Atheist- Morals and Philosophy
Offline "Atheism" isn't much of a philosophy, it's just a part of a lot of different ones. I'm curious to see which philosophy the Atheists here identify, and their thoughts on morality.
- Login to post comments
Offline Could you please explain how you have come to this conclusion?
Yes. Evolultion is a system which is determined not by survival, but by reproduction. (Evolution doesn't care how long you survive after you reproduce, unless you have to raise your child!)
According to game theory, in a social species (in which each member cannot be completely self-sufficient, such as humans), the math works out best if I give you a little bit of what I have, with the understanding that should roles be reversed, you will do the same. In such a scenario, all members benefit more than in any other scenario, such as if one person hoards as much as possible, or if nobody ever helps anyone, or if helping is entirely random.
Put simply, it was more beneficial for our ancestors to practice reciprocal altruism. Thus, those who did so became more successful at reproducing.
Pleasure is nature's way of encouraging behavior. Humans like sweets because sweetness was a way to tell good fruit from bad fruit, and humans who developed a fondness for sweets were healthier, and thus more reproductively successful, than those who did not. In the same way, humans who enjoy being good to their neighbors were reproductively favored, such that eventually, all humans came to have an innate desire to "be good," and experience psychological pleasure from doing so.
It is such a controversial idea that using it as a foundation for morality seems shaky at best.
Altruism is politically shaky, but I'm not aware of any significant controversy on the game theory or evolutionary level.
I think existence is a good basis and pretty unfalsifiable at that.
Existence only takes us so far. I know I exist, and I know you exist. So what? I'm going to go live on the lake, and never speak to you.
Unless each of us has something to gain from the other, we're not going to form social bonds. Yet, unless you and I have exactly equal quantities of our wares, we will reach a point where one of us has, and the other has not. If the one who has is not willing to make an uneven trade (altruism), our relationship will end.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline According to game theory, in a social species (in which each member cannot be completely self-sufficient, such as humans), the math works out best if I give you a little bit of what I have, with the understanding that should roles be reversed, you will do the same. In such a scenario, all members benefit more than in any other scenario, such as if one person hoards as much as possible, or if nobody ever helps anyone, or if helping is entirely random.
this whole paragraph seems to contradict, by definition, altruism.
reciprocal altruism
This seems to suffer an internal contradiction.
Pleasure is nature's way of encouraging behavior. Humans like sweets because sweetness was a way to tell good fruit from bad fruit, and humans who developed a fondness for sweets were healthier, and thus more reproductively successful, than those who did not. In the same way, humans who enjoy being good to their neighbors were reproductively favored, such that eventually, all humans came to have an innate desire to "be good," and experience psychological pleasure from doing so.
The only problem with using our evolutionary past as a means for deriving morality is the fact that we are able to overcome our genetic tendencies, with genes being the main proponent of the evolutionary process. With the advent of consciousness (and no, I don't want to debate how consciousness manifests itself) I think a new basis for morality is neccesary.
Altruism is politically shaky, but I'm not aware of any significant controversy on the game theory or evolutionary level.
I mean more specifically the definition of altruism. The word by its own definition is impossible. Altruism requires that you not expect anything in return. The only true altruism is absolutely self-destructive. Altruism is as much a virtue in my eyes as faith and self mutilation.
Existence only takes us so far. I know I exist, and I know you exist. So what? I'm going to go live on the lake, and never speak to you.
Morality, by my definition, applies only when there is an interaction between humans (I only wish to discuss morality as relates to humans please). If you wish to live on a lake by yourself thats your perrogative, but it has no moral implications.
Unless each of us has something to gain from the other, we're not going to form social bonds. Yet, unless you and I have exactly equal quantities of our wares, we will reach a point where one of us has, and the other has not. If the one who has is not willing to make an uneven trade (altruism), our relationship will end.
Again, you seem to contradict yourself by using the word "gain". Altruism and gain are mutually exclusive.
I know what you mean by altruism in the genetic sense, but it doesn't seem to pervade much beyond its unconscious affects on genes and the related evolutionary benefits. I draw a distinction between conscious and unconscious altruism. If that makes any sense.
Thats cute.
- Login to post comments
I'm fairly ignorant to philosophy so can't say I attribute a specific one to myself.
I believe that there are biological moral traits, such as empathy, which are directed and developed in parallel with other culturally-evolved concepts (like music). We will continue to use our own judgement to determine the course of our society's morality, as I believe we have always done regardless of whether we try to hide our prescriptions behind 'divine' edicts and the selective exercise thereof. I believe that morality is subjective, but on a societal rather than individual level (i.e. the US is different from Saudi Arabia, but I'm less different from a Floridian); that the average person is the product of their society, differing from the norm only marginally, even without the threat of law or damnation. The severe exercise of law we reserve for the truly antisocial minority and those without empathy.
Alright. Any moral code in particular?
Philosophically, I've read a bit of Russell, Dennett and Hume, and always enjoy re-reading Nietzsche to cleanse the palette, though I haven't gotten to his detailed solution to nihilism yet, which I'd heard was in Thus Spake Zarathustra.
My moral & ethical code:
if (me.right == true && you.right == false) {
me.right = true;
you.right = false;
}
else if ( you.right == true && me.right == false)
{
me.right = true;
you.right = false;
}
else if ( me.right == true && you.right == true)
{
me.right = true;
you.right = false;
}
else if (me.right == false && you.right == false)
{
me.right = true;
you.right = false;
}
Not really, and I don't really think codified morality as a prescription has proven reliable unless enforced. We can try to steer moral trends by example, by code, by philosophy, by argument, by legislation, with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on how the idea interacts with preexisting moral inclinations and whether we have the means to back it up. Abrahamic religion has been effective, for instance, in spreading its morals because it appeals to a fear of death, and a desire for justice, most of us share. The lousiness of the ideas is forgiven because they're piggybacked to powerful inclinations.
I don't know much about philosophy either, but I have stumbled across a couple of things that I can agree with.
Epicureanism seems like a very well thought-out philosophy, especially for the time period in which it was popular. Christopher Hitchens and Thomas Jefferson have referred to themselves as epicureanists. Epicurus was one of the first to deal with the problem of evil (riddle of epicurus, anyone?). Epicureanists were also some of the first to believe that matter was made of atoms. Epicurus also wrote the Tetrapharmakos, which are great words to live by:
Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get, and
What is terrible is easy to endure
I also have read an Ayn Rand novel or two and have looked at Objectivism, but don't have the wherewithal to explain it. I definitely wouldn't consider myself well-read on the subject.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
Hahahaha!
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I'm actually reading up on the ancient greek philosophers now, maybe i`ll pick one whose values I identify with most.
Morte alla tyrannus et dei
Though I am pretty well versed in many different philosophies, I honestly hate name dropping them. Something about saying, "I'm a naturalist neo-modernist Dennetian moral relativist" feels a bit snooty. (That label is completely made up, by the way.)
As philosophies go, this is pretty much how I structure my own life and morality:
* Everything that exists is natural.
* There is no such thing as absolute good or evil. Anything that can be judged as good or bad is actually 'better' or 'worse' with regard to a particular goal.
* Morality is a balance between what individuals want and the consequences of getting what they want.
* Reciprocal altruism is the root of morality, and it is instinctive.
I am not a humanist. That is to say, I do not regard human life as a particularly high moral imperative. I think there are about three billion too many people on the planet. (I do not advocate forcibly reducing the population. That's absurd.)
I'm an environmentalist, meaning that I believe preserving and protecting other species is a good goal.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I think you know what I ascribe too Tace ^^
Could you please explain how you have come to this conclusion? I normally hate the word altruism in association with morality. It is such a controversial idea that using it as a foundation for morality seems shaky at best. For instance, I think existence is a good basis and pretty unfalsifiable at that. Maybe you could explain what you base that supposition on. Thanks in advance.
Thats cute.
People tend to overthink this point, to me.
Empathy and reciprocity are the basic pillars. 95% of it, is common sense. The other 5% makes for fun debate I suppose.
I'd have to agree with you mostly. It would seem to be simple, but if that were so then I don't think there would be so much conflict.
If I had to assign values Empathy would get 94.5% of that 95% and .5 left for reciprocity. But those are only tools in my eyes. If you use empathy I think it possible to write out a moral code of sorts that is pretty objective.
Thats cute.
Empathy starts with the recognition or perspective that another is like yourself; that you are capable of simulating their experience and making decisions regarding them based on your model of their consciousness. But this perception can be affected by superficial differences (causing racism), developed cultural hierarchies (misogyny, caste systems, classism), another sense of otherness within a community (leading to homophobia, abuse of the handicapped, etc.), or simple geographical boundaries (leading to nationalism, tribal warfare, or provincial views). One of the major differences between today's first world cultures and those of the past is the accessibility to information about people unlike ourselves, giving us the opportunity to develop empathy outside our normal tribal boundaries (family, town, country, race, sexual orientation, etc.). Conflicts are natural between people who don't recognize the other as like them. One of the biggest roles of propaganda is dehumanizing the enemy, making them more foreign and immune to empathy. Ultimately, I think developed morality is simply tweaking what we're already prone to.
I think this is self-contradictory. Objectivity is what it is, where we must turn to subjectivity to introduce normative language (what we think ought to be, rather than what is). The human experience is, and will always be, a subjective one. This isn't to say establishing fairly accurate observations of the world is impossible, only that the urge to alter anything introduces subjectivity.
I know what empathy is. I wasnt so clear on what definition I had in mind. When I say empathy, I mean realizing that we are all human individuals with, minus a few exceptions, a unified desire for life. From this premise no racism can permeate my thinking.
To sum it up:
1 ) we all exist
2) we all have the same desire to life and happiness
3) we use empathy to realize this and draw from it a basic right to life (this may be a jump but im in a hurry)
4) morality is realizing this right to life and never hindering someone else's life ,nor pursuit of hapiness, so long as they aren't violating another's in that pursuit. And by this I mean by force or coercion.
I think this is self-contradictory. Objectivity is what it is, where we must turn to subjectivity to introduce normative language (what we think ought to be, rather than what is). The human experience is, and will always be, a subjective one. This isn't to say establishing fairly accurate observations of the world is impossible, only that the urge to alter anything introduces subjectivity.
In a world of uncertainty all we can aim for is to establish a fairly accurate observation of reality. I prefer to use axioms to establish my basis for morality though and in doing so I believe we answer the most while assuming the least. Wouldn't you say that my premise "we all exist as individuals" is objective? It also accounts for human subjectivity by removing most human activities from the moralistic realm to the realm of values. I think morals should only be based on things we observe as objective, and all other ideas or activities should be in the subjective category of values. This eliminates racism, sexism, biggotry and any other form of hate, because anything that you do that doesnt hurt others isn't a moral issue.
I hope this isn't unclear. I am hella tired rigth now.
Thats cute.