Questions on atheist morality
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
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.
I think Kantian models of morality are full of GIANT holes.
For one thing, he claims that reason governs motives. There is no evidence for this. Most of the time people follow David Hume and are "slaves to passion".
Second, he claims that moral principles must be independently derived and are absolutely necessary, then resorts to using empirically derived arguments to support his thesis.
IOW, Kant sucks.
Why don't you answer the question in the OP and we can work from there?
You clearly don't see very well.
I think Kantian models of morality are full of GIANT holes.
For one thing, he claims that reason governs motives. There is no evidence for this. Most of the time people follow David Hume and are "slaves to passion".
Second, he claims that moral principles must be independently derived and are absolutely necessary, then resorts to using empirically derived arguments to support his thesis.
IOW, Kant sucks.
I'm no fan of (or expert on) Kant, but:
1. I'm pretty he says reason should govern motives, otherwise we run the risk of being immoral.
2. By independently derived, Kant means separating the motive from the action. While utilitarianism focuses entirely on the consequence of the action, Kant focuses entirely on the motive.
IOW, I think Kantian morality isn't that great, but neither are your two points.
I'm no fan of (or expert on) Kant, but:
1. I'm pretty he says reason should govern motives, otherwise we run the risk of being immoral.
2. By independently derived, Kant means separating the motive from the action. While utilitarianism focuses entirely on the consequence of the action, Kant focuses entirely on the motive.
IOW, I think Kantian morality isn't that great, but neither are your two points.
So basically Kants hypothesis is circular?
Reason--->motive <-----reason?
And btw, I think my two points explain very clearly why Kant's hypothesis of morality has no basis.
I'm not following. By reason, like I mentioned earlier, Kant means applying his formulas to the motive and then seeing if it's moral or not. If it is moral, you should act on that motive.
If you find that your motive is not moral via those formulas, then you shouldn't act on it. And if you do act on it, you're acting against reason.
His formulas are based on observations not self evident principles of morality, so they don't really answer any questions about why we should be moral, only that we are. In fact, if you read his hypothesis,
he also ascribes moral reasoning to religious postulates.
So, I'm not convinced that there are independent moral postulates except for "utilitarianism" that can apply to atheism. IOW, if an athiest could opt out of the socially defined legal systems, what, besides his own personal satisfaction, would define his sense of right and wrong?
I think the answer to the why question would be "An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind." That sort of concept is how Kant comes to his ideas of morality, and what is or isn't moral.
Sorry, I still don't have a satisfactory answer for you. It would depend on the individual atheist, provided he or she actually spent the time trying to figure out where his or her morality comes from and came to a conclusion.
The child doesn't want to be abused, and the abuse serves no other purpose than the temporary pleasure of one individual. The harm from abuse lasts a lifetime and could require a drain on resources when the child needs psychological help. Physical pleasures that do not cause this harm to society are numerous. Therefore, one person's pleasure does not outweigh the right of another person to not be abused.
And why should an atheist be concerned with other peoples eyes?
So atheists do not really care about what they consider right or wrong?
Again, why should what the child wants be of any consideration? e.g. if you found out your entire society was based on a system that caused over 20,000 children to die of preventable causes every day, would you opt out of your society? Or would you continue to look to your own satisfaction?
Suppose you have the pleasure of a group who intends to see a man put to jail for frivolous reasons. Their pleasure seeing the man in jail outweighs whatever pleasure the man might get from being free, no?
Disclaimer: I really dislike utilitarianism
Why should any man, regardless of whether or not he's a theist, be concerned with other people's eyes?
You'll find that most people don't, just like how most people never think about free will. There aren't easy answers to these topics.
For the same reason we believe in justice and equality, both unnatural concepts in the real world.
You'll find most people naturally fall on one side or another of any moral issue. Why is that, do you think?
Are we not natural?
I find it odd that you're so eager to take away the credit of morality away from humanity and push it onto something else.
This has nothing to do with what I mentioned earlier. People rarely take the time to sit down and understand and evaluate their system of morality. Just because they have one doesn't necessarily mean they understand it.
An individual should not be made to feel pain for no purpose, or for a frivolous purpose, because I wouldn't want that to happen to me.
Again, your use of the word frivolous means that their reasons for putting someone in jail aren't strong.
Both examples did not require an appeal to religious authority.
You did not answer the question. Unless the part "because I wouldn't want that to happen to me" refers to your personal satisfaction as a source.
Are we not natural?
I find it odd that you're so eager to take away the credit of morality away from humanity and push it onto something else.
This has nothing to do with what I mentioned earlier. People rarely take the time to sit down and understand and evaluate their system of morality. Just because they have one doesn't necessarily mean they understand it.
But they still want credit for it, I presume?
Among a society of social, intelligent creatures, like the apes, the notion of justice is perfectly natural. They don't believe in equality though, since their societies are small and based on a male-dominated hierarchy. Note that in the JCI (Jew, Christian, Islamic) religions, equality is not emphasized, since slavery and sexism was part of their culture.
Since I am not personally affected by someone else's mistreatment (who isn't a part of my immediate family, tribe, clan), the source must be compassion, which evolves for practical reasons among social animals. So morality is the extension of natural care for one's social group to society at large.
SAM,
Good topic. Interestingly the Brights network is currently working on a major project to define morality for those who hold a naturalistic world view.
The fundamental error you are making is to restrict the human outlook to a crude animal perspective. We are simply not that stupid and we do not need the fantasies of religion to provide a reason based moral outlook.
But even if your statement were true the religionist has an identical ultimate goal – personal survival and pleasure.
Good topic. Interestingly the Brights network is currently working on a major project to define morality for those who hold a naturalistic world view.
I guess that’s true but that seems an over simplistic view of the issue.
But religions are created by people who have chosen that vehicle to place rules upon themselves. One doesn’t need religion to do the same thing.
If the only reason we do the right thing is because of fear of punishment then the human race is lost. The superior moral position is that we do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and that indicates a non religious paradigm is essential.
And that is no different to a religious outlook. Religions offer fear of punishment, but the real carrot is a utopian reward. Ultimately the religionist is constraining his actions for a purely selfish and personal end result, i.e. ultimate exquisite pleasure.
If there was no intellect or intelligence involved then yes you would be correct and we see that in the animal world. The human though offers a fundamentally different perspective. We can reason that a supportive community environment offers far greater potential for personal survival and pleasure than acting on animal instinct and ignoring the needs of others. We can also reason that murdering someone is not in the best interests of the community and would endanger personal long time survival. Similarly for other morality based abuse scenarios.
The fundamental error you are making is to restrict the human outlook to a crude animal perspective. We are simply not that stupid and we do not need the fantasies of religion to provide a reason based moral outlook.
A repeat of another fundamental error. One cannot generalize about a group that has no collective perspective other than disbelief in theism.
But even if your statement were true the religionist has an identical ultimate goal – personal survival and pleasure.
It is disconcerting that so many religionists persist with furthering this primitive and short sighted perspective. It ignores totally the emotional and intellectual concerns an informed and mature person has for his fellow man. Most such people whether religious or non-religious feel comfort and security in a supportive community environment; it is an essential characteristic of our evolved state and the primary reason we are so successful as a species. Even packs of hyenas demonstrate significant communal and joint family support.
Apes believe in justice? I thought they believed in might is right?
So do you feel compassionate enough to opt out of such a society or is free compassion all you are willing to offer?
And again, where is the evidence for a moral postulate that has not derived from religion? Would apes care about starving infants in another tribe?
Cris,
Please show me where there is any moral postulate in atheists that is devoid of utilitiarianism, ie simply for the sake of being moral, that is not derived from religion. I accept that like hyenas, even atheists can show pack instinct, but that would not stop them from cannibalism in starvation, would it?
As for emotional and intellectual concerns, those are clearly visible in the narrow minded communications and actions from atheists, I would think.
This should be interesting. How much you wanna bet it will all be focused on individual satisfaction?
Last edited:
They seem to know when something is unjust. They hold grudges. They behave unjustly at times, but they know it.sam said:
They respect power for itself, but they respect power that is just and fair more.sam said:
I cannot live without society. That is why concern for society is just as important to consider as personal desires. I also recognize that we are all free to be immoral, and moral codes will never change that. Leaving a society won't necessarily fix it. All religion does is impose external threats to enforce moral behavior. Where do the religious moral codes come from in the first place? What if they are arbitrary? What if they tell you that execution is the appropriate response from society for, say, mixing linen and cotton in your clothing? ...or eating a pig?sam said:
Now that we are on the subject, where does religion get it's moral postulates? If a religion says we should sacrifice virgins to appease the Gods, what moral calculus could we make about that?