Atheist Morality

Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheist Morality

The conversation usually goes like this:

 

Theist: So who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Atheist: The individual does.

T: So if I decide that murder is okay, then it is okay?

A: No, because we have laws against that.

T: So then the government gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

A: Yes, we have to act in a way that is most beneficial to society.

T: Okay, so then are you saying that murder is okay if a government allows it, such as Nazi Germany?

A: No, because no society would survive if murder was allowed.

T: What if murder of specific groups was allowed?  For example, what if a society said that it is okay to kill disabled individuals since they have no ability to contribute to the proliferation of society in any meaningful way.  Certainly, society could survive and even become more affluent if we allowed that.

A: That would be wrong, because we are biologically wired to have empathy, which precludes us from doing that kind of a thing.

T: Okay, so you just changed your position.  You first stated that a group of individuals get to decide what is right and what is wrong, now you are saying that our morals are given to us by our brain chemistry.

A: I didn't change my position.  I believe all of these factors work in conjunction.

T: But they do not, because we can both agree that murder would not be okay if a group of individuals said it was.  According to you, that line of thinking is based on our neurological wiring.  So let me ask you this: How do you account for individuals like Charles Manson or John Gacy?

A: Those were sociopaths.  They lack empathy due to mental illness.

T: So you are saying that all people have empathy, and if I introduce you to any one human without it, you automatically label him a "sociopath"?
That's known as an "ad hoc maneuver".  Furthermore, you are operating under a presupposition that wiring for empathy gives us a universal "ought" while the morality of the sociopath is flawed.  Why should the empathetic person get to decide what is right?  You are deriving an ought from an is, without any appropriate connection between the two.

A: Then our metric can be evolutionary advantage.  We cannot build a society if certain behavior is allowed.

T: I've just explained that we could.  If we allowed the killing of disabled people, society would more than likely go on and be more prospereous.  We would weed out the weak and maintain the strong.  I would presume that a society would have to be governed by sociopaths in order for this to be allowed.  Imagine that, an affluent society being run by sociopaths.  It is conceivable, isn't it?

A: So you believe that God gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? 

T: Yes and no.  God does not decide.  He has a certain character and morality is a manifestation of that character.  We are created in His image and therefore we have a moral code written in our hearts. 

A: Then how do you account for immorality in the world?  And why are atheists able to be moral?

T: Our nature is fallen, but all people-- including atheists-- are created in His image.  Only an eternal being who is good by his very nature can account for eternal values.  If God doesn't exist, then anything can be permitted at any given time.

A: Whatever.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no way to avoid the

There is no way to avoid the fact that a moral decision involves personal judgement.

Basing your moral decisions on a particular interpretation, among many, of the pronouncements ascribed to a particular invisible supernatural entity, among several options, who you have chosen to believe in, involves a whole bunch of decisions with little or no actual evidence to justify going one way or another.

Whereas we base our decisions on 'right' or 'wrong' on weighing the amount of directly perceived harm and suffering to members of our larger group, inflicted  or avoided by some course of action. Still subject to personal judgements, but judgements all directly relevant to the issues, not dragging in a whole mythology of other considerations.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 One of the best arguments

 One of the best arguments I read recently is that humans--in fact, most creatures--have an ingrained aversion to killing their own kind except under very extreme circumstances. In order therefore to justify the killing of another person, we require some ideology larger than our own sense of right and wrong, namely patriotism or religion, to short circuit that wiring. If true, that would suggest that religion doesn't prevent murder at all, but in fact allows it to be permissible.

R


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote: One of

smartypants wrote:

 One of the best arguments I read recently is that humans--in fact, most creatures--have an ingrained aversion to killing their own kind except under very extreme circumstances. In order therefore to justify the killing of another person, we require some ideology larger than our own sense of right and wrong, namely patriotism or religion, to short circuit that wiring. If true, that would suggest that religion doesn't prevent murder at all, but in fact allows it to be permissible.

R

I think that is a fairly logical conclusion.

As I said in my first post, most people derive basic morals (I think) from the judgment of "would I want this done to me or mine?"  Killing is something that people usually don't want done to themselves so they really hesitate to kill others.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
SapphireMind

SapphireMind wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 One of the best arguments I read recently is that humans--in fact, most creatures--have an ingrained aversion to killing their own kind except under very extreme circumstances. In order therefore to justify the killing of another person, we require some ideology larger than our own sense of right and wrong, namely patriotism or religion, to short circuit that wiring. If true, that would suggest that religion doesn't prevent murder at all, but in fact allows it to be permissible.

R

I think that is a fairly logical conclusion.

As I said in my first post, most people derive basic morals (I think) from the judgment of "would I want this done to me or mine?"  Killing is something that people usually don't want done to themselves so they really hesitate to kill others.

Exactly, and there's a perfectly good evolutionary explanation for that, obviously, that must be quite primal. Killing off members of one's own species is a really great way to ensure its extinction. But just psychologically, I'm a strong pacifist anyway, but the whole idea of another person losing their life by my hand is abhorrent, and produces a knee-jerk reaction like a powerful nausea to my very core. I don't think I'm alone in having that sensation(?). I would have to have what I believed to be a VERY good reason to ignore it.