and perception of our reality this is what affects it the most. I don’t really have time to get into it now though.

“The point is that theists have faith that God is the highest, and therefore trumps any imperfect human morality. True Christians don't ask whether the Ten Commandments are moral or not - they just obey them.”

So are you saying that all people who don’t follow their religions rules tooth and nail are atheists regardless of what they believe? Or is there a mysterious third classification you conveniently left out of the analogy of theist to atheist morality?

“But do you acknowledge that they must base their morality as I have described above, not on the teachings?”

The teachings affect their morality. Plus, people will generally reject a religion if its teachings are incongruent with their original morality. Even if people are motivated completely by the selfish desire to not go to hell or to go to heaven instead, this is not inherently immoral.

 

[Alaric]

Some may have a broader definition, but I believe that morality is meaningless if your actions either cannot affect others, or you don't care whether they do (and consequently don't care that others' actions affect you). Morality is about finding a universal rule or set of rules that apply equally to all. The C.I. simply reminds you that even a statement like 'My rules only apply to members of my race' is still universal because you are declaring that a group can declare that it's rules only apply to itself, thereby allowing any group to form it's own rules and do what they like to others, so that it's ultimate consequence is 'every man for himself'. (I'm getting to your objection regarding the subjectivity of it.)

As I have said, the C.I. does not dictate a universal set of rules directly - as such, it does not describe a universal morality, but rather describes the logical principle behind morality. The C.I. is necessarily true for any attempt to apply a general rule within a society, and any value implies a general rule. The subjectivity is in the values and beliefs that you base your general rules upon. I am not calling the C.I. an absolute good, I'm calling it an absolute truth. You can't choose to avoid it, only to ignore it, or claim to be unaware of it. Nor does an action have to 'do good' or benefit society - it's just that you need to be aware of what you are saying by your action.

Take the robber again. The reason why the details and infinite specification doesn't work is that you need to apply the C.I. again for that specification. So, you could say generally "It's alright to rob people." That's simple enough - perhaps you don't mind a 'survival of the fittest' type world. Then you could say "It's alright to rob people if you're poor." What are you saying here? First, you need to define 'poor'. You explain to the person who says this that 'poor' is a relative term, so he'll have to admit to specifying what he means by poor. So, we decide on some calculation involving the GDP per capita of the society, the cost of necessities, etc, and decide on some income level at which you can call yourself 'poor'. But here, you have had to agree collectively on a definition. Until that definition has been agreed upon, he cannot act - and if he does, by applying the C.I. he is declaring that it's alright for someone to rob someone on the basis of a rule upon which the definitions have not been decided. Making the statement "It's alright to rob people if you're poor" exactly the same and as subjective as "It's alright to rob people if you're feeling bad" or "...if you don't like the way society is being run." The person who made the original statement is stuck - as soon as he tries to specify the situation, such as 'if you're poor' he can't justify it without indirectly implying a general rule that he disagrees with. He doesn't want people to make up their own rules, which is why he cannot go down the path of infinite specification unless he is willing to accept the consequences.

What about saying "Yeah, well, in my circumstances you would have done the same." People generally accept the principle that you can act on your own conscience in any circumstance - every situation is different. You don't kill except in self-defence, you don't lie except when lives are on the line, etc. But again, these exceptions lead us down a slippery slope. The way in which these are tolerated is when people are still held responsible for the consequences of their choices, even when they believed that their actions at the time were in the general interest. By killing that person that you thought was about to kill someone else, you are (using the C.I., as always) declaring that in that situation, it is okay for anyone to act that way, but you are also declaring that it is okay that people themselves act when they feel the need to. Then, you look at the basic values and beliefs behind their action - the relative part - and see whether their actions corresponded to their view of a general principle. By doing that, you might make them realise that killing a perceived killer is not quite such a good idea after all - he acted against his own general principle without knowing it, i.e. he acted wrongly.

Back to the example of the first post. What do you want everyone to do in this situation? If you resort merely to your Bible, you are saying that it's alright for anyone to resort to their Holy Book or teachings to determine the right course of action. If your loyalty is to your God, you would not want others to use the laws of false gods to act. So you are forced to apply some earthly basic principle that all can use. One option would be some rule for determining the validity of your holy book. But how would this work? Eventually, after going through the different options such I listed and applying their consequences to your own values, most would everntually reach a set of actions that were in close range to each other. Knock him down and kill him? Do you want everyone to knock people down and kill them when they disagree? No? Then on to the next one. And so on.

Of course, the subjectivity remains in the values and beliefs - it's only the subsequent course of action that is objective. What I am saying is not that there is an objective value system that is perfectly good and that only atheists can follow; I'm saying only atheists, i.e. those not relying on the will of God or old teachings, are able to follow the logic of the C.I. and thereby perform in accordance to their own values. Your values always dictate a universal law - you just have to discover it.

 

[jonjohnrob11]

i would alert the person he intended to kill and run for my life.

 

[jonjohnrob11]

that is if the other person could escape harm also.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with BioMors that all morality is ultimately based on emotional axioms, none of which can be proved or disproved logically.

However, I would also agree with Alaric that once a person figures out what his/her axioms are, he/she CAN use logic to effectively discover how best to acheive as many of those axioms as possible.

So for example, a vegetarian does not feel eating meat is murder simply because it is "logical" to feel it is murder. However, the vegetarian can use logic to create a moral code that will enable the person to stop eating meat and encourage others to do so without compromising other axioms (like getting enough protein).

You both have good points--can't you both be right (BioMors and Alaric)?

 

[BioMors]

Indeed, logic can be very important, but isn't necessarily more right, just more 'accurate' relative to its respective premise.

I am a vegetarian myself (getting enough protein is far from hard- in fact I eat too much of it) and my logic for this can come from one of many premises. i.e.

(subjective premise that is neither right nor wrong) - it is good to preserve the environment

(fact) - a diet based on commercial meat does approximately ten times the harm on the environment than one based on plants

(conclusion) - not eating meat is one of many ways to reduce the harm on the environment.

The argument for morality can only be made if the person being argued agrees with the premise- then the facts fall into place.

Religions assume premises in the same way that secular beliefs do, only their premises involve "god is always right" and because they often don't realize that premises are subjective, they will argue the premise using any means they can.

Arguing for somebody to accept a premise relies on convincing them that that premise is accurate- and because one cannot argue logically that "god is always right" is accurate, it is rather pointless.
On the other hand- what Alaric may have been getting to- the argument that "it is good to preserve the environment" can be argued using many other premises people almost inherently agree with. I.e. It is good to extend the life of the human race and preserving the environment will ultimately extend the life of the human race, etc. etc. And these can be argued logically.
Still, they rely on premises that are not universally accepted and essentially subjective, so if somebody doesn't care about the human race they can't be argued with effectively.

It's all subjective; any value statement about ethical supremacy held by one group is ultimately just an opinion.

Thus Alaric cannot be right because an opinion is neither right nor wrong

 

[Alaric]

Thank you, Mr Spinkles! BioMors, for the umpteenth time, I am not arguing for an opinion! Do you, or do you not, agree that if you hold certain beliefs and values, that actions you take can be objectively classified as right or wrong, based on those beliefs? The C.I. simply tells you the consequences of your particular beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.

The trick is that this is not obvious, and I would guess that after much debating most people would have to agree on pretty much the same things, conveniently harmonising morality. But that's beside the point. The important thing is that if you follow doctrines to establish your morality, you are not behaving rationally.

 

[OctoberTheHottie]

Sorry if this is a little obvious, but you are saying you aren't looking for the answer of what one *thinks* they would do or has time to think about what they are doing, but what exactly you would do at that very second when it is happening and you're heart is racing and every thought is going through your mind a million miles a second and you have to decide RIGHT NOW!!!!! When you don't have time to think, when you don't know what Jesus would do, and you know you have morals, they are there somewhere, but all of a sudden your mind goes blank and you just do..... ?? Am I close?? Did I get it??

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't understand your question

 

[Alaric]

Sorry if this is a little obvious, but you are saying you aren't looking for the answer of what one *thinks* they would do or has time to think about what they are doing, but what exactly you would do at that very second when it is happening and you're heart is racing and every thought is going through your mind a million miles a second and you have to decide RIGHT NOW!!!!! When you don't have time to think, when you don't know what Jesus would do, and you know you have morals, they are there somewhere, but all of a sudden your mind goes blank and you just do..... ?? Am I close?? Did I get it??

Well not really - though I don't think I explained it very well. It's a work in progress! But the basic point is that given your own beliefs and desires, your own ignorance, and the acknowledgement that your actions (that you don't end up regretting) are a representation of how you expect anyone else to act in the same situation, some actions are objectively right and some are objectively wrong.

So for example, behaving in a certain way just because you think Jesus would act that way sends a message to others that you expect, or at least accept, that others only act according to how they think their own personal idol would act - and if you reflect on the consequences of that, you would probably realise that this does not agree with your beliefs and values. Meaning that it isn't Jesus that is worth following, but rather his values and ideals, which can be derived independently of him, and therefore do not require belief in Jesus, God, or anything else.

The moral of the story is, never rely on religion, tradition or authority to derive your morality.

 

[BioMors]

“The supremacy of the ethical…or: Why only atheists can be truly moral.”

You seem to be arguing that

1. The C.I. is the epitome of morality

- This is an Opinion. Not a fact by any means. Morality deals with the issues of right and wrong which are inherently subjective. Whether or not something ‘works’ in society has nothing to do with it. The class system works, but is it right?

- Even if you could prove something is inherently right, which you cannot because it is an opinion, the very definition of the C.I. revolves around further subjectivity that makes it essentially obsolete

- If you remove that subjectivity from the C.I. it then becomes yet another doctrine, no different than those of many religions.


2. That non-Atheists cannot use the C.I.

This I disagree with on the basis of your definition.

-if it is a subjective process its inherent subjectivity makes it all encompassing (and thus essentially useless)

- if you remove the subjectivity the C.I. becomes a religion itself.



When you argue these points as you have been doing, you are merely arguing that your religion (this objective C.I. you’ve devised) is superior to other’s religions- I fail to see how this is not an opinion.


If you’re only trying to argue the rationality or irrationality of certain beliefs then this discussion has become something entirely different than what it started as.


“Do you, or do you not, agree that if you hold certain beliefs and values, that actions you take can be objectively classified as right or wrong, based on those beliefs?”

The values and beliefs people hold have various levels of importance to the individual, some superceding the others. Relative to the premises of somebody’s beliefs, their actions can be classified as congruent or incongruent with their opinion of right and wrong. Just because one of those beliefs is “god exists and it always right” doesn’t change anything. Using the C.I. these people do what is right for them- god just happens to be a big factor in what is right.

You seem to not understand my arguments because I’ve answered these questions several times. Please try to focus on questions about my answers so that we may make progress in this debate- otherwise it’s an unending loop.

And chill out a bit, exclamation points and make believe numbers aren’t healthy

 

[BioMors]

“… a representation of how you expect anyone else to act in the same situation, some actions are objectively right and some are objectively wrong. “

I can see where you’re confused… but I’m really not sure how to explain it to you. The method by which you extrapolate the objective right and wrong from each person’s actions must be objective, otherwise you’re just extending the subjectivity of the method rather than arriving at an untainted conclusion truly based off of the person’s beliefs.

When the C.I. is used objectively to do that it becomes worthless- relatively it must always boil down to – it is right to do what one feels is right.

When an aspect of subjectivity is placed in the process it fails to be an objective interpretation of the individuals opinion.


“So for example, behaving in a certain way just because you think Jesus would act that way sends a message to others that you expect, or at least accept, that others only act according to how they think their own personal idol would act”

No… that level of definition is your own opinion coming through.

The message that they are sending could range from that you accept them acting in the way that Jesus would act, to that you accept them acting in a way they feel is right.

The degree of relativity is the subjective part of the C.I. that you don’t seem to see.

In that situation using the C.I. in a 100% relative manner you would be saying that “it’s okay for people to do what they do”; whereas in the same situation with 0% relativity the C.I. dictates “it is okay for a person with my exact genetic makeup, wearing these clothes, in these atmospheric conditions, with this exact planetary alignment, in this precise location in space and time, to do what I’m doing”.

As you can see, like I’ve said time and again- neither way works.

The aspects of relativity considered when using the C.I. are opinions, and if you set them as absolutes then the C.I. is not rational because it is no longer objective.

“The moral of the story is, never rely on religion, tradition or authority to derive your morality.”

It’s a nice moral, but the story makes no sense.

 

[Alaric]

You seem to not understand my arguments because I’ve answered these questions several times. Please try to focus on questions about my answers so that we may make progress in this debate- otherwise it’s an unending loop.

Ditto. See, I understand your arguments perfectly, I use them myself - just try looking beyond it for a sec. You just seem to be repeating the subjectivity of morality automatically as soon as you see the word 'objectively', like it's a closed debate that everyone with any brain agrees with. Well, it ain't! I accept that morality is inherently subjective, I admit it, I acknowlege it. No one will ever be able to demonstrate that some action is necessarily and objectively good or bad, right or wrong, without first basing it on some premise that has been given beforehand. What I am trying to show is the necessity of the C.I. in determining your morality given those basic values. It's the contradictions that I am trying to root out, like the ones that always arise when you base your morality on religion. If somehow you didn't realise this before, I'll try and make a shorter version of that long post for you. Just put aside the subjectivity of morality for a second, because it isn't important here.

Of course I am not saying I'm right, but your arguments don't deal with what I am saying.

And chill out a bit, exclamation points and make believe numbers aren’t healthy

Sure they are!! Well, you might be too old for that of course... me, I'm in my fist-waving prodding-finger-in-the-chest arm-flapping prime!