Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would love to hear a response to the question posed earlier.
Where does an Atheist believe morality exist. How does an atheist define morality.
No objective subjective dodging please.
Inaction or action, morality has an effect on the social environment.
I once read a post of do no harm. Well that fails in the scenario of discipline whether mental or physical.
This is a tough subject to follow through because the deeper you look into it, the further you have to look at yourself.
I'm really an agnostic, not an atheist. But I'll answer this question anyway because a) it's interesting and b) I have insomnia and am farting around on the internet.
Where does morality exist, and how do I define it? I'm not 100% what the first part of that question means - do you mean, where does morality come from? My belief is that it is biological and that it changes from animal to animal, but that it exists in some form in all social animals. It is necessary so that we are able to continue to live in social groups. If there were no innate (i.e. inborn, biologically-based, genetically programmed, etc.) morality, the social groups would all fall apart and/or the dominant of the group would just tear apart the less dominant, resulting in too few reproductively viable members, hence fewer births, hence, ultimately, possible extinction of the group (and by extension, the species itself over time).
"Morality" in humans and in many animals may, for example, include not needlessly attacking another in the group. To do so on a regular basis would, again, lead to a drastic reduction in the group's size. It may also include care for those who temporarily can't help themselves. Hence we will see generally the female in the den with the young, for example, because pipsqueaks would get in the way of hunting and "out" them due to the youngs' loudness, tendency to wander right out into danger, and so on. Therefore the males may protect the females even if their immediate instinct might be to wander off to get food, relieve themselves or whatever. This plays out as our definition of morality, as a superior, stronger member (or members) are protecting another weaker than themselves, rather than bowing to their own desires and just wandering off, leaving the weaker to their own fate.
With lions the sexes are reversed, with the males watching over the babies while the females hunt. That can be defined as morality - caring for young before one's own needs. Again, there's a biological basis: protecting the young = more survivors = greater chance for species survival.
Animals, even non-social animals, don't necessarily just jump one another to procreate with an unwilling partner (this is another example, sorry) despite many people's views that that is how animals behave. Even non-social animals typically have complex pre-mating behaviors. It's the equivalent of a man wining and dining the woman rather than just jumping her in the street and ripping her clothes off. That can be seen as morality, too. In humans, it's because after the jumping and clothing-ripping, some sort of social context would generally need to continue and that would not be possible with the negative feelings of a female being forced to mate if she wasn't ready. I figure it's about the same with social animals, though depending upon the group, the actual "morals" themselves can be very different: for example, in apes (I think? Or chimps?), a female might go around the entire group deliberately mating with each male in order to ensure a peaceful and satisfied feeling among the group. In humans that would be considered taboo, but not because the act itself is immoral across all possible species; rather, it's because with humans, pair-mating on an at least semi-permanent basis has worked out better.
In antisocial animals, courting rituals do a number of things, such as ensuring that the receptive (female) partner is ready to produce young, something her body signals; allowing the female to gauge the male's health via his looks/display, the grace of his behaviors and so on. That may seem like it doesn't fall under "morals," but the drive behind what we'd like to see as somehow "lower" in this example, and the drive behind human courtship rituals, are about the same, though with humans there's the extension that the courtship should last not minutes or hours but weeks, months or even years - this because for humans, the potential mates must judge how well each might perform long-term. However, we tend to give labels to this behavior such as "gentlemanly" and, yes, "moral."
Our "morals" tell us not to harm the next person, to help the next person, not to pick on someone smaller than ourselves, and not to hoard all the wealth. These aims seem lofty and "above animals" and again, "moral" but, once more, are really social constructs with a biological basis (as I see things). They allow us to continue our species by aiding as many among us as possible rather than allowing many of our own to die off, for example. More living adults = more chance for young = group expansion rather than dwindling down until the group has died off. Therefore I think emotions of empathy also have a biological basis.
Because I do believe these ideals are biologically based and work well for a social species, I DO NOT believe we need an external threat we can't actually define in order to keep us in line (i.e., God). Those of us who do, are people who may be somewhat lacking as compared to the general population in these innate drives and abilities to "get along." Socially, we (and non-human animals too) have constructed ways to get rid of such antisocial individuals. In humans, we put them in jail. In animals, they may drive them from the pack or, in extreme cases, may actually fall upon and kill the offender. At the very least, the offending member will be chastised severely and given "warnings" before a more ultimate punishment (in both animals and humans). But those are immediate, living, concrete agencies (actual people or actual animals), within the group. We do not require a God in order for most of us to naturally abhor such antisocial behaviors; God, IMO, or gods, originally performed more of a comfort and explanation (i.e. why natural disasters happen, why illness happens) function. As we began to live in bigger and bigger groups, things got hairier (it always does when a group gets very large, personal space is perceived to be invaded, antisocial members are harder to keep in line simply because there are more members to sort of "hide behind" and so on) and gods then began to also serve as a threat v. reward measure. i.e. "Okay, this leader (or we leaders) may not be able to keep an eye on you, personally, all the time...but there's an invisible, very powerful agency that does, so you still can't go all willy-nilly even if you want to."
Nor does belief in a God necessarily overcome these antisocial behaviors or make people "toe the line"...as indicated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of prison inmates in the U.S. identify as Christian. This would seem to nullify the idea that without God, we would all go nuts and do whatever we wanted...since a huge percentage of the people who DO go nuts and do whatever they want (or try to) actually DO believe in God. So that doesn't seem to be working. I don't think morals come from an outside source - be it corporeal or spiritual. I think morals come from within, and if they're not there innately, they're not, and an antisocial personality without boundaries (i.e. will steal, rape, ill) exists which neither God NOR actual real-time punishments can seem to control, generally.
Not that a person can't be nudged one way or another. For example, teaching a child our human construct of morals gives the child a greater chance of growing up to model those behaviors (though not always), whereas teaching a child brutality, lack of respect for others' property and so on gives a child a greater chance of growing up to model THOSE behaviors (though not always). This, IMO, is because, being social animals, we do tend to identify closely with those who are raising us/around us, in order to learn how to be social, whatever our elders' idea of "social" is - that's important to any social species, teaching the young. But in my opinion, when those tendencies can be influenced one way or another, the child already had that genetic propensity either way...if not, I don't think s/he would be capable of either being "turned good" or entirely corrupted for his/her entire life. S/he might be capable of faking it, but the morals still won't be inherent...and if the morals aren't inherent, s/he may well end up being one of those people who are religious yet wind up in jail...OR, may grow up in abusive, negative conditions but have that "inner drive" to overcome that and lead a good life.
Those are my thoughts. Boy, do I ever hate insomnia...I can only hope that when I wake up in the morning (that is, if I end up getting any sleep tonight at all) and re-read this, at least part of it makes a modicum of sense.
I'm really an agnostic, not an atheist. But I'll answer this question anyway because a) it's interesting and b) I have insomnia and am farting around on the internet.
Where does morality exist, and how do I define it? I'm not 100% what the first part of that question means - do you mean, where does morality come from? My belief is that it is biological and that it changes from animal to animal, but that it exists in some form in all social animals. It is necessary so that we are able to continue to live in social groups. If there were no innate (i.e. inborn, biologically-based, genetically programmed, etc.) morality, the social groups would all fall apart and/or the dominant of the group would just tear apart the less dominant, resulting in too few reproductively viable members, hence fewer births, hence, ultimately, possible extinction of the group (and by extension, the species itself over time).
"Morality" in humans and in many animals may, for example, include not needlessly attacking another in the group. To do so on a regular basis would, again, lead to a drastic reduction in the group's size. It may also include care for those who temporarily can't help themselves. Hence we will see generally the female in the den with the young, for example, because pipsqueaks would get in the way of hunting and "out" them due to the youngs' loudness, tendency to wander right out into danger, and so on. Therefore the males may protect the females even if their immediate instinct might be to wander off to get food, relieve themselves or whatever. This plays out as our definition of morality, as a superior, stronger member (or members) are protecting another weaker than themselves, rather than bowing to their own desires and just wandering off, leaving the weaker to their own fate.
With lions the sexes are reversed, with the males watching over the babies while the females hunt. That can be defined as morality - caring for young before one's own needs. Again, there's a biological basis: protecting the young = more survivors = greater chance for species survival.
Animals, even non-social animals, don't necessarily just jump one another to procreate with an unwilling partner (this is another example, sorry) despite many people's views that that is how animals behave. Even non-social animals typically have complex pre-mating behaviors. It's the equivalent of a man wining and dining the woman rather than just jumping her in the street and ripping her clothes off. That can be seen as morality, too. In humans, it's because after the jumping and clothing-ripping, some sort of social context would generally need to continue and that would not be possible with the negative feelings of a female being forced to mate if she wasn't ready. I figure it's about the same with social animals, though depending upon the group, the actual "morals" themselves can be very different: for example, in apes (I think? Or chimps?), a female might go around the entire group deliberately mating with each male in order to ensure a peaceful and satisfied feeling among the group. In humans that would be considered taboo, but not because the act itself is immoral across all possible species; rather, it's because with humans, pair-mating on an at least semi-permanent basis has worked out better.
In antisocial animals, courting rituals do a number of things, such as ensuring that the receptive (female) partner is ready to produce young, something her body signals; allowing the female to gauge the male's health via his looks/display, the grace of his behaviors and so on. That may seem like it doesn't fall under "morals," but the drive behind what we'd like to see as somehow "lower" in this example, and the drive behind human courtship rituals, are about the same, though with humans there's the extension that the courtship should last not minutes or hours but weeks, months or even years - this because for humans, the potential mates must judge how well each might perform long-term. However, we tend to give labels to this behavior such as "gentlemanly" and, yes, "moral."
Our "morals" tell us not to harm the next person, to help the next person, not to pick on someone smaller than ourselves, and not to hoard all the wealth. These aims seem lofty and "above animals" and again, "moral" but, once more, are really social constructs with a biological basis (as I see things). They allow us to continue our species by aiding as many among us as possible rather than allowing many of our own to die off, for example. More living adults = more chance for young = group expansion rather than dwindling down until the group has died off. Therefore I think emotions of empathy also have a biological basis.
Because I do believe these ideals are biologically based and work well for a social species, I DO NOT believe we need an external threat we can't actually define in order to keep us in line (i.e., God). Those of us who do, are people who may be somewhat lacking as compared to the general population in these innate drives and abilities to "get along." Socially, we (and non-human animals too) have constructed ways to get rid of such antisocial individuals. In humans, we put them in jail. In animals, they may drive them from the pack or, in extreme cases, may actually fall upon and kill the offender. At the very least, the offending member will be chastised severely and given "warnings" before a more ultimate punishment (in both animals and humans). But those are immediate, living, concrete agencies (actual people or actual animals), within the group. We do not require a God in order for most of us to naturally abhor such antisocial behaviors; God, IMO, or gods, originally performed more of a comfort and explanation (i.e. why natural disasters happen, why illness happens) function. As we began to live in bigger and bigger groups, things got hairier (it always does when a group gets very large, personal space is perceived to be invaded, antisocial members are harder to keep in line simply because there are more members to sort of "hide behind" and so on) and gods then began to also serve as a threat v. reward measure. i.e. "Okay, this leader (or we leaders) may not be able to keep an eye on you, personally, all the time...but there's an invisible, very powerful agency that does, so you still can't go all willy-nilly even if you want to."
Nor does belief in a God necessarily overcome these antisocial behaviors or make people "toe the line"...as indicated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of prison inmates in the U.S. identify as Christian. This would seem to nullify the idea that without God, we would all go nuts and do whatever we wanted...since a huge percentage of the people who DO go nuts and do whatever they want (or try to) actually DO believe in God. So that doesn't seem to be working. I don't think morals come from an outside source - be it corporeal or spiritual. I think morals come from within, and if they're not there innately, they're not, and an antisocial personality without boundaries (i.e. will steal, rape, ill) exists which neither God NOR actual real-time punishments can seem to control, generally.
Not that a person can't be nudged one way or another. For example, teaching a child our human construct of morals gives the child a greater chance of growing up to model those behaviors (though not always), whereas teaching a child brutality, lack of respect for others' property and so on gives a child a greater chance of growing up to model THOSE behaviors (though not always). This, IMO, is because, being social animals, we do tend to identify closely with those who are raising us/around us, in order to learn how to be social, whatever our elders' idea of "social" is - that's important to any social species, teaching the young. But in my opinion, when those tendencies can be influenced one way or another, the child already had that genetic propensity either way...if not, I don't think s/he would be capable of either being "turned good" or entirely corrupted for his/her entire life. S/he might be capable of faking it, but the morals still won't be inherent...and if the morals aren't inherent, s/he may well end up being one of those people who are religious yet wind up in jail...OR, may grow up in abusive, negative conditions but have that "inner drive" to overcome that and lead a good life.
Those are my thoughts. Boy, do I ever hate insomnia...I can only hope that when I wake up in the morning (that is, if I end up getting any sleep tonight at all) and re-read this, at least part of it makes a modicum of sense.
Thank you for responding.
God or natural is anyones pov definition. But you got to the root.
I like the view posed on lions. But the pride can be strange at times. When a new male takes over he will kill all the offspring of the past sire. As humans we probably deem this as immoral.
Also the inherited view is not new to me though now I find it strange. Because genetic mutations in diversity give the chance to separate ourselves from the parents. Meaning psychologically. How many kids feel like aliens in a family group.
Personally I fell morality is circumstantial to every individual for every given action or in action. That is why it is so hard to judge anyone. Because we were not in there shoes.
Another scary thing to watch is when chimps go out to war. The animal kingdom may have been altered.
Thank you for responding.
God or natural is anyones pov definition. But you got to the root.
I like the view posed on lions. But the pride can be strange at times. When a new male takes over he will kill all the offspring of the past sire. As humans we probably deem this as immoral.
Also the inherited view is not new to me though now I find it strange. Because genetic mutations in diversity give the chance to separate ourselves from the parents. Meaning psychologically. How many kids feel like aliens in a family group.
Personally I fell morality is circumstantial to every individual for every given action or in action. That is why it is so hard to judge anyone. Because we were not in there shoes.
Another scary thing to watch is when chimps go out to war. The animal kingdom may have been altered.
I would love to hear a response to the question posed earlier.
Where does an Atheist believe morality exist. How does an atheist define morality.
No objective subjective dodging please.
Inaction or action, morality has an effect on the social environment.
I once read a post of do no harm. Well that fails in the scenario of discipline whether mental or physical.
This is a tough subject to follow through because the deeper you look into it, the further you have to look at yourself.
Not an atheist . . . but any discussion of morality is tied to the existence of a purpose for human existence. If there is no purpose . . . then morality is an arbitrary and capricious concept. Cosmic accidents can destroy themselves and others or do whatever else they want . . . because there is no reason for them to exist in the first place. Only when there is a purpose to human existence does the concept of morality make any sense. Anything constructive to the purpose is moral. Anything destructive to the purpose is immoral. Anything that is neither is amoral.
This is where you are wrong in so many of your arguments, Mystic. You assume that there has to be a purpose for us (aka God) and cannot even get out of the box for a second and ask: 'If there is no purpose, and we are here by accident or chance, what do we do?'
The answers would come almost automatically. We do what we are doing.
Qualiasoup has an excellent You Tube on morality. Nobody should argue the questions of morality without God until they have watched it.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Without the Bible or moral law, people operate according to their best self interests and desires. Most people wouldn't go out and commit murder because you have to be either demon possessed or mentally ill to take pleasure in hurting other people. Most people including myself will go out of their way to avoid violence, not cause it.
The Bible was written by people, the very creatures you say would operate to their own "best self interests and desires" without it. What is there to make you believe that some of its writers weren't operating in their own best self-interests while writing it?
The Bible was written by people, the very creatures you say would operate to their own "best self interests and desires" without it. What is there to make you believe that some of its writers weren't operating in their own best self-interests while writing it?
Indeed, in making that statement, Jeff is unwittingly agreeing with those of us who explain societal morality as organically emergent explicit and implicit agreements about what sorts of behaviors are (un)acceptable based on society's sustainable long term self interest and desire. It is both an aggregation and an attenuation of each individual's "best self interests and desires" -- tempered by the needs of the many. Most of us want to live in a society in which we feel safe and have a reasonable amount of self determination within certain well defined boundaries. And we make it so, and overall we do quite well.
The very thing folks like Jeff live in terror of -- people living by their own lights -- is precisely what happens to actually work in the Real World. And it is precisely what everyone, including those folks, do. Jeff's own lights is to hew to what he believes god tells him to do via his dogma of choice -- not realizing that his dogma can be regarded as binding only at the pleasure and indulgence of societal morality, which will sooner or later have something to say if his dogma differs in any meaningful way from societal morality that is already agreed upon by the simple expedient of living in society and not being expelled or isolated from it by one's misdeeds.
Jeff's own lights is to hew to what he believes god tells him to do via his dogma of choice -- not realizing that his dogma can be regarded as binding only at the pleasure and indulgence of societal morality, which will sooner or later have something to say if his dogma differs in any meaningful way from societal morality that is already agreed upon by the simple expedient of living in society and not being expelled or isolated from it by one's misdeeds.
This is where you are wrong in so many of your arguments, Mystic. You assume that there has to be a purpose for us (aka God) and cannot even get out of the box for a second and ask: 'If there is no purpose, and we are here by accident or chance, what do we do?'
The answers would come almost automatically. We do what we are doing.
Qualiasoup has an excellent You Tube on morality. Nobody should argue the questions of morality without God until they have watched it.
Love the video. Very educational. But basically it just summarized history and the walk through principles already taught by scripture in all religions. And what did Jesus teach us? There is no greater love than to lay down ones life for a brother. My point is that people wish to dissociate religion with morality because of the discrepancy steps of learning from God. In our walk through the scriptures we see all that was described in the video above. And God was with us all along. And he showed himself when we needed him to teach and heal. And yet people today still blame him for the past. Or just state it was natural for us to progress evo standard time. Well this is where things get fubar. God left us little hints that he was with us all along. Clues of divine knowledge. Prophecy. And only God is the author of time.
Love the video. Very educational. But basically it just summarized history and the walk through principles already taught by scripture in all religions. And what did Jesus teach us? There is no greater love than to lay down ones life for a brother. My point is that people wish to dissociate religion with morality because of the discrepancy steps of learning from God. In our walk through the scriptures we see all that was described in the video above. And God was with us all along. And he showed himself when we needed him to teach and heal. And yet people today still blame him for the past. Or just state it was natural for us to progress evo standard time. Well this is where things get fubar. God left us little hints that he was with us all along. Clues of divine knowledge. Prophecy. And only God is the author of time.
There are actually four vidios on this subject so this was only the start and I thought it made it pretty clear that you don't need religion for morals, but education. That education can come through the medium of religion, but it isn't necessary. We don't need religion for morals, and the danger with religion is, that, if it teaching something that is immoral it resists the removal of it on religious grounds.
One of my pet arguments, though it never seems to get a response is that we stuff in the bible that is held up as good, and stuff that God orders that we would consider bad. But what standard of morality are we using? If we used the standard of god teaching us, we would consider it good, simply because God ordered it. We are applying humans standards of morality to the Bible all the time and approving it if its good and finding ways to excuse it or explain it away if it's bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
