Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
    That does not make those rules anything to do with morality.
    Well, it does. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not philosophy or theology.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Jonathan Haidt's anthropological research on moral foundations seems to suggest that cultures choose a subset from a set of 5 main moral ideas. There are two main moral idea that seem to be universally used by everyone everywhere, which he calls "Harm" and "Fairness". And an additional 3 that are optional and can be pretty arbitrary (Loyalty to your group, Respect for proper authorities, and Disgust).

      So, while those last three ones do vary hugely from culture to culture and have degrees of arbitrariness (If we're part of many groups which are we supposed to be loyal to and to what degree? Who are the 'proper authorities' and how much respect is 'appropriate'? Which things are supposed to cause us gut reactions of disgust, and how is this not simply a product of community or personal experiences?), it seems like the first two ideas of Harm and Fairness, could be argued from an anthropological point of view to be always-and-everywhere moral principles.

      I would say that in Western culture over the last couple of hundred years, liberals have kept thinking hard about morality and whenever they found an idea that was arbitrary or purely a product of cultural upbringing, they rejected it, so they gradually paired away the last 3 ideas from their thinking about morality, leaving only the first two. In that sense, liberal secular morality today is pretty close to the universal core that was present in all human societies in history, though nearly all such societies arbitrarily added their own ideas in addition.

      So, from a purely anthropological view, though there obviously hasn't been 100% agreement in human history, it's not true that there's been 0% agreement. After all, as you point out, evolution is going to promote certain behaviors among social species like humans, so it's unsurprising that such a shared evolutionary core will lead to shared core moral concepts present in all human societies. We tend to agree a lot in this forum about a lot of things, but it always rubs me the wrong way on the topic of morality when you insist on a complete lack of existence of universal morality. I feel like you need to phrase such statements in a vastly more nuanced way given you point to the fact that evolution has innate requirements for the human social species. Obviously such innate evolutionary requirements will have a reflection in all human cultures, and in that sense it's totally plausible for this to give rise to some core universally shared human moral concepts.
      I agree with all of this, included the highlighted. I've never intended to exclude "universally shared human moral concepts" - such things as gratuitous murder etc. and I'm sorry if I conveyed that impression. My overriding point, which you seem to agree with, is that morality is a product of evolution in that it lends itself to our survival as a species and NOT the prerogative of imagined gods to lay down arbitrary rules of behavior.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        So to murder or not murder is not a moral consideration?
        I nowhere said or implied that.
        America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
          I nowhere said or implied that.
          You said: You are confusing tendencies the vast majority of us have (not to murder, not to steal, etc.) with morality. Who says they have anything to do with morality?

          Please explain...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Well, obviously I said so. It's my opinion that morals serve a social purpose and are not simply personal preferences. We are not born moral, morals are drilled into us, they are a learned set of values and acceptable behaviors that serve both your own interests and the interests of human society as a whole. Where do you think morals come from?

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Well, it does. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not philosophy or theology.
            I've obviously spoken unclearly, and I apologise.


            I agree that what we call morals come principally from biology via natural selection. My point (obviously poorly made) was that these social tendencies - to not murder, not steal, protect children, etc. - do not necessarily have anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong", but rather with what we have evolved tendencies to do. We call them 'right' or 'wrong', but that doesn't make them anything to do with morality in any existential sense.


            Bleah. I'm still making my point badly. I hope this is a little clearer, but on re-reading it, I'm not sure it is. Hopefully it's at least a little easier for you guys to understand. If it's not, let me know and I'll try to make it clearer again.
            America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              You said: You are confusing tendencies the vast majority of us have (not to murder, not to steal, etc.) with morality. Who says they have anything to do with morality?

              Please explain...
              I think you, too, might read my post #1865 in this thread, where I attempted to explain my position better.
              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                I agree that what we call morals come principally from biology via natural selection. My point (obviously poorly made) was that these social tendencies - to not murder, not steal, protect children, etc. - do not necessarily have anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong", but rather with what we have evolved tendencies to do. We call them 'right' or 'wrong', but that doesn't make them anything to do with morality in any existential sense.
                Well what would you consider to be moral ideals?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Well what would you consider to be moral ideals?
                  I'm tempted to use words like 'ethereal' and invoke Plato's cave. I think of them as something existential, something that exists outside or control or knowledge (if they exist at all). What we have - as I said above - what we have evolved - is what does us for morality, but it doesn't really deal with 'right' or 'wrong' - just what has worked out well for us (i.e., humanity).

                  Is murder 'wrong'? I don't know. All I can say is that I find the idea deeply repugnant (as I do most of the other things commonly held as 'wrong', like rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.). I am overall pleased it's illegal, but think exemptions could/should be made (mercy killings, etc.). Does it fit into the ethereal/existential category of 'wrong'? I don't know.

                  As I write this I'm wondering if I should have even brought this up. Calling murder morally wrong works for just about all of humanity, and in that sense it doesn't even really matter if there is some actual moral category out there that we can't access. Maybe I'm just trying to count those dancing angels.
                  America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                    I'm tempted to use words like 'ethereal' and invoke Plato's cave. I think of them as something existential, something that exists outside or control or knowledge (if they exist at all). What we have - as I said above - what we have evolved - is what does us for morality, but it doesn't really deal with 'right' or 'wrong' - just what has worked out well for us (i.e., humanity).

                    Is murder 'wrong'? I don't know. All I can say is that I find the idea deeply repugnant (as I do most of the other things commonly held as 'wrong', like rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.). I am overall pleased it's illegal, but think exemptions could/should be made (mercy killings, etc.). Does it fit into the ethereal/existential category of 'wrong'? I don't know.

                    As I write this I'm wondering if I should have even brought this up. Calling murder morally wrong works for just about all of humanity, and in that sense it doesn't even really matter if there is some actual moral category out there that we can't access. Maybe I'm just trying to count those dancing angels.
                    OK I get your point now.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                      I'm tempted to use words like 'ethereal' and invoke Plato's cave. I think of them as something existential, something that exists outside or control or knowledge (if they exist at all).
                      But:
                      (a) we can never have knowledge of whether such ethereal true forms beyond the veil of our world actually exist; and
                      (b) if they did exist and we were absolutely sure they existed, it still need have zero implications on our own actions because frankly what does it matter if we could say that such platonic forms of morality existed out there somewhere in the ether, why would that motivate our behavior in the slightest?

                      So, it seem to me, using this idea of morality is the wrong approach in the sense that we can never know if it's true, and if it is true then it doesn't affect anything. Why bother with something that can't affect us and which we can never know?

                      So instead of unknowable, untestable, ethereal ideas of morality which would have no implications for humans even if true, it seems better to focus on very down-to-earth things about human-human behavior. How do humans assess behavior, because that's what morality is in practice.

                      Evolution has put into humanity some pretty fundamental instincts, like threat-assessment. Every act by another being our brain assesses, often subconsciously, to determine if that poses a danger to our well-being, and also assesses to try and determine if the other being was intentionally trying to harm us. We can't get away assessing actions and those doing them based on whether harm was intended, or benefit was intended, and categorizing the person acting as an enemy or an ally (or somewhere in between). Our being a social animal, and being at times a predator and a prey animal, evolutionarily has made us deeply hardwired to make these sort of harm-benefit assessments of other people's intentions toward us. Unsurprisingly, then, we seem to find this harm-benefit assessment theme present in the thinking of all cultures with regard to morality.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Not confusing, and I never said fake. There are simply no right or wrong moral answers in your world. Save what you personally prefer - which is no more meaningful that your particular taste in ice cream. And yes it was a cheap shot.
                        As you wish, Seer. And I'm not going to waste more time discussing morality with you, given your tactics. If/when you are ever interested in a serious discussion that examines concepts in an attempt to arrive at understanding, let me know.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          Yes, I've seen the tactic before. It's used on another, similar website I frequent as well - I find it very depressing. Are the people who use it completely uninterested in actually discussing positions and beliefs? Are they just here to 'score points' for their side? I honestly don't get it.
                          That's pretty much my conclusion. It's not everyone, mind you. But the practitioners of that art are devoted to its efficacy. Further discussion with them is largely pointless. It's why I don't engage here all that often anymore.

                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          This is a common one - the difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist". I'll explain it with an analogy, but I'd encourage you to read online about the difference between 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism (in my experience, they are the most common terms to describe the difference, although I've heard others used - mostly 'positive' and 'negative' atheism).

                          With regard to atheism, we're (obviously) talking about belief in the existence of gods.

                          But, by way of an analogy look, instead, at belief in the color of my shirt. Do you believe that, right now, that I am wearing a white shirt (I'm not claiming that I am or that I am not)? You can't honestly say yes; you have no idea what color shirt I'm wearing (or even if I'm wearing a shirt at all). So you're "awhiteshirtbeliefist" - you lack belief that I'm wearing a white shirt. But nor do you believe I'm not wearing a white shirt. Again, you have no idea what I'm wearing.

                          So you don't believe I'm wearing a white shirt, but you also don't believe I'm not wearing a white shirt. You're a weak awhiteshirtbeliefist. But there's another bloke who walked past my house an hour ago and saw me - and he noted that I was wearing a red shirt. He's a strong awhiteshirtbeliefist - he doesn't believe I'm wearing a white shirt, and he also believes that I'm not wearing a white shirt. That belief (that I'm not wearing a white shirt) is one that you don't have - again, you have no idea at all.

                          Does that make sense?
                          It makes sense, but the language is a little thick. The statement "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt," is ambiguous. It could be parsed to mean, " 'You are wearing a white shirt' is not a belief I possess." It can also be parsed to mean "I assess your claim that you are wearing a white shirt as untrue." You seem to be constraining it to say the former. However, if I heard someone say "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt" on a phone call, I would assume they were telling the other person they believed they were wearing a shirt of a different color, or no shirt at all.

                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          Similarly, I don't believe a god exists - I find the claimed evidence unconvincing. But I also don't believe that no god exists. I can think of gods who would leave no evidence for me to perceive. Or maybe I'm just wrong in my evaluation of the claimed evidence for the Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) god.

                          In the end, it comes down to belief in propositions.

                          The proposition "A god exists" is not one in which I believe. The proposition "No gods exist" is another one in which I do not believe. That makes me a weak (or negative) atheist.
                          I understand your explanation, and am familiar with the weak/strong atheist propositions. I think I formulate my position a bit differently. Ultimately, I believe that proofs for the existence of god all fail to prove what they set out to prove, for any god I've ever heard proposed. I have also never encountered a proof for the nonexistence of a god. I'm not sure such a thing could even be constructed.

                          Despite that, I believe that all of the gods I have encountered in my studies of human history/mythology/theology are beings constructed from the imagination of humanity; they do not exist outside of the human mind. I hold that belief on the strength of a wide body of evidence gathered over the last three decades. No single element of that evidence is proof in and of itself, but the collection paints a portrait I find enormously compelling. I cannot say that "no gods exist" because such an absolute statement would require a level of knowledge/certitude not possible for a finite being. But it believe that is the most likely truth.

                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          Firstly, a good website on the agnostic thing is here.

                          I agree with your comment regarding 100% certainty. IMO the only thing we can ever know is that we exist - cogito, ergo sum. Apart from that fact, we could all be brains in a vat and everything I perceive an illusion. I can never know 100% that that is not the case.
                          I think Descartes was just a tad off. His "cogito ergo sum" should have been "cogito ergo existit aliquid." Unfortunately, it doesn't look as good on a mug or a t-shirt!

                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          But most people use 'know' not to mean 100% certainty, but something less stringent. In this context I use it to mean belief based on evidence so strong that no reasonable person would dispute the belief if they had access to the same evidence. That sadly makes it rather subjective - who decides what a 'reasonable' person is?
                          You are posting in the land of absolutes, ES. The response will likely be "god does," and then around we will go.

                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          My reasoning is rather simple - when I think of any religious experience anybody has ever claimed to have, including personal experiences of god, their accounts of the experience are indistinguishable from (a) documented hallucinations and (b) religious experiences of contradictory deities claimed by others. If person 1 claims to have had a personal experience of Jesus telling them that Islam is wrong and person 2 claims to have had a personal experience of Allah telling them that Christianity is wrong, obviously they both can't be correct. But they both claim equally valid and 'real' experiences - so at least one of those people is wrong, and actually had some sort of hallucination. But whichever one is wrong, the other one claimed precisely the same level of 'evidence' - so it's not reasonable to claim knowledge when someone with the same evidence for a contradictory belief is wrong.

                          Does that make sense?
                          It does indeed, and aligns with many of my own observations. You should perhaps know that I am a recovering evangelical Christian. 35 years ago I was in formation for the Catholic priesthood. I left the novitiate, then the sect, then the faith altogether over a period of about seven years. I've been atheist for almost three decades. Part of my journey out was due to my growing awareness of the circularity of the beliefs.

                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          Welcome to the dark side! We have cookies!
                          If they have only let you have the cookies, you must still be on probation. When you get your horns, they give you access to the good stuff...
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-11-2020, 07:37 PM.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                            I'm tempted to use words like 'ethereal' and invoke Plato's cave. I think of them as something existential, something that exists outside or control or knowledge (if they exist at all). What we have - as I said above - what we have evolved - is what does us for morality, but it doesn't really deal with 'right' or 'wrong' - just what has worked out well for us (i.e., humanity).

                            Is murder 'wrong'? I don't know. All I can say is that I find the idea deeply repugnant (as I do most of the other things commonly held as 'wrong', like rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.). I am overall pleased it's illegal, but think exemptions could/should be made (mercy killings, etc.). Does it fit into the ethereal/existential category of 'wrong'? I don't know.

                            As I write this I'm wondering if I should have even brought this up. Calling murder morally wrong works for just about all of humanity, and in that sense it doesn't even really matter if there is some actual moral category out there that we can't access. Maybe I'm just trying to count those dancing angels.
                            I have often noted that calling "murder" morally or legally wrong is nothing more than redundant. "Murder" is defined as "the unlawful or wrongful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

                            So "murder is wrong" expands to "wrongful killing is wrong." It's a simple tautology. The question is, what makes the killing of a human being by another human being "wrongful?" Clearly, one human being killing another is not always wrongful - at least not to most people.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                              False dichotomy. There are other options, such as that they exist but are subjective, that they are about personal preference.

                              Define 'personal preference' as used here. You seem to be using the term in a different way to me.
                              This will be interesting. If I recognize the avatar, JonathanL was formerly Chrawnus. While he and I do not agree on many things, he is one of the more serious and respectful posters here. He and I have had this discussion many times. I believe I might be a fly on the wall for this one...

                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                You said: You are confusing tendencies the vast majority of us have (not to murder, not to steal, etc.) with morality. Who says they have anything to do with morality?

                                Please explain...
                                Morality is functional and evolved as a survival mechanism for our species - it is not a set of arbitrary rules imposed by a despotic deity. Our capacity for caring for others developed because in recognizing pain and hurt in others discourages us from harming them. It promotes the community living essential for us as a social species to survive.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X