Atheism And Moral Progress

[mattbballman31]

It is hard to see what an atheist would mean by moral progress. Would she mean that what agrees with her ethical point of view is progress? Or that more of us agree with each other? I suppose the atheist could look at increasing peace and prosperity as moral progress, but again that would still revert to that which agrees with her ethical point of view (that increasing peace and prosperity is actually a moral good). So it seems that without a universal moral standard to aim at, or move towards, that there is no moral progress, merely moral change.

Unless the atheist were a moral realist. Then there'd be (more or less) approximations to an absolute good (or a universal standard or an objective measure against which the atheist may be able to say that some act or state of affairs is better or worse than another act or state of affairs). I don't think moral realism succeeds as a legit moral ontology (I think you need God) - but Wielenberg, Shafer-Landau, Parfit, Enoch, Boyd, et. al. all subscribe to different versions of moral realism (without God). But I agree with you that progress makes no sense if moral realism is false (not to mention Blackburn's bogus quasi-realism). For me, it just boils down to a clash of intuitions and premises. Do I have less reason to trust my intuition that a baby being cut up and tortured for the fun of it is objectively wrong than any reason that could be offered for a premise in an argument leading to a conclusion that implied that my intuition was unreliable (some kind of subjectivism, non-cognitivism, or relativism {meta-ethical or normative})? I don't think so. I even trust my moral intuitions more than what my five senses tell me (I'm more sure that racism and slavery and murder {et al.} are wrong {absolutely/objectively/universally - with the required qualifications implicit in those adverbs} than that solipism is false and that there's an external world).

Cheers!

[Tassman]

Of course in your world Jim there is no design or teleology for human sexuality. That is why in your world there is nothing wrong with deviant behaviors like homosexuality, bestiality or promiscuity or prostitution.

In the real world behaviours such as bestiality or promiscuity or prostitution are not acceptable either for reasons explained previously. As for homosexuality, it is now understood to be a normal, albeit minority, variation of human sexuality and therefore just as acceptable as heterosexuality.

In my worldview there is a purpose and design for human sexuality and that teleology does not change with time or cultural mores.

Your worldview re homosexuality is not shared by the majority of Christians in the West, who have a reality-based understanding of homosexuality.

[carpedm9587]

Yet that has no bearing on the despot or his values or whether he can succeed or not.

I didn't say it did. Indeed, I noted that the lone despot can actually succeed, for at least a while. The observation was why society as a whole will never adopt "despotism" as a morally correct approach.

Whether those values can be generalized or not does not come into the picture as the despot is protecting/nurturing what he values.

It comes into play as a social norm. The despot may well believe he is acting morally (assuming he is aligning his actions with what he values). Society will usually resist because of the inherent flaw in despotism as a widely held moral norm.

[carpedm9587]

Unless the atheist were a moral realist. Then there'd be (more or less) approximations to an absolute good (or a universal standard or an objective measure against which the atheist may be able to say that some act or state of affairs is better or worse than another act or state of affairs). I don't think moral realism succeeds as a legit moral ontology (I think you need God) - but Wielenberg, Shafer-Landau, Parfit, Enoch, Boyd, et. al. all subscribe to different versions of moral realism (without God). But I agree with you that progress makes no sense if moral realism is false (not to mention Blackburn's bogus quasi-realism). For me, it just boils down to a clash of intuitions and premises. Do I have less reason to trust my intuition that a baby being cut up and tortured for the fun of it is objectively wrong than any reason that could be offered for a premise in an argument leading to a conclusion that implied that my intuition was unreliable (some kind of subjectivism, non-cognitivism, or relativism {meta-ethical or normative})? I don't think so. I even trust my moral intuitions more than what my five senses tell me (I'm more sure that racism and slavery and murder {et al.} are wrong {absolutely/objectively/universally - with the required qualifications implicit in those adverbs} than that solipism is false and that there's an external world).

Cheers!

Consider evolution. "Progress" in evolution exists. It is always towards optimizing the species for its environmental niche. But if the environmental niche changes, then the "direction" of progress will change as well. We have even seen species loose features only to reacquire them later when an environmental niche shifts and then shifts back. Progress in morality may well be similar to that model. It doesn't have an absolute/objective goal that is fixed, but it is always moving people towards better and better protection of what they value. It's just that what they value can change over time.

[rogue06]

Consider evolution. "Progress" in evolution exists. It is always towards optimizing the species for its environmental niche. But if the environmental niche changes, then the "direction" of progress will change as well. We have even seen species loose features only to reacquire them later when an environmental niche shifts and then shifts back. Progress in morality may well be similar to that model. It doesn't have an absolute/objective goal that is fixed, but it is always moving people towards better and better protection of what they value. It's just that what they value can change over time.

In the case of sexual selection this isn't always the case. While increased tail plumage in male peacocks allows it to have a better chance at mating and leaving progeny (the very definition of "survival of the fittest") it can hinder its ability to take off and fly thus making it more susceptible to predation. In this case it is a trade off and it is not being optimized for its environmental niche.

[carpedm9587]

In the case of sexual selection this isn't always the case. While increased tail plumage in male peacocks allows it to have a better chance at mating and leaving progeny (the very definition of "survival of the fittest") it can hinder its ability to take off and fly thus making it more susceptible to predation. In this case it is a trade off and it is not being optimized for its environmental niche.

"Optimized" means it is evolving to maximize reproduction within the context. Tail feathers must produce more offspring than are lost to predators, or the tail-less birds would be surviving more and passing on THEIR DNA more commonly. This is something that people prone to binary thinking seem to struggle with. Evolution doesn't guarantee every member of a species will survive. It simply means those that survive more live to pass on their traits, and those who survive less pass on their traits less. It's a mindless (as far as I know) process. And it is all about balances.

[seer]

Unless the atheist were a moral realist. Then there'd be (more or less) approximations to an absolute good (or a universal standard or an objective measure against which the atheist may be able to say that some act or state of affairs is better or worse than another act or state of affairs). I don't think moral realism succeeds as a legit moral ontology (I think you need God) - but Wielenberg, Shafer-Landau, Parfit, Enoch, Boyd, et. al. all subscribe to different versions of moral realism (without God). But I agree with you that progress makes no sense if moral realism is false (not to mention Blackburn's bogus quasi-realism). For me, it just boils down to a clash of intuitions and premises. Do I have less reason to trust my intuition that a baby being cut up and tortured for the fun of it is objectively wrong than any reason that could be offered for a premise in an argument leading to a conclusion that implied that my intuition was unreliable (some kind of subjectivism, non-cognitivism, or relativism {meta-ethical or normative})? I don't think so. I even trust my moral intuitions more than what my five senses tell me (I'm more sure that racism and slavery and murder {et al.} are wrong {absolutely/objectively/universally - with the required qualifications implicit in those adverbs} than that solipism is false and that there's an external world).

Cheers!

Great points Matt!!!

[seer]

It comes into play as a social norm. The despot may well believe he is acting morally (assuming he is aligning his actions with what he values). Society will usually resist because of the inherent flaw in despotism as a widely held moral norm.

That doesn't make sense, people don't resist despotism because there is an inherent flaw with generalizing it it. I doubt if that ever enters into anyone thinking, except perhaps in yours or Kant's. People resist because they have an intrinsic sense of freedom and justice. People generally don't like to be controlled.

I didn't say it did. Indeed, I noted that the lone despot can actually succeed, for at least a while. The observation was why society as a whole will never adopt "despotism" as a morally correct approach.

So you agree that the despot's value system is just as legitimate as yours, correct?

[carpedm9587]

That doesn't make sense, people don't resist despotism because there is an inherent flaw with generalizing it it. I doubt if that ever enters into anyone thinking, except perhaps in yours or Kant's. People resist because they have an intrinsic sense of freedom and justice. People generally don't like to be controlled.

Correct. People value life, liberty, and justice. A despot will value of power over these things. Most of us do not. Indeed, most of us recognize that is power is the primary driver, life, liberty, and justice are at risk. The despot usually has a broken "golden rule" gauge. Most people do not.

So you agree that the despot's value system is just as legitimate as yours, correct?

I never said anything about "legitimate." I've never used that word, nor WOULD I ever use that word. You keep inserting it. You are attempting to make an absolute statement about a relative/subjective process. It doesn't work that way.

I CAN say that the despots moral framework, given what he/she values, is probably correct to him/her. That does not make it correct to me or to most other people.

[seer]

Correct. People value life, liberty, and justice. A despot will value of power over these things. Most of us do not. Indeed, most of us recognize that is power is the primary driver, life, liberty, and justice are at risk. The despot usually has a broken "golden rule" gauge. Most people do not.

Correct.

I CAN say that the despots moral framework, given what he/she values, is probably correct to him/her. That does not make it correct to me or to most other people.

Exactly.

[Sparko]

Sparko - I do not tell groups that call themselves Christian whether or not they are Christian. I leave that for you folks to fight about. I recognize many Christian groups deny that other groups that claim Christianity are actually Christian. There are currently over 2500 Christian sects. I'm not going to get into the middle of an inter-faith (or inter-sect) dispute. I merely noted the existence of many points of view. I did not argue their relative merits. Frankly, I think they are ALL wrong, so it would be silly of me to do so.

I guess that means I can say,"Muslims are terrorists," using the same logic.

[Sparko]

Only if it is proven by the illogic of their thought, such as thinking that killing, raping and pillaging is good for the community in which they live.

But you just are judging them by YOUR standards and you have already admitted that an individual's moral views don't matter. What is your "say so" compared to an entire world who has scientific studies backing up their claims?

[carpedm9587]

I guess that means I can say,"Muslims are terrorists," using the same logic.

"Muslim's are terrorists" is an unequivocal statement, so it is wrong. "Some Muslims are terrorists" is correct.

However, I don't see how this is logically associated with our discussion.

[Sparko]

"Muslim's are terrorists" is an unequivocal statement, so it is wrong. "Some Muslims are terrorists" is correct.

However, I don't see how this is logically associated with our discussion.

you are excusing your inaccurate generalization of Christianity by saying it's too confusing so you just leave it up to Christians to fight about. That pretty much excuses any bigotry or ignorance doesn't it? "black people are criminals" - I can't be bothered to figure out all the various social groups in black society, I just leave it up to them to them to fight about. "Muslims are terrorists." "White people are racist." "Wiccan are devil worshippers"

[JimL]

But you just are judging them by YOUR standards and you have already admitted that an individual's moral views don't matter. What is your "say so" compared to an entire world who has scientific studies backing up their claims?

They can't have scientific studies backing up their claims if their claims are idiotic. In other words it's not about what some goofballs might think, or claim, what is good or bad for people and society need conform to reason and logic, not just someones "say so."