|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Morality of atheists: where does it come from?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is a culture shock for me, as I've spent years ranting and raving at (some) atheists for their caricatures of theism, but today I can see how atheism is also caricatured in the most bizarre ways. Almost as if atheists are seen by some theists as not really human, without emotion or compassion or empathy. Or, as if they have to work everything out logically and with scientific evidence. Or, as if they are never irrational.
I think they've confused "atheists" with "Vulcans".
We humans tend to categorise, compartmentalise. The less we understand something, the more general these catagories.
We certainly have the ability to understand in greater detail, but often do not. Especially for those things we do not value.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is a culture shock for me, as I've spent years ranting and raving at (some) atheists for their caricatures of theism, but today I can see how atheism is also caricatured in the most bizarre ways. Almost as if atheists are seen by some theists as not really human, without emotion or compassion or empathy. Or, as if they have to work everything out logically and with scientific evidence. Or, as if they are never irrational.
I think they've confused "atheists" with "Vulcans".
We humans tend to categorise, compartmentalise. The less we understand something, the more general these catagories.
We certainly have the ability to understand in greater detail, but often do not. Especially for those things we do not value.
Yes, it's a kind of distancing or avoidance. 'I have these theoretical categories about this group of people, and it's quite satisfying really, to pontificate about them, although my direct knowledge of them is limited'.
You could even say that it's necessary to do it, as we need to be able to generalize, but it turns into a kind of reification. It's a bit like eating the menu in a restaurant.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We humans tend to categorise, compartmentalise.
Yep. Every time we use a noun.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If and only if you discount people as being valuable.
There's a word for treating people as valuable: 'slave trading'.
Tell me, do you enjoy making straw man arguments? Can you just not help it? Or are you simply trying to be funny and failing?
I take it you think 'people as being valuable' is sufficiently clear and unproblematic that just using the phrase establishes the difference between 'might is right' and 'right is functional'.
What I was trying to show is that the concepts are neither clear nor unproblematic. Be careful of the metaphors you use: they shape how you go on to think.
My general feeling is that the word 'valuable' unqualified generally means 'valuable because' or 'valuable to'. It means of instrumental value, unless it's qualified by a word like 'intrinsic' or 'inherent'. But those words 'instrinsic' and 'inherent' are doing something not straightforward. If you say something is intrinsically valuable you're committing an oxymoron in order to reject the usual concept of valuable. As a general rule, something is valuable if you can cash it in for something else. Food is valuable to supermarkets and traders who buy it to sell it on; it's not valuable to people who buy it for its own sake as food.
Just to test that hypothesis I did a web search for pages using the words: 'species diversity' and 'valuable'.
Here's the first hit I got:
Here.
It uses 'valuable' in the sense 'valuable to' humans.
Here's The second. That does have one sentence about species being worthy of preservation for their own sake. But mostly again it's defending biodiversity as a valuable resource.
So, on a sample of two, I'd say my instinct about general usage is probably right. If you say 'people are valuable' and you using 'valuable' in a clear and non-oxymoronic sense, you mean people have instrumental value for some purpose.
Saying people are intrinsically valuable - and taking that as a literally meaningful statement - leads to aporias. If people are valuable, are two people twice as valuable as one person? Are fourteen billion people twice as valuable as seven billion? Is it worth each of the seven billion people accepting a fifty per cent cut in quality of life in order to bring another seven billion valuable people into being? Or are there limits to the value of people? Are happy people more valuable than sad people? Or are people only valuable because they have happy experiences, and it's the happy experiences that are worth bringing into being for their own sake? That seems wrong.
Summary: either 'people as being valuable' is too problematic to do any philosophical heavy lifting, or else it really is advocating the slave trade.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Food is valuable to supermarkets and traders who buy it to sell it on; it's not valuable to people who buy it for its own sake as food.
This is the kind of thing that can only be said unironically by someone who has never missed a meal, nor is ever likely to be in that position.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Besides, claiming that morality is evolved so that societies that aren't moral die out is equally 'might is right' if you think about it.
Not really. It's more 'right is functional'.
Same difference.
No. "Might makes right" = "Do what I/we say or get beaten up or exiled (or whatever)."
"Right is functional" = "What moral system keeps the peace best for most of us? Let's stick with that."
As to valuing people, c'mon. You know perfectly well we're talking about being considerate of others and their feelings and priorities.
If somebody comes over the hill with a big enough sharp pointy thing and declares that might is right, then doing what they say is what keeps the peace best for most people.
Right is functional has here been defined as societies that aren't moral die out. It's a reasonable assumption that societies that died out were in conflict with societies that survived. (South American megafauna survived well until it came into conflict with predators from North America and Africa.) So the proposition boils down to saying that right is the ability to survive conflict with other societies.
You say 'being considerate of others and their feelings and priorities' as if that's straightforward. But that's the point at issue here. What is the place of being considerate of others compared to everything else in life? How much of a priority should it be given?
We have two answers:
We should be considerate because someone very mighty says we should or we'll die.
We should be considerate because if societies that don't foster consideration lose out in the struggle for survival, so if we're not considerate we'll die.
I say, they pretty much amount to the same thing if you think about it.
Now, the response goes: they only amount to the same thing if you discount being considerate to others. Which um... no. Only if it is stipulated that being considerate because somebody mighty tells you to doesn't count as being considerate, while being considerate because it enables the survival of your society does count. (Actually, it seems to me that it's the other way round. Valuing other people as means to the end of the survival of one's society seems less like treating people as intrinsically worthy of consideration.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Right is functional has here been defined as societies that aren't moral die out. It's a reasonable assumption that societies that died out were in conflict with societies that survived.
It's a possible assumption, but not necessarily the only one, or even the most reasonable one. Sometimes societies die out by changing (e.g. the Roman Republic ceased to exist because it became the Roman Empire) or because they merge with other societies (e.g. the Medes becoming indistinguishable from the Persian, the Cossack tribes intermarrying with and eventually becoming indistinguishable from other Russians).
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(South American megafauna survived well until it came into conflict with predators from North America and Africa.) So the proposition boils down to saying that right is the ability to survive conflict with other societies.
Interestingly, even your chosen example is a relative rarity. Biological species most often go extinct either by evolving into new species or due to habitat loss. Extinction due to over-predation is fairly uncommon.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If somebody comes over the hill with a big enough sharp pointy thing and declares that might is right, then doing what they say is what keeps the peace best for most people.
Call me crazy, but isn't human history well-littered with the remains of such regimes? A large body of resentful people tends not so much to "peace" over time as it does to plotting the overthrow of those wielding sharp pointy things in ways the resentful disapprove of.
quote:
Right is functional has here been defined as societies that aren't moral die out.
As far as I know, all societies eventually die out. I believe we arrived at a conclusion more like this: societies organized around cooperation tend to last longer than societies organized around being nasty to each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's a reasonable assumption that societies that died out were in conflict with societies that survived.
First, societies can die out from internal conflict.
Second, though it's been quii-i-ite a while since I chugged through History of Western Civ, my admittedly hazy recollection is that intersocietal conflict between previously unequal enemies typically tends to follow the beginnings of a societal dissolution. The Visigoths and/or analogs begin noticing disarray within the nearby empire, and conclude, "Hey! Now's a good time for us barbarians to batter down the gates!"
[fixed code disaster]
[ 26. November 2013, 06:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
No, I'm saying that most atheists are moral people, in spite of their morality not being grounded on anything meaningful.
Give us an example of a morality that is grounded on something meaningful. Explain the necessary connection between the "meaningfulness" and the morality.
I did this somewhere upthread, and Dafyd has done a more thorough job than I have. I tend to go for divine command theory: Good is good because it is the universe functioning in the way its creator meant it to function. If you want to go for more of a virtue ethic, where a good action is one that prepares us for Heaven, that's up to you.
What these approaches have in common is that they define morality a priori according to an external standard, so any action can be checked against the standard and found to be either good or bad. We can disagree about the moral status of an individual action, but we agree that good and bad exist and are basic properties, rather than descriptions that emerge of how we do stuff.
If OTOH good and bad are purely descriptive and come from no higher source than ourselves, that's bad news, because if I wanted to break into your house and torture your children, my idea of morality is just as valid as yours so who's to say that I shouldn't do it? If we define morality communally, that's mob rule and that way lies Godwin. No, I want to be able to say that morality is something absolute - that a bad thing is absolutely bad, all of the time. To do that I need a static reference point outside of humanity, against which humanity can be measured. God provides that. Nobody else on here has yet given an atheistic definition of good and bad that is more than a set of developed conventions.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Nobody else on here has yet given an atheistic definition of good and bad that is more than a set of developed conventions.
I've yet to see a theistic definition that doesn't contain qualifiers, therefore more truly a developed set of conventions as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I tend to go for divine command theory: Good is good because it is the universe functioning in the way its creator meant it to function.
The problem here, as I see it, is that if atheistic morality functions much the same way that theistic / Christian morality functions, then atheistic morality is "good . . because it is the universe functioning in the way its [alleged] creator meant it to function."
For much of the beginning of this thread, you seemed determined to draw distinctions between atheist morality (and I don't actually think there is one identifiable atheist morality) and the morality to which you, as a Christian, subscribe (and again, I see plenty of diversity among the Christians on this Ship when they discuss moral issues).
If an atheist individual's morality is essentially the same as a Christian individual's morality, what is the problem? If the God you believe in both exists and has the kinds of powers Christians generally ascribe, it's perfectly possible to also believe that this Almighty also manages affairs so that atheists do God's will.
Let me add here, though seekingsister has departed the thread, that she (along with others) seem to assume that atheism somehow precludes spirituality. I don't agree The fact that I don't subscribe to the concept of a godhead doesn't mean that I reject the notion of spirituality (though I'm aware that some atheists do).
As to an "external standard," the fact that the majority of humans seem to be born with a basic moral system already "installed," as it were, argues that this innate standard is both external and internal.
It's external in that we apparently don't make it up out of whole cloth, and internal in that (assuming we're not sociopaths), most of us operate on its basis without reference to any subsequent learning.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
What these approaches have in common is that they define morality a priori according to an external standard, so any action can be checked against the standard and found to be either good or bad. We can disagree about the moral status of an individual action, but we agree that good and bad exist and are basic properties, rather than descriptions that emerge of how we do stuff.
The problem is that this approach fails on its own supposed merits. If there truly is an external standard there shouldn't be any disagreement "about the moral status of an individual action", you can just check against the external standard, much the same way you'd check to see if Pierre or Sioux Falls is the capital of South Dakota. To take your own example:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If OTOH good and bad are purely descriptive and come from no higher source than ourselves, that's bad news, because if I wanted to break into your house and torture your children, my idea of morality is just as valid as yours so who's to say that I shouldn't do it?
So the person who broke into your house (let's call him "John Yoo") says he's checked with the external moral standard of the universe, the standard says it's A-OK to torture your children. That makes it moral, right? Is there any way to resolve the impasse beyond an infinite cycle of "Does not! Does too!"?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If we define morality communally, that's mob rule and that way lies Godwin. No, I want to be able to say that morality is something absolute - that a bad thing is absolutely bad, all of the time. To do that I need a static reference point outside of humanity, against which humanity can be measured. God provides that.
Which is why all believers in God, regardless of religion, follow the exact same moral code! Because not only is there "a static reference point", it can be measured in an objective manner with a moralometer.
Except we don't have calibrated instruments to measure morality and most "static reference point(s) outside of humanity" sound suspiciously like the humans "measuring" that objective, external morality. Your argument boils down to saying that it would be really convenient if some vastly superior intelligence dictated a moral code to us so we wouldn't have to expend so much effort thinking for ourselves. And yes, it would be convenient. But just because something would be personally convenient for you doesn't make it true!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Croesus wrote:
Except we don't have calibrated instruments to measure morality and most "static reference point(s) outside of humanity" sound suspiciously like the humans "measuring" that objective, external morality. Your argument boils down to saying that it would be really convenient if some vastly superior intelligence dictated a moral code to us so we wouldn't have to expend so much effort thinking for ourselves. And yes, it would be convenient. But just because something would be personally convenient for you doesn't make it true!
Yes, it sounds a bit like the 3 card trick to me.
Or if you like, it's a guess. OK, it's an elaborate and suitably aesthetic guess, but still a guess.
How does anyone know that that external moral arbiter exists? - I suppose because I say so. OK, you can dress that up in sonorous theological language, or with a few 'absolutes' and 'objectives' thrown in, but it still means, because I say so.
[ 26. November 2013, 04:52: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I tend to go for divine command theory: Good is good because it is the universe functioning in the way its creator meant it to function.
The thing is, Dinghy Sailor, I suspect there's a subtext here. I kind of suspect that if the question were "Where does Quakers' morality come from," and I said, "The Inward Light, that is given by God to all people," you wouldn't be a lot more comfortable with that--even after I explained how Friends exercise discernment as a community, etc. Even though it's divine command authority at its most basic. Some of my previous posts have been a bit hyperbolic, I admit. But I do believe there's a psychological element in this: the people who claim that atheists have no business believing in morality just don't feel comfortable unless there is a human telling them what to do, and then adding "Thus saieth the Lord." At bottom, it's about authority.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
For those accusing me of smearing atheists, please show me an atheist/rationalist philosophy that emphasizes unconditional forgiveness.
Atheism is one thing - a lack of belief in any gods; it hasn't got a philosophy. The Humanist Association has some statements which its members generally accept, but from a personal point of view, I wonder why 'unconditional forgiveness' is absolutely, and always, the right thing?
If a person callously, without apparent motive, murders a person dear to me, I could investigate and possibly begin to understand the psychology of that murderer. Should I forgive that person? I'd first have to decide what the word forgiveness means here. If I chose to brood on the matter and constantly to hold bitter feelings, I would be most damaged, not the murderer.
[ 26. November 2013, 06:25: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Food is valuable to supermarkets and traders who buy it to sell it on; it's not valuable to people who buy it for its own sake as food.
This is the kind of thing that can only be said unironically by someone who has never missed a meal, nor is ever likely to be in that position.
It's much easier to find put downs if you take remarks out of context isn't it?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
What these approaches have in common is that they define morality a priori according to an external standard, so any action can be checked against the standard and found to be either good or bad.
At the risk of almost repeating my question from earlier, how do you do this? Where is the check list? Can you send me a copy?
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
There is, of course, the morality that doesn't do evil because of the standard that is accepted, the code that is lived by.
But there is also the positive morality that actively lives out its morality. Christians spend an awful lot of time, effort and money in organised expressions of their morality - I couldn't begin to list everything that is done locally - I'd miss loads of it out.
I was just wondering what do atheists actually do? ...
I mean, what good are they to society?
What are they for...?
If the churches shut down for a month and all the Chruistians who work and volunteer stayed hiklme and watched the television, the world would go to pot!
If all the atheist organisations closed down and all the humanists shut up, would the community miss them?
It's no good being moral if it doesn't lead to anything.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
What are they for? Wow, I can't believe that someone has just written that about atheists.
My whole family were atheists. For example, both my grandfathers were atheists, and both fought in WWI, and one of them was a POW, and had to work in a German salt mine for years.
So maybe, just maybe, those atheists fought for their country, and helped defend it.
One of my aunts was an atheist, and she spent her life going around in a mobile X-ray van, helping to defeat TB. That's what she was for.
Well, I could go on, but the question is asinine really. Who was it who said that the most off-putting thing about Christianity is the Christians?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Let me add here, though seekingsister has departed the thread, that she (along with others) seem to assume that atheism somehow precludes spirituality.
What I was saying is that atheist morality that goes beyond what is rational and useful to the individual, is in itself a belief system.
Now that belief system may be Buddhism, as lilBuddha points to, or it can be post-Christian/post-Judaism/post-religion as I mentioned, or it can be secular humanism. But it's a faith-based view that all human beings have worth and deserve equal rights. Because reality tells us something very different.
We have seen many societies that treat human beings like animals because it suits their economic or political or religious purposes. It is not a given, that an atheist would just come to determine that humanity has a special meaning. Life experience would be unlikely to lead one to such a conclusion.
So where does atheist morality come from? I would say, from religion or faith-based philosophies such as humanism. I do not believe it is possible to reason oneself to this position. It is something that one either believes or does not believe. It cannot be proven.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I wasn't particularly meaning individuals - because I am all too aware of some lovely, caring and hard-working people who are atheists. There's one in my congregation who would do anything to help. There is another self-confessed 'not-religious-in-the-slightest' person working in a local refugee service - and of course many people are non-religious without being overtly and active atheists. I do suggest that this is because they are within Christian environments and culture.
But I stand by the basic premise of what I have written. Christians have formed themselves into active communities of service for centuries - medicine, education, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor; they have campaigned for prison reform, the abolishing of slavery, etc, etc. They are in every community, every church hall, volunteering, helping, serving in so many ways from parent and toddlers through to OAP lunchclubs.
I have know credit unions, charity shops, winter shelters for the homeless and even now the majority of food banks where the managers, the committee and most of the volunteers are Christians working out of church premises with church backing and support.
My point is that morality is not what people don't do, but what they do in a positive way - and I do not see atheists banding together to use their atheism as a foundation, a motivation for helping the community.
In actual fact, what I do hear from atheists is a rather destructive mentality that, instead of building up communities and supporting the work done by Christians in the community, actively seeks to silence the Christian voice and confine it to the realms of personal, 'do-it-in-your-own-homes-and-don't-bother-the-rest-of-us', observance.
When I see a worldwide movement of atheists visibly and actively serving their community, giving shed-loads of money and supporting orgasnised programmes large and small as a result of their convictions, ethics and morality, then I will say that atheism has something positive to offer the world.
As I said, if trhe church was silent and inactive for a month the world wouldn't know what had hit it!
If atheists were silent our communities wouldn't notice.
[ 26. November 2013, 12:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Right is functional has here been defined as societies that aren't moral die out. It's a reasonable assumption that societies that died out were in conflict with societies that survived.
It's a possible assumption, but not necessarily the only one, or even the most reasonable one. Sometimes societies die out by changing (e.g. the Roman Republic ceased to exist because it became the Roman Empire) or because they merge with other societies (e.g. the Medes becoming indistinguishable from the Persian, the Cossack tribes intermarrying with and eventually becoming indistinguishable from other Russians).
Wikipedia on The Cossacks:
quote:
The Empire responded by ruthless executions and tortures, the destruction of the western part of the Don Cossack Host during the Bulavin Rebellion in 1707–1708, the destruction of Baturyn after Mazepa's rebellion in 1708,[11] and the formal dissolution of the Lower Dnieper Zaporozhian Host in 1775, after Pugachev's Rebellion.
That sounds rather like saying the American Indian nations merged into the United States.
Describing the Roman Republic as a separate society from the Roman Empire also seems problematic. Gaul and North Africa and Greece probably didn't notice any significant difference in the people ruling them.
Either way, I think Roman Republicans such as Cicero would have been puzzled to think that the transition to an Empire was an example of right is functionality, and not might makes right. Octavian of course would have maintained that it was completely different from might makes right.
Right as functionality and might makes right both take as sufficient justification of the present power relations that they are the present power relations.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(South American megafauna survived well until it came into conflict with predators from North America and Africa.) So the proposition boils down to saying that right is the ability to survive conflict with other societies.
Interestingly, even your chosen example is a relative rarity. Biological species most often go extinct either by evolving into new species or due to habitat loss. Extinction due to over-predation is fairly uncommon.
One of the most significant mass extinctions in the history of life on this planet is almost entirely the work of one predator from Africa with a few follower species such as rats and cats.
But you're right that predation isn't the major driver - Darwin posited that competition with similar species was the major force. Grey squirrels don't predate on red squirrels, but they're in conflict.
(I'd think habitat loss is probably relatively minor except where accompanied by competition with species better adapted to the new habitat, or precipated with extraordinary rapidity as now. I question whether evolution of one species into a new species really counts as extinction.)
On the subject of food being valuable: my point was that calling food 'valuable' is an understatement of its importance to someone who doesn't know where their next meal is coming from. Classical economists and free market ideologists call food valuable and thereby assimilate its importance to buying a new designer handbag. It's the ideological trick that states that both the bottom rung of Walmart employees and the top rung of Walmart employees are making rational allocation of their economic resources subject to constraints, and thereby imply that no special moral questions are raised by the difference. 'Valuable' is an understatement.
[ 26. November 2013, 12:46: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Do you think that if the discussion here were not about morals but about ethics, there might be more grounds for agreement? Ethics, although related to morality, is more seen as a human construct' the Golden Rule, fairness and harm.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I find this idea of atheists banding together, to do good, quite bizarre, since atheism is simply an absence of a certain belief.
Why would an absence of a belief lead people to form clubs or societies? Well, they might do, in order to debate stuff, as there are in fact, internet forums with lots of atheists, usually labelled 'skeptical' or the like.
But other than that, it just seems a bizarre idea to me. I know that atheists compare this to people who don't collect stamps forming a club - aphilatelists of the world, unite, and don't collect stamps!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I find this idea of atheists banding together, to do good, quite bizarre, since atheism is simply an absence of a certain belief.
Why would an absence of a belief lead people to form clubs or societies? Well, they might do, in order to debate stuff, as there are in fact, internet forums with lots of atheists, usually labelled 'skeptical' or the like.
There are atheist CHURCHES for God's sake. Well, they're not for God's sake, I guess. Why does this absence of belief lead people to form clubs or societies? You'd have to ask those people. But it quite clearly does.
quote:
But other than that, it just seems a bizarre idea to me.
If everything that was a bizarre idea didn't exist, the world would be a very different place.
quote:
I know that atheists compare this to people who don't collect stamps forming a club - aphilatelists of the world, unite, and don't collect stamps!
And yet it exists, so those atheists are either saying their fellow atheists are really stupid, or the analogy is just wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are atheist CHURCHES for God's sake. Well, they're not for God's sake, I guess. Why does this absence of belief lead people to form clubs or societies? You'd have to ask those people. But it quite clearly does.
Perhaps it's because they're a despised minority in a way aphilatelists aren't. In other words, if the wider society stigmatizes atheists as inherently immoral outsiders, it gives them a reason to band together.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are atheist CHURCHES for God's sake. Well, they're not for God's sake, I guess. Why does this absence of belief lead people to form clubs or societies? You'd have to ask those people. But it quite clearly does.
.....
And yet it exists, so those atheists are either saying their fellow atheists are really stupid, or the analogy is just wrong.
I'm sure some of my fellow atheists are stupid (and they have the same opinion of me). Among them are people of all types including some who want some kind of church - as I believe some people who call themselves Christians claim to have no need of a church.
We aren't defined by just one thing, I doubt it's the atheism of atheists that 'lead's them to form churches - it's just they get a kick out of being with like-minded people. Personally I like hearing what people with different ideas think. So I come here.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
OK, there are atheist churches, but Mudfrog was asking why there isn't a worldwide movement of atheists doing good. I think one reason for that is that atheism is an absence of belief in God.
How can an absence of something lead to a movement? It's quite likely that lots of atheists don't want to do good on a grand scale, since they are not identified with being atheists, in any case. Not believing in God may not be at the forefront of their minds, really, just as not collecting stamps isn't at the forefront of mine.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: There are atheist CHURCHES for God's sake.
My impression is that these are some local initiatives, and not an awful lot of atheists are involved in them. But maybe I'm wrong.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I did this somewhere upthread, and Dafyd has done a more thorough job than I have. I tend to go for divine command theory: Good is good because it is the universe functioning in the way its creator meant it to function.
Divine Command Theory is, as many have pointed out, a Might Makes Right theory. It also boils down to "What is good?" "Whatever God says." "Why is God Good?" "Because God is God." That's not a moral foundation, that's a moral evasion.
quote:
What these approaches have in common is that they define morality a priori according to an external standard, so any action can be checked against the standard and found to be either good or bad.
As I have demonstrated on this thread, if this were anything more than pure undiluted wishful thinking then the people who claimed to have an objective theory of morality with the same basis would actually agree. If they don't (as they don't) while claiming the objective basis then we can see that the objective basis is at best only theoretical and probably just a mirage.
quote:
If OTOH good and bad are purely descriptive and come from no higher source than ourselves, that's bad news, because if I wanted to break into your house and torture your children, my idea of morality is just as valid as yours so who's to say that I shouldn't do it?
As almost every moral system has built into it some measure of reciprocity you could only morally do that if you accepted that me breaking into your house to torture your kids was good. It's both or neither.
On the other hand if we go by your approaches, if you believe that your objective moral standard tells you to stone my family to death who is to tell you that you are wrong? Who can override your supposed objective morality? No one, that's who. Because, despite the fact that even most people who claim to agree with it in practice don't you claim that yours is the right way.
quote:
No, I want to be able to say that morality is something absolute - that a bad thing is absolutely bad, all of the time.
And I want world peace and a pony. The pony is the only one likely to happen unless you simply don't care whether anyone agrees with you.
quote:
To do that I need a static reference point outside of humanity, against which humanity can be measured. God provides that.
Nice rhetoric. Completely counter-factual when we look at how humans who believe in God behave. If almost every single person of the book can agree on the theoretical morality of every action then you could make the argument that God provides the static reference point. However they do not. The supposedly static reference point is demonstrably a complete and utter failure. But the arrogant claim that you do have a static reference point can be used to justify anything.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What I was saying is that atheist morality that goes beyond what is rational and useful to the individual, is in itself a belief system.
Can you find a link which leads to an atheist morality?
Atheism is not a belief system. I behave in a lawful, moral way because it is the best way. No god watches me and if a question arises as to whether something is moral or not, I think it out for myself as best I can, based on the golden rule. Being human, I make mistakes too.
Morality does not come from religions or faiths, religions and faiths made successful human behaviour into rules.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's much easier to find put downs if you take remarks out of context isn't it?
Says the person who attempted to pervert my words to claim that I was making a pro-slavery argument.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps it's because they're a despised minority in a way aphilatelists aren't. In other words, if the wider society stigmatizes atheists as inherently immoral outsiders, it gives them a reason to band together.
True but not relevant to what I said. I wasn't impugning atheists at all, merely refuting the idea that atheists don't band together to do things.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I doubt it's the atheism of atheists that 'lead's them to form churches - it's just they get a kick out of being with like-minded people. Personally I like hearing what people with different ideas think. So I come here.
I don't see at all how this refutes what I said. Neither I nor Quetzalcoatl claimed that it was the atheism of atheists that did or didn't cause them to band together. The claim was that atheists never band together to do things. That is refuted by the existence of atheist churches. That they advertise as ATHEIST churches, making the atheism their selling point rather than under some other banner, I think refutes your point.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: There are atheist CHURCHES for God's sake.
My impression is that these are some local initiatives, and not an awful lot of atheists are involved in them. But maybe I'm wrong.
Not seeing the relevance to my point. I wasn't positing a worldwide movement among atheists. Merely that atheists get together and do things jointly qua atheists.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is, of course, the morality that doesn't do evil because of the standard that is accepted, the code that is lived by.
But there is also the positive morality that actively lives out its morality. Christians spend an awful lot of time, effort and money in organised expressions of their morality - I couldn't begin to list everything that is done locally - I'd miss loads of it out.
I was just wondering what do atheists actually do? ...
I mean, what good are they to society?
What are they for...?
If the churches shut down for a month and all the Chruistians who work and volunteer stayed hiklme and watched the television, the world would go to pot!
If all the atheist organisations closed down and all the humanists shut up, would the community miss them?
One. There are not as many atheists in organisations as they are not grouped like Christians. Therefore efficiency is an issue.
Two, whilst Christians do give more than atheists, records show athiests do give, and not in insignificant numbers.
Three, what about us others? Do we count as atheists in your book since we either do not worship any God or worship other gods?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's no good being moral if it doesn't lead to anything.
One, it leads to better treatment of others.
Two, it is worse claiming morals but achieving net negative results. Especially if your moral standards are written down for you.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Atheism is merely a reaction. It is negative, empty, impotent, unproductive, anti-community and intolerant.
I would suggest that it is amoral.
Atheism contributes nothing positive, has never fostered a rise in morality (rather the opposite), has created no code of ethics, no raising of the human condition, has merely borrowed its moraility from the faith traditions.
Like a sponge atheism merely soaks up the benefits of whatever society atheists inhabit; it is like a chameleon, merely reflecting the changing times and culture.
It influences nothing in a positive way but merely protests about a faith it doesn't pretend to or want to understand.
It sneers, misrepresents, controls, persecutes and stifles.
...and before anyone wants to accuse the Church of displaying some of those same negative attitudes, I say that I have to agree. When the Church behaves as if there was no God then it displays the atheist spirit by ignoring his Spirit and denigrating, ignoring or twisting his character and word.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It influences nothing in a positive way but merely protests about a faith it doesn't pretend to or want to understand.
That may be true of Atheism.
But atheist people influence countless areas in positive ways. Every one of us knows atheists who have influenced us/events/society/reactions for the better - don't we?
I know I do.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It influences nothing in a positive way but merely protests about a faith it doesn't pretend to or want to understand.
That may be true of Atheism.
But atheist people influence countless areas in positive ways. Every one of us knows atheists who have influenced us/events/society/reactions for the better - don't we?
I know I do.
As I wrote yesterday, and repeat today:
quote:
I wasn't particularly meaning individuals - because I am all too aware of some lovely, caring and hard-working people who are atheists. There's one in my congregation who would do anything to help. There is another self-confessed 'not-religious-in-the-slightest' person working in a local refugee service - and of course many people are non-religious without being overtly and active atheists. I do suggest that this is because they are within Christian environments and culture.
But regardless of personal morality - which I still assert is merely a reflection of the morality of their surrounding culture - which in the UK is Judeao-Christian - atheism as a concept has no morality of its own.
[ 27. November 2013, 07:31: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Several of my favorite authors are atheists, and I appreciate their outside-looking-in POV to the spiritual.
How cool is this one? Spoken by Granny Weatherwax a woman without faith: quote:
“You say that you people don’t burn folk and sacrifice people anymore, but that’s what true faith would mean, y’see? Sacrificin’ your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin’ the truth of it, workin’ for it, breathin’ the soul of it. That’s religion. Anything else is just . . . is just bein’ nice. And a way of keepin’ in touch with the neighbors.”
― Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
And this sounds like a moral position to me: quote:
“Do you see how an act is not, as young men think, like a rock that one picks up and throws, and it hits or misses, and that's the end of it. When that rock is lifted, the earth is lighter; the hand that bears it heavier. When it is thrown, the circuits of the stars respond, and where it strikes or falls, the universe is changed. On every act the balance of the whole depends. The winds and seas, the powers of water and earth an light, all that these do, and all that the beasts and green things do, is well done, and rightly done. All these act within the Equilibrium. From the hurricane and the great whale's sounding to the fall of a dry leaf and the gnat's flight, all they do is done within the balance of the whole.
But we, insofar as we have power over the world and over one another, we must learn to do what the leaf and the whale and the wind do of their own nature. We must learn to keep the balance. Having intelligence, we must not act in ignorance. Having choice, we must not act without responsibility.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Farthest Shore
Just because religions got there first with moral codes doesn't mean atheists are necessarily without well-thought morality.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and before anyone wants to accuse the Church of displaying some of those same negative attitudes, I say that I have to agree. When the Church behaves as if there was no God then it displays the atheist spirit by ignoring his Spirit and denigrating, ignoring or twisting his character and word.
And presumably if you ever came across an atheist doing good you could say they don't count because they were being unknowingly influenced by God's spirit.
I see no way out. In this world I am like a frog in a dry well.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The point being that neither of these authors live on a desert island without any Christian culture or 'backstory' as it were.
I read Usula LeGuin as a teenager but didn't know much about her and so I looked her up and read that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was a great influence on her. There's a discussion that has gone on for decades about the spiritual basis of the LOTR. Can it really all have passed her and Pratchett by?
I remain convinced that the culture of the day, in which atheistic authors were brought up with, will either be actively rejected or unconsciously absorbed into their own personal worldview. They will not have been a blank canvas upon which they painted their own, original and equally valid morality.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and before anyone wants to accuse the Church of displaying some of those same negative attitudes, I say that I have to agree. When the Church behaves as if there was no God then it displays the atheist spirit by ignoring his Spirit and denigrating, ignoring or twisting his character and word.
And presumably if you ever came across an atheist doing good you could say they don't count because they were being unknowingly influenced by God's spirit.
I see no way out. In this world I am like a frog in a dry well.
Actually yes, I would indeed say that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
And every virtue we possess,
And every victory won,
And every thought of holiness,
Are his alone.
(From 'Our blest redeemer, ere he breathed'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yet Buddhism has produced profound philosophy, and an elevated moral sensibility.
Oh, I forgot, we have to define 'atheism' so that it excludes things like Buddhism.
Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, and whatever suits my argument, so there.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I remain convinced that the culture of the day, in which atheistic authors were brought up with, will either be actively rejected or unconsciously absorbed into their own personal worldview. They will not have been a blank canvas upon which they painted their own, original and equally valid morality.
I agree. Though not so sure of the significance. It will always be true that we grow up with the ideas of our societies around us and either absorb or reject them. Or sometimes transform them into something new. Is that what you are saying? If so I don't think anyone can disagree with you.
Some might say that it is what you do with those received ideas that counts. You absorb the ones which in your view (equally affected by your culture and experience) are 'good' and reject the 'bad'. Had atheists rejected all religious morality you could say they are monsters, if they accept large parts of it you imply they are somehow cheating.
I'd say my ethical ideas come from a mix of Judeao / Buddhist / Humanist traditions with perhaps a bit too much of Chung Tzu thrown in. Sorry if I've cheated. I'll try and be a better (worse?) atheist in the future.
Or maybe I'll just get on with my life.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Mudfrog: quote:
I remain convinced that the culture of the day, in which atheistic authors were brought up with, will either be actively rejected or unconsciously absorbed into their own personal worldview. They will not have been a blank canvas upon which they painted their own, original and equally valid morality.
Well, yeah, isn't that true of everything? Would Einstein have been "Einstein" without Isaac Newton or even Pythagoras? No. But does that make him less of a genius? Again, I think not. Morality works for humanity whether you view it as part of God's creation or as part of the pattern of natural selection. It tends to produce a world where there is stability enough for peace, prosperity, and creativity. That isn't hard to see. As a theist, I believe God built it into the system. A person who doesn't believe in God can still see the pattern and promote it.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point being that neither of these authors live on a desert island without any Christian culture or 'backstory' as it were.
And neither do our churches live on desert islands without any secular influence. In some cases churches have been forced to behave in more moral ways because of the secular law that governs them.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Atheism is not a belief system.
That is the point I'm making Susan. I'm not sure what you are struggling to understand.
Atheists who have a morality that goes beyond that which is of material use to the individual, MUST (in my view) have ANOTHER belief system. Buddhism, humanism. Pick what you like.
That atheists claim their morality comes from some internal sense of right and wrong - I believe they are deluding themselves. Look how the atheists in North Korea behave, or the ones in China. There are plenty of societies that have organized around atheism that have no exhibited anything remotely approaching a moral character - USSR, Cambodia. (NOTE: religious societies have also done bad things, save yourself the effort of mentioning the Crusades or Inquisition here). It's not a "natural" way of being to think that caring for the poor or needy or the ethnic minority is the right thing to do.
You claim that belief systems simply copy what is observed as "successful behavior" and codify it. If the behavior was evidently successful, why would it need to be codified at all? Is China, for all of its human rights abuses and persecution of the religious and forced control of women's bodies, not "successful?"
Atheism without another philosophy or belief system that ascribes value to humanity cannot be moral. Because what makes the most rational sense is to protect oneself and one's family/community/nation at the expense of others if necessary. One life to live so maximize it. There's no afterlife or reincarnation so why bother with moral questions, just focus on survival. In the West this may seem extreme but go to a poor developing country with limited resources and it will make quite a bit more sense.
Most Western atheists are either post-Judeo/Christian or humanist in their philosophies, and they tend to assume that all atheists in all environments and in all contexts would come to the same conclusions about moral behavior, rights, etc. They are wrong.
[ 27. November 2013, 08:21: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point being that neither of these authors live on a desert island without any Christian culture or 'backstory' as it were.
And neither do our churches live on desert islands without any secular influence. In some cases churches have been forced to behave in more moral ways because of the secular law that governs them.
Yes, somebody earlier in the thread, possibly Justinian, said that the churches have been playing catch-up morals in recent years, on issues such as equality for women and gays.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's not a "natural" way of being to think that caring for the poor or needy or the ethnic minority is the right thing to do.
I agree with a lot of what you say but it may be more natural than you suppose. After all we are a social animal and can see some traits in other animals which might be be precursors of human ethical views.
As social animals we would have lived in smallish groups. The loss of group members would be serious if we were threatened by predators. A certain minimum is needed to survive - and to ensure sufficient genetic diversity. So the creatures could have an advantage in being 'selfishly altruistic'. Older members might be weaker but have useful skills, knowledge etc.
I appreciate this is only a `just so' story. It may not have been like that at all. But I think it is an argument against a view that morality cannot be explained naturalistically. And if it is possible, it might have happened.
Most Western atheists are either post-Judeo/Christian or humanist in their philosophies, and they tend to assume that all atheists in all environments and in all contexts would come to the same conclusions about moral behavior, rights, etc. They are wrong.
And on this I agree entirely. I think we delude ourselves. Not least because it enables us to see those who are different as less human. I.e. if they were like us they wouldn't behave like that, but everyone's basically the same so they can't really see the world as they claim. Which makes them hypocrites, criminals, terrorists, Christians, atheists or whatever Other currently angers or frightens us. Personally I'm aware the people who annoy me most on SoF are those who share some of my faults - and I really hate admitting that.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
seekingsister wrote:
Most Western atheists are either post-Judeo/Christian or humanist in their philosophies, and they tend to assume that all atheists in all environments and in all contexts would come to the same conclusions about moral behavior, rights, etc. They are wrong.
I am just curious about who you mean here, by 'they', who are assuming a universal kind of morals for atheists.
Did you have any specific thinkers or writers in mind?
I quite often take part in debates with atheists on other forums, and I would have said the opposite, that there was a very wide spectrum of ideas about morality. But I am always eager to learn more, so who do you mean?
A recent example was Sam Harris's book 'The Moral Landscape', which attempted to construct a morality from various scientific ideas. Although a few atheists have supported it, it also received a fierce pummeling from many others.
[ 27. November 2013, 08:51: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, sorry to double up, but that question to seekingsister made me think about atheist thinkers who have contributed interesting ideas on morality.
Here are a few that I can think of:
Slavoj Zizek, Bernard Williams, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Santayana, B. Russell, Rorty, Rawls, Nietzsche, Mill, Colin McGinn, Mackie, Foucault, Paul Edwards, Dewey, Deleuze, Simon Blackburn, de Beauvoir, Badiou, A. J. Ayer.
Please add others!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
