If morality comes from a judging God, how does a religious person determine how God will judge? How does morality emerge from the supernatural realm?
Questions on atheist morality
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You're confusing religion with man again. Men told people to do xyz and then turned around and did whatever they wanted. But where in the Bible do you see instructions to do such thing?
How many utilitarian atheists are there at sciforums? It's a question for utilitarians, not necessarily a question for atheists.
Ants are social animals too. So are bees.
So what do nonutilitarian atheists believe? Is there good and bad? Right and wrong? Whats the basis for their beliefs?
Whats the basis for religious morality? Is it simply the threat of a judging God? What if His morality isn't predictable? How does anyone know what this God wants? If someone says they know, how do you know you can trust them?
Start your own thread. :grumble:
I can't speak for each and every atheist but I can tell you that at the very least, there are Kantian atheists out there who definitely reject utilitarianism. That itself is enough to demonstrate your OP is based on a false premise.
Kant says motives are controlled by reason. So, by reason, is there good or bad?
What? I thought we were having a discussion re: the difference between religious and atheist morality. I am trying to point out that religious morality is just as arbitrary as any other. Its crafted by personal judgements no matter what higher authority is used in an enforcement capacity.
yes and chimps, gorillas, wolves, sheep, cattle, etc... So what.
There is what you feel is right for you within the Golden rule and what doesn't feel right for you within that Golden rule. Good and evil are religious concepts.
You do understand what the Golden rule is don't you?
The Golden Rule is a basic utilitarian ideal, of which we all share, it is the same basic fundamental concept religions share also. We are all utilitarian to a degree.
However the Christian version seems to be back to front and promotes revenge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism
Nope, I am asking a specific question. See the OP.
Ah so "feeling right" in this "golden rule" is the arbitrary definition of your morality?
What is the source of this golden rule?
judgement is the consequence of your actions according to law. it's science.
By reason, Kant doesn't mean subjective reason. He means something passing his three formulas (Universal Law, End in Itself, Autonomy). You run an action through those formulas and if the action passes with no contradiction, then it is considered to be a categorical imperative, something which is good in and of itself. These are things that should be followed at all costs. That is where a Kantian atheist would get "goodness" from and everything that deviates from that, by perhaps running into a contradiction in the Universal Law formula, can be considered to be less good, bad, etc.
EDIT: But this is stuff I'm remembering from Philo 101, so it's a very rough explanation of Kantian morality. A true Kantian philosopher would be able to give you a much better answer.
Yes, feeling right or doing right, "Do only to others, what you would wish them to do to you".
Your own innate survival instincts.
Your basic assumption that morality in the absense of religion deals only with personal goals is incorrect. It can certainly deal with what is beneficial for society, the ecosystem, the world at large, family, tribe. First you have to show that these concerns can only be addressed with religious ideas.
Then what is the difference between judgement by circumstance, and religious judgement?
Thats an a posteriori argument, it shows what we actually do. I'm looking for an a priori argument, ie what we must do, and why.
Sounds like a load of gibberish. What is the evidence for a moral argument?
I dont see why you were so missed.
An advanced biology textbook would sound like a load of gibberish to me too, but I'm sure you would think otherwise.
If you're actually interested in Kantian morality, you'd have to either talk to someone who's more informed, do some independent research or take a class. I don't think I'm qualified to explain it properly. Either way though, my earlier point still stands. Not all atheists are utilitarian, as Kantian morality pretty much rejects utilitarianism. And, again, your question at the very end of the OP should be asked of utilitarians specifically, not atheists. I don't know if there are any utilitarians at sciforums.