Atheism And Moral Progress

[Tassman]

You don't have to be a theist to be a moral realist, if that's what you mean, Seer. I would say that a good percentage of moral realists among moral philosophers today would be atheist or agnostic.

Correct.

If you mean that theism is the most coherent foundation for moral realism, I agree. But I think it's more complicated than just "Theist=Moral Realist" and "Atheist=Moral Relativist."

Perhaps theism would be the most coherent foundation for moral realism if it could be established that it is based upon a verifiable foundation, namely the existence of a deity or deities. But it cannot.

[Jim B.]

Correct.



Perhaps theism would be the most coherent foundation for moral realism if it could be established that it is based upon a verifiable foundation, namely the existence of a deity or deities. But it cannot.

I think that's a slightly different question. If theism were the case, it would be the most coherent foundation.

[Tassman]

I think that's a slightly different question. If theism were the case, it would be the most coherent foundation.

I thought that's what I said. The problem is that its grounded in an unverifiable conditional premise.

[carpedm9587]

I think that's a slightly different question. If theism were the case, it would be the most coherent foundation.

Why?

[JimL]

I think that's a slightly different question. If theism were the case, it would be the most coherent foundation.

I disagree. I think the most coherent foundation for moral realism is that which is relevant to the best interests of community, or to humanity as a whole. What is relevant to any particular human being isn't necessarily relevant when you consider what is in the best interests of community, or in the best interests of humanity as a whole. One could argue that murder, robbery, theft etc may be in the best interests of a particular individual, but they are not in the collective best interests of the community to which the individual belongs.

[carpedm9587]

I disagree. I think the most coherent foundation for moral realism is that which is relevant to the best interests of community, or to humanity as a whole. What is relevant to any particular human being isn't necessarily relevant when you consider what is in the best interests of community, or in the best interests of humanity as a whole. One could argue that murder, robbery, theft etc may be in the best interests of a particular individual, but they are not in the collective best interests of the community to which the individual belongs.

The problem, Jim, is that this entire construct of yours is still "relative" to the community and the circumstance. You are going to have a hard time arguing absolute/universal moral norms because you are using words like "best to X," which is an intrinsically relative term, and what is "best" will depend on what that society collectively finds to be of value. You're trying to make a case for an objective/absolute moral framework on the basis of subjective/relative criteria. I don't think you will be successful. The concept of absolute/objective moral norms fail even WITH a god - I don't see how you even begin to make the case without one.

[shunyadragon]

I think that's a slightly different question. If theism were the case, it would be the most coherent foundation.

It is obvious IF theism 'were the case.' but it is also obvious 'if theism were not the case' theism would not be the 'coherent foundation.'

[JimL]

The problem, Jim, is that this entire construct of yours is still "relative" to the community and the circumstance. You are going to have a hard time arguing absolute/universal moral norms because you are using words like "best to X," which is an intrinsically relative term, and what is "best" will depend on what that society collectively finds to be of value. You're trying to make a case for an objective/absolute moral framework on the basis of subjective/relative criteria. I don't think you will be successful. The concept of absolute/objective moral norms fail even WITH a god - I don't see how you even begin to make the case without one.

I'm sure that theists believe that a god based objective morality is in the best interests of humanity, just as I believe that it doesn't need be god based to have that effect. Such is their idea of heaven. Morals are either in our overall best interests, or they are not, and it doesn't matter if we imperfect humans undertand what they are or not. For instance a moral against murder, rape, robbery etc etc, I think all would agree is in the best interests of human society, otherwise we would all be free to murder, rape and rob each other and there would of course be chaos. What difference then does it make if morals pertain to heaven or to earth, whether the foundation is god or nature, they are either in the best interests of humanity as a whole, as a community, or they are not.

[carpedm9587]

I'm sure that theists believe that a god based objective morality is in the best interests of humanity, just as I believe that it doesn't need be god based to have that effect.

You should give this podcast a listen. Shariff is a social psychologist who studies the relationships between religions and society. One of the theories that has arisen from his work is that the emergence of "punisher gods" is demonstrably linked to the growth of human societies beyond the size where everyone knew everyone else. When everyone knows everyone else, it is hard to "game the society" without being detected. But once a society grows beyond the point where it is possible for everyone to know everyone else, people can join the society with the aim to take advantage of it, and can potentially fly under the radar. It appears that the trend is for these societies to develop the concept of a punisher god - usually one who sees all, knows all, and will hold to account - if not in this life (i.e., bad fortune, illness, etc.) then in the next (i.e., hell, etc.). The work is interesting. The podcast also talks extensively about which religious attributes do impact behavior, and which do not seem to.

Such is their idea of heaven. Morals are either in our overall best interests, or they are not, and it doesn't matter if we imperfect humans undertand what they are or not.

Again, you are touting a vague "best interests." "Best" according to whom? Measured how? You are firmly in relative/subjective territory, but claiming to be a moral "realist" (an ironic term, if ever there was one). I don't see how this works.

For instance a moral against murder, rape, robbery etc etc, I think all would agree is in the best interests of human society, otherwise we would all be free to murder, rape and rob each other and there would of course be chaos.

Murder and rape are nonstarters. They are not actions - they are actions in a context. Murder is defined as an illicit or illegal killing. It is immoral by definition. The same is basically true of rape. It is defined as "unlawful sexual activity..." As for theft, any group or society that lacks the concept of personal property won't even have a prohibition against theft - the very concept will simply not exist. That society probably won't even have a word for it. Without the concept of "personal property," "theft is meaningless.

What difference then does it make if morals pertain to heaven or to earth, whether the foundation is god or nature, they are either in the best interests of humanity as a whole, as a community, or they are not.

Since neither of those is the basis for morality, it makes no difference whatsoever.

[JimL]

You should give this podcast a listen. Shariff is a social psychologist who studies the relationships between religions and society. One of the theories that has arisen from his work is that the emergence of "punisher gods" is demonstrably linked to the growth of human societies beyond the size where everyone knew everyone else. When everyone knows everyone else, it is hard to "game the society" without being detected. But once a society grows beyond the point where it is possible for everyone to know everyone else, people can join the society with the aim to take advantage of it, and can potentially fly under the radar. It appears that the trend is for these societies to develop the concept of a punisher god - usually one who sees all, knows all, and will hold to account - if not in this life (i.e., bad fortune, illness, etc.) then in the next (i.e., hell, etc.). The work is interesting. The podcast also talks extensively about which religious attributes do impact behavior, and which do not seem to.

Not sure what the above is saying in response to the quote it is answer to. A god based objective morality, I'm sure that the adherents of, believe is a moral system that best serves their society. But if so, that same moral system, whether it is god based objective or not, would still best serve human society. I'm not talking about the system being gamed or anything of that sort, I'm just saying that a moral system that best serves the overall interests of human society, regardless of whether everyone knows everyone else or not, or how big or small the society is, doesn't need to be god based. The same moral system could exist whether god based or not.

Again, you are touting a vague "best interests." "Best" according to whom? Measured how? You are firmly in relative/subjective territory, but claiming to be a moral "realist" (an ironic term, if ever there was one). I don't see how this works.

Best overall interests for a peaceful and happy society as a whole. People, individuals, can always disagree with this or that, but that doesn't mean that there is not a best possible moral system, under which to live a peaceful and happy life. After all, that's why we create moral systems to begin with.

Murder and rape are nonstarters. They are not actions - they are actions in a context. Murder is defined as an illicit or illegal killing. It is immoral by definition. The same is basically true of rape. It is defined as "unlawful sexual activity..."

Immoral by definition? Why?

As for theft, any group or society that lacks the concept of personal property won't even have a prohibition against theft - the very concept will simply not exist. That society probably won't even have a word for it. Without the concept of "personal property," "theft is meaningless.

Then they don't have to have a moral against it, that's why morals aren't objective realities in and of themselves. But, I think everyone everywhere has some things they believe to be their own.

Since neither of those is the basis for morality, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Not following. What isn't the basis of morality? What is the basis of morality?

[carpedm9587]

Not sure what the above is saying in response to the quote it is answer to. A god based objective morality, I'm sure that the adherents of, believe is a moral system that best serves their society.

Which would make it relative to their interpretation of what "best" is," and subjective to that religious group.

But if so, that same moral system, whether it is god based objective or not, would still best serve human society.

Relative to someone's definition of "best," making it subjective to that someone.

I'm not talking about the system being gamed or anything of that sort, I'm just saying that a moral system that best serves the overall interests of human society, regardless of whether everyone knows everyone else or not, or how big or small the society is, doesn't need to be god based. The same moral system could exist whether god based or not.

And would be relative and subjective to that individual and/or society.

Best overall interests for a peaceful and happy society as a whole.

So now we are relative to a society's interpretation of "peaceful" and what makes people happy - which is a subjective thing.

People, individuals, can always disagree with this or that, but that doesn't mean that there is not a best possible moral system, under which to live a peaceful and happy life. After all, that's why we create moral systems to begin with.

Except that what makes one person or society "happy" may not make another society or person "happy." And peaceful is also open to interpretation and varies from individual to individual. Does it mean stress-free? Without war? Without any conflict? Without disagreement?

Immoral by definition? Why?

Because that is how we define the terms:

Murder: an illicit or illegal killing.
Rape: an illicit or illegal sexual act.

So saying "murder is immoral" is the same as saying (by substitution), "illicit or illegal killing is immoral." See the problem? Now we have the problem of determining specifically which act of killing is "illicit" or "illegal."

Then they don't have to have a moral against it, that's why morals aren't objective realities in and of themselves. But, I think everyone everywhere has some things they believe to be their own.

Wait, wait - you are a moral realist who doesn't believe that morals are objective realities? How does THAT work?

Not following. What isn't the basis of morality? What is the basis of morality?

Gods or your "social good." Morality is individual. It is rooted in the things that we individually value. Because we all share a great deal in common, we tend to value in common ways, so their is significant alignment in our moral frameworks. But there is essentially no such thing as a "social moral norm." What we consider "social moral norms" are nothing more than the moral positions that the majority of us (in a given society) hold in common. We tend to gather in societies that most align with our own moral framework. But if the individual perceives the group moral norm as "wrong," they will reject it in favor of their own. We see this all the time.

[Jim B.]

I thought that's what I said. The problem is that its grounded in an unverifiable conditional premise.

The conditional premise was assumed going in. We can argue over the existence of God, but that's another matter. Whether or not God provides a coherent foundation for moral realism, assuming such a God, was the point. It was assumed as a conditional, not as a matter of fact. Your assuming God's unverifiability as a matter of fact.

[Jim B.]

Why?

Because I think that the God of the omni's would be a concrete instantiation of the good and of love.

[Tassman]

The conditional premise was assumed going in.

Exactly. So, your premise is based upon an unverified assumption.

We can argue over the existence of God, but that's another matter.

It’s not another matter, it's the core of your argument. Without a demonstrably true premise, i.e. God’s existence, we cannot arrive at a true conclusion in a sound deductive argument.

Whether or not God provides a coherent foundation for moral realism, assuming such a God, was the point.

It would provide “a coherent foundation for moral realism” if God existed, but we don’t know that. This is the point.

It was assumed as a conditional, not as a matter of fact. Your assuming God's unverifiability as a matter of fact.

Correct. Science has no methodology to verify claims of supernatural entities such as gods.

[Tassman]

I disagree. I think the most coherent foundation for moral realism is that which is relevant to the best interests of community, or to humanity as a whole.

Yes. Given the absence of substantiated divine revelation for “moral realism”, the obvious basis for it is as a product of the evolution of the necessary human community behavior to ensure our survival as a social species.