What moral right does an atheist have?

[scheherazade]

I don’t think that you can apply a genetic factor to compassion. That would presume too great a role for the human genome in determining behavior. Perhaps, if they were able to show that motor mimicry is mediated by the mirror neuron system, which would promote social cooperation. Animals that are better at mimicking would obviously have a better survival rate. Maybe this too, is what drives humans away from barbaric behavior, when we’re forced to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. Our ability to communicate sentiments would then move us to change.

Given the nature of genetics to recombine randomly, there should be equal opportunity for compassion or altruism to express or be recessive. It would then depend upon the factors of phenotype as well.

Did you observe the display of 'grieving' in North Korea on T.V. yesterday? Whether motivated by emotion, politics or social conditioning, I couldn't help but notice that it is very different from public displays of grieving a statesman/leader in the western world.

A bit off topic perhaps, but it seemed a reasonable place to insert the observation.

 

[scheherazade]

I think we are on the same page, the problem is that words are getting in the way.

I agree that we seem to be more in accord than otherwise. 'Contradictions' seem perfectly normal and valid to me, which ever gets me in hot water with those who demand either/or.

Sorry. Can't comply. The log is still rolling, lol....

Thank you much for the exchanges.

 

[gmilam]

I don’t think that you can apply a genetic factor to compassion. That would presume too great a role for the human genome in determining behavior. Perhaps, if they were able to show that motor mimicry is mediated by the mirror neuron system, which would promote social cooperation. Animals that are better at mimicking would obviously have a better survival rate. Maybe this too, is what drives humans away from barbaric behavior, when we’re forced to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. Our ability to communicate sentiments would then move us to change.

And I would think that this would express itself in something we humans would refer to as "compassion" and/or "empathy".

 

[AlexG]

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

When I say "moral right," I mean that a living person has an intrinsic objective moral value. If this is true, then it is wrong for example to rape a child. It is wrong because this would be destructive to the physical and psychological value of the living child. In this respect a child has a moral right not to be raped, because the value of a living person is intrinsic and objective rather than subjective and dynamic according to the ideology or opinion of somebodies whim, taste, or fancy.

If rights are merely subjective and conjured up according to taste and aversion to pain, then moral rights are coercive delusions. In this case, it is not wrong to rape women children or men. Every time that you think that it is objectively true that you have the moral high ground you are in fact walking unconsciously in to a fallacy caused by chemical illusions in your brain. The preservation of life is meaningless. That you perceive yourself or anybody as having value is a fantasy. Empathy is the irrational expression of mans desire to be more than a meaningless physical object. Moral truth becomes irrational and thus no virtue truly exists.

It seems to me by the question that you presume morality comes from some type of god. If that is so, it means that you, yourself have no moral sense but must rely on its imposition by a controlling authority.

 

[wynn]

Perhaps if you would cite my whole quote and not just take parts out of context and sequence, it would make more sense?

I do not see how I misquoted you.
I indeed edited out some parts of your post (which I indicated), to point out the contradiction.

Whether this trait is nurtured or repressed makes a difference in it's expression and therefore I see 'morality' as a subjective value.

This seems to suggest that you view subjectivity as essentially a matter of randonmness or external imposition, and not of inherent personhood.

There is much in the interpretation of life that seems contradictory. I just accept that this may be due to my narrow and myopic view of such a vast horizon.

How quaint.

 

[Trooper]

And I would think that this would express itself in something we humans would refer to as "compassion" and/or "empathy".

I’m not sure, but it seems like it would depend on whether or not, they were long term adaptations that induce genetic physiological changes, or short term from psychological behavioral changes. When you start talking about altruism in creatures that are not conscious of it, e.g. insects, then you have to consider that altruism is not beneficial at an individual level, but only at a group level. It’s easy to see the advantages at a group level where cooperation is necessary for survival. Otherwise, purely selfish organisms would become extinct. Although, Darwin thought that this behavior may have evolved through group selection, it remains controversial. I just don’t see how you could ever pin point it to a physiological or genetic change in humans. There are way too many mechanism that contribute to behavior. We pass down our ideas about what we ought to do, or ought not to do, in regards to what is best for the community, but these are always changing and evolving. As far as having an innate capacity for compassion, the only thing that sounds plausible to me is the mirror neuron system.

 

[wynn]

I'm of the opinion that 'altruism' or 'morality' by extension, are just more expressions of natural coping mechanisms that assist any species in being more successful.

Humans may prefer to claim the 'moral high ground' for ourselves, yet we observe similar behaviors in other species which do not depend upon a theist or an atheist position, to my knowledge at least.

There needn't be any contradition or mutual exclusiveness: that the sky is blue because of particular light refraction and that God made it so is not contradictory.


As far as analyzing and explaining our moral stance is concerned, we do aim to have as strong a justification as possible; the stronger the justification, the more likely we are to be consistent in the behavior it justifies.

"I did it because my genes demanded so" is a poor justification, it doesn't do justice to the potential that human reason has. In fact, such justifications are, in effect, like magic spells or formulas.

 

[wynn]

As far as having an innate capacity for compassion, the only thing that sounds plausible to me is the mirror neuron system.

So when your friend tells you about her problems and you try to comfort her, you understand your actions to be simply the activity of the "mirror neuron system"?

 

[wynn]

It seems to me by the question that you presume morality comes from some type of god. If that is so, it means that you, yourself have no moral sense but must rely on its imposition by a controlling authority.

That may be in the case with a demigod, but not God.

Per definition, all living beings are parts and parcels of God. God is inherently moral, so living beings are inherently moral too.
There is no imposition; humans are not aliens in this Universe.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If rights are merely subjective and conjured up according to taste and aversion to pain, then moral rights are coercive delusions.

Rights (moral or otherwise) don't objectively exist as you have pointed out; however, poeple objectively enforce them. Without that enforcement component then there is no power behind the right.

In this case, it is not wrong to rape women children or men.

Correct. It is not right or wrong.

Every time that you think that it is objectively true that you have the moral high ground you are in fact walking unconsciously in to a fallacy caused by chemical illusions in your brain.

I don't think it's caused by chemical illusions. I think it's caused by a combination of emotion and how we are hard wired to judge each other.

The preservation of life is meaningless.

If by meaningless you mean unimportant then you are correct. Importance doesn't objectively exist... it is only in your head.

That you perceive yourself or anybody as having value is a fantasy.

It depends how you define value.

Empathy is the irrational expression of mans desire to be more than a meaningless physical object.

Empathy is understanding someone else's experience.

Moral truth becomes irrational and thus no virtue truly exists.

Moral truth is subjective and virtue is as well. As to whether or not they are irrational, that is a matter of subjective opinion.

 

[Trooper]

So when your friend tells you about her problems and you try to comfort her, you understand your actions to be simply the activity of the "mirror neuron system"?

Yes, the same reason why I wince when I see someone get hurt, even if only in a movie. That and "tit for tat" because I made need her at some point in the future.

 

[wynn]

I meant - Do you tell yourself, or eachother, that your exchanges are simply the activity of the "mirror neuron system"?

(Did you ever watch Bones?)

 

[Trooper]

I meant - Do you tell yourself, or eachother, that your exchanges are simply the activity of the "mirror neuron system"?

(Did you ever watch Bones?)

No, I have never watched Bones.

We’ve been best friends since grammar school and we have similar interests. So yes, we have discussed it, but a daily reminder would be rather silly, don’t you think?

 

[quadraphonics]

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

When I say "moral right," I mean that a living person has an intrinsic objective moral value.

And so your suggestion for how to create an objective system of morality, is to base the whole thing on... a metaphysical entity whose basic existence is widely disputed and, by definition, undecideable, and whose nature and moral directives are heavily disputed even amongst those who do believe it exists.

That doesn't add up to objective morality. It adds up to a subjective basis on which to insist that your own personal, subjective morality is universal and objective.

Eventually, you'll have to come to grips with the fact that all morality is necessarily subjective, theistic or otherwise. It's a social epiphenomenon, not some physical object like a rock or potato.

So, the answer to the titular question would be "Same right as anybody - maybe more, since he isn't bullshitting anyone about where his standing comes from."

 

[Telemachus Rex]

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

If you are right, and you assume the legitimacy of their worldview, then neither do you. On the other hand, if you reject their worldview and adhere to your own, then they have as the same moral rights as you.

In any event, if we have objective moral "rights"... then it is clear that we have no objective standard by which to prove conclusively that we do, or what the content of those rights might be. Without that, we have no way to objectively prove what rights anyone might have and we are left with a system in which each person must decide for him or herself, subjectively, what to believe. In short, we have a system that looks a lot like a one of subjectively determined moral principles.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

How about changing the topic by one word?

What moral right does a sociopath have?

A sociopath might learn to act moral, but does that mean they are moral?

If they always act moral, does it matter what they are thinking?

 

[gmilam]

Per definition, all living beings are parts and parcels of God. God is inherently moral, so living beings are inherently moral too.
There is no imposition; humans are not aliens in this Universe.

Believe it or not, I agree with this. (I would probably avoid the use if the word god, as it just confuses people.)

When the mother cat wounds a mouse and brings it home for her kittens to play with, she is not being cruel or evil. She is being a good mother cat. The mouse may have a different opinion.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Moral truth is subjective and virtue is as well. As to whether or not they are irrational, that is a matter of subjective opinion.

Let's you are wearing a blue shirt, and I come up to you and try to convince you that it's green. We cannot both be right.

 

[The Esotericist]

Free born, Social sentient conscious individuals have individual rights, if they choose to recognize a universal consciousnesses. It is from this consciousness that these natural rights are endowed upon them. It is tasked upon them to figure out what these rights are, it is not written down in any book.

If they so choose to abdicate this privilege, then secretive groups of powerful men will take away those rights, tell them that rights, morals, ethics, and everything that is beautiful in life shall be granted to them as "privileges." These social movements by these powerful groups of men will have the intelligent people of society convinced that all morality is subjective, just as an alternative philosophical construct to merely convince the masses individuals. This will lead to social decay and pain for the weakest in society and social decay. The powerful will use this to their advantage using the Hegelian dialectic, creating problems, with ready solutions, using these solutions as a means to increase their power, law making and regulating power over society. The unsuspecting masses continue to make their own morality, and their own problems, while the powerful continue tightening their grip with more control.

In the end, they will be left with repressive governments, tyrannies, police states, etc. This is the history of humankind.

Only when we accept that we are entitled by our existence to a code of morals, rights and ethics which are our birth right, will we live in freedom and truth. This is called natural law.

If we deem that we are victims and cry out that we are helpless and need groups of powerful men to lord over us, to lie to us, hide the truth, tell us morality is subjective, and pervert our societies, and give us our rights, little by little, calling them privileges, than the source field of consciousness will rightfully abandon us. . . giving us our due. This is called the law of attraction.

. . . oh wait. They already have, haven't they?

Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing dogma, I am endorsing the sanctity of life, truth, and of freedom.

 

[river]

atheist have the moral right because they are above god