How does an atheist define morality? (rejecting, doom, pastors, Earth)

[sergeyn]

Postcriptum, regarding absolute good and evil.

Well, I don't believe in any absolutes. I just don't think there's anything absolute about us or this world we live in. It's not that simple as everything is in a constant state of flux. To illustrate, let's go over the 10 commandments-- probably the most respected set of absolute moral guidelines.

> I am the Lord your God
> You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol
> You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

The 1st three essentially establish a belief in the Semitic God. In a society that's not completely built around a Semitic religion (like most relatively developed ones), they have little value. What's more, they do little to promote compassion and ethics-- on the contrary, these 3 statements are potentially exlusive and divisive. I see them as a way to bond a group of people under attack but not as a set of reasonable guideles for all times.

> Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

Clearly an artifact of one particular culture. A fine example of how any human creation eventually becomes obsolete.

> Honor your father and mother

No matter what? There are plenty of examples when parents have their selfish interests or prejudices in mind when dealing with their children. Romeo and Juliette, anyone?

> You shall not murder

Can't argue with this one most of the time, but what about self-defense? What if my life is so miserable that I want to kill myself?

> You shall not commit adultery

If by "adultery" we mean a spouse having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse without their knowledge, it is hard to argue with this one. However, "adultery" is often interpreted as any kind of sex outside of marriage, including pre-marital and even self-stimulation. In that case, this commandment appears to be quite dated.

> You shall not steal

This is the only one of two where I can't think of any smart a$$ comment

> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

...And this is the other one.

> You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

Why just wife and not husband? This reveals that the commandments weren't even addressed to women because women were not considered fully human. Obviously, that attitude is now not only dated but very harmful...However, I agree with the "do not covet" part, even though that's basic psychology-- drooling over something all the time isn't healthy.

My point is that morality or immorality of particular actions very obviously depend on the context. The answer isn't in a book or teaching-- it is in one's heart. This is a difficult thing to accept but, I believe, is our only choice if we are to be fully human.

[coosjoaquin]

I just think that you need to add layers of conditions to moral statements.

> You shall not murder

Can't argue with this one most of the time, but what about self-defense? What if my life is so miserable that I want to kill myself?

Well if you notice the wording, it says "murder" as opposed to kill. Basically this only applies to whether people consider it a murder.

-Self defense isn't usually considered murder
-In some places, a person carrying out the death penalty is not considered a murderer
-In war you can kill dozens and be considered a hero. In a particularly gritty war you can pretty much get away with anything.
-You shoot a guy who is about to kill 10 people, is it murder?

> You shall not steal

This is the only one of two where I can't think of any smart a$$ comment

My family is starving to death and I don't have any other options. Should I steal and feed them or let them die?

[tic_constant]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

No I came up with it after some thought.


Axioms, assumed for the sake of advancing an argument. My basis for the assumptions come from examples such as the bible:



No, no, no. The basis isn't that there aren't any moral absolutes in this world but that at one point god made them.
It's a simple argument and it revolves around the fact that morals aren't tangible things and that If absolute morals exist then either they always existed or were created at some point(assumed to have been made by god).


What? We are not trying to prove a negative(the fallacy) but to disprove it. To refute the claim that there aren't any black stones with purple dots all you need to do is find one whilst disproving the inverse(that there are black stones with purple dots) would require


I don't know where you get this idea. I'm not trying to prove that there are no moral absolutes. That appears as a possibility out of i,ii and iii. What I am trying to get around is how a god can create moral absolutes without them being arbitrary.


Misread the argument and confused a conclusion with an assumption but thats ok.


Sure, that's not disputed here.

The question goes back to why? Why is everything to do with god good? and why is everything else bad? I know you say thats the way you define good and bad but isn't that the same as saying "it just is".


That's as arbitrary as it can get if you ask me. There is no deep underlying reason, it's just defined that way. If god had a jealous nature then jealousy would be good, if god had a greedy nature then greed would be good. It just so happens that god doesn't it seems.


I think the term is moral relativism and no this is only necessary if god itself creates the morals. If there are moral absolutes and they have always been, then they exist regardless of whether there is a god or not.

I can however see why you find it impossible for moral absolutes to exist without a god and that is because your definition of a moral absolute is the nature of god. But of course not everyone defines good and evil as "the nature of god" so your argument is flawed.



Well everything that's been said can really be condensed into 2 issues. On the one hand we have the existence of moral absolutism and on the other the nature of moral absolutes.

I don't know how to respond to your rebuttle. Maybe it's semantics and I shouldn't pursue it any further. It's probably just me and the fact that I read these things at 4 in the morning while Im at work. Maybe you could just tell me what conclusion you draw from that proof? Can you explain how you are making a statement about the nature of morality based on an axiomatic assumption? Axioms are self-evident truths, so I still dont see how you can assume an axiom and then make a definitive claim about reality on the other side.

I thought your last stement was interesting. Very thought provoking and I think you are right in that it really sums up the issue.

Many things, maybe everything, seems to come back to the satement "it just is" When you ask 'why' you will eventually get to that point. There isn't a reason for why things the way they are. I believe this to be one of the fundamental differences between our worldviews. At the end of the 'why's there is an uncaused reason, namely, God. At the end of yours there is only just because; no reason. What do you think?

[tic_constant]

Sergeyn,
In your first response you stated First, I do believe in a sort of universal goodness or truth, even though I see it as a potential, a quality, rather than a Power or a Being. According to that universal goodness, in any given situation, there is the right thing to do and that "right" thing happens to be in the direction of deminishing suffering
THen in the next one you said, Well, I don't believe in any absolutes. I just don't think there's anything absolute about us or this world we live in.
If there is a right thing to do in any given situation, how is that different than an absolute? If you don't believe anything in this universe is absolute, what do you mean by 'universal truth'?

[JetJockey]

I live my life according to a simple mantra. Do unto others as you wish others would do unto you. This includes not killing people because I would not want to be killed, not cheating on my boyfriend because I would not like to be cheated on, I do not force my beliefs on others because I would not appreciate their beliefs being pushed on me, etc.


(disclaimer: This is entirely personal, I know that if someone believed that it was okay to kill they would go out and kill... it doesn't apply to my beliefs.)

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by tic_constant

I don't know how to respond to your rebuttle. Maybe it's semantics and I shouldn't pursue it any further. It's probably just me and the fact that I read these things at 4 in the morning while Im at work. Maybe you could just tell me what conclusion you draw from that proof? Can you explain how you are making a statement about the nature of morality based on an axiomatic assumption? Axioms are self-evident truths, so I still dont see how you can assume an axiom and then make a definitive claim about reality on the other side.

Well atm I'm trying to understand how morality isn't arbitrary.

Originally Posted by tic_constant

Many things, maybe everything, seems to come back to the satement "it just is" When you ask 'why' you will eventually get to that point. There isn't a reason for why things the way they are. I believe this to be one of the fundamental differences between our worldviews. At the end of the 'why's there is an uncaused reason, namely, God. At the end of yours there is only just because; no reason. What do you think?

I'm not quite sure I can talk about my metaphysical worldviews without mentioning Godel or having them drag on for another 5 pages.

[sergeyn]

tic_constant,

If there is a right thing to do in any given situation, how is that different than an absolute? If you don't believe anything in this universe is absolute, what do you mean by 'universal truth'?

That right thing is right for me and in the given situation. That is why it is not absolute.

For example: let's say I am selfish and you are not. If confronted by some demand that appears unreasonable, the best course of action for me may be to comply-- because I'm full of myself and compliance would be better in that it'd make me a better and humbler person. For you, on the other hand, the best course of action may be to challenge the demand, as you've got nothing to learn from it and your compliance may promote such demands further.

Determining what's right, therefore, consists not of consulting external authority but ot being very honest with yourself. I believe that the capacity to be honest is something everyone has-- that is the quasi-religious component of my stance.

[tic_constant]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

Well atm I'm trying to understand how morality isn't arbitrary.


I'm not quite sure I can talk about my metaphysical worldviews without mentioning Godel or having them drag on for another 5 pages.

That's cool. This thread has gone on for a while now anyhow. Very important stuff, however. I was wondering how it is that you respond to my comments at 4 in the morning? Why are you up so late/early?

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by tic_constant

That's cool. This thread has gone on for a while now anyhow. Very important stuff, however. I was wondering how it is that you respond to my comments at 4 in the morning? Why are you up so late/early?

I live in England, there is a 6-7 hour time difference so really 4am for you is the equivalent to midday for me.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

I just think that you need to add layers of conditions to moral statements.

My family is starving to death and I don't have any other options. Should I steal and feed them or let them die?

Must a successful society have a defined set of moral absolutes? It's impossible to outline a truly all-encompassing rulebook (unless you're an unabashed champion of biblical authority). The idea of adapting one's value set to the conditions at hand has great appeal to atheists. Unless that interpretation becomes flighty and one of convenience.

As an atheist, I rely on an ongoing evaluative process, rather than Christians thinking "Well, let's turn to the bible and see what it tells us to do in this situation." That leads to too many interpretations, and people's correct observation that then the bible, or the Ko'ran, can and will be used to validate anything. or, dangerously, that the local priest or pastor or Imam has higher, better abilities to interpret the situation. They wouldn't use that for political or power gain would they? My way forces more responsibility, but also provides a lot more freedom to do the truly right thing.