Question for the Atheist - Part deux

The Coffee Shop
1

As an atheist, because you don’t use “religion” as your moral guide, do you consider yourself a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not “as long as they are not hurting anyone”, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?

If you believe in moral relativism (you do not judge other people’s actions or cultures because their moral code is different than your own, mostly because it is accepted practice today), then you must necessarily also not use the morality argument as a reason to be an atheist – simply because the morality of the Holy Scriptures was practiced by a differnt culture, or because you don’t believe the Scriptures to be true, does not mean it can be judged.

If you believe in absolute morality, who or what determines which actions are moral and which are not? How do you trust any human being, no matter how smart they are, to prescribe what is moral and what is not. How can you be sure that what you do today will not be immoral 10 years from now?

2

Thats deep man and a very interesting question that I was thinking about recently. I shall enjoy the fireworks

3

I can only answer for myself.

I am the source of what I deem to be “moral” or “immoral.” Some may argue that its not a “real morality,” but rather a system of how I’d prefer to see people behave.

Using morality as a reason to be an atheist would be a pretty dumb reason IMO.

Regarding other cultures, a cultural reason for doing something moral/immoral explains it, but it doesn’t excuse it.

4

The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

I find the Objectivist view of morality to be the most compelling.

5

I can only answer for myself.

I am the source of what I deem to be “moral” or “immoral.” Some may argue that its not a “real morality,” but rather a system of how I’d prefer to see people behave.

Using morality as a reason to be an atheist would be a pretty dumb reason IMO.

Regarding other cultures, a cultural reason for doing something moral/immoral explains it, but it doesn’t excuse it.

I think the deeper question is where did you get the criteria for morality? Society? Your parents? A divine being sticking it into your DNA ( I had to use that one)

The question becomes even deeper if you place yourself into the culture you mentioned. Would the society’s influence change your moral compass and if not doesn’t that mean you were born with the standards you have now and wouldn’t that mean there was some intelligence put into your design? If we went back into the past and put you into a culture that performed human sacrifice would you object or would you just see as as business as usual?

Oh hell this thread should be epic!

PS. These are all serious question not necessarily directed at you but rather at the whole idea of morality and Nature vs nurture

6

If you follow the teachings of the Bible, you are by necessity a moral relativist, since hardly anything in the bible is cut and dried and everything can be interpreted basically however you want.

7

Do you consider your morals to be distinct, or different, than those practiced by adherents to most religions? And, how do you come about those definitions? Were they innate or learned? And, if learned, are you not just co-opting parts of structured religions?

Not trying to challenge you in any way, I’m just curious. I don’t consider myself an atheist or a follower of a religion. But, I can’t deny that my moral compass was shaped by many, many years of being subjected to catholic teachings (attended catholic/jesuit schools all the way through college). I often wonder if my moral view would be different - and how - if I hadn’t been exposed to those teachings.

8

believers and philosophers have bigger pipe dreams, but we all do what we do
.

9

If you follow the teachings of the Bible, you are by necessity a moral relativist, since hardly anything in the bible is cut and dried and everything can be interpreted basically however you want.

That also applies to any religion or belief or situation under the sun since some people are able to justify anything in our minds.Murderers do it every day as do guys who go to work and make an ass out of themselves because their ex is dating a coworker.

10

As an atheist, because you don’t use “religion” as your moral guide, do you consider yourself a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality?

no

In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not “as long as they are not hurting anyone”,

Yes, assuming we define “not hurting anyone” adequately, accounting for long term and indirect ramifications. This is tricky of course since almost any action, especially in a world with 7 billion people, has ramifications which will be bad for some, and good for others. We all want to behave in a way that is as good as possible for everybody, and the rules will sometimes change with the situation. Few rules are absolute. Even christian ideas like “thou shalt not kill” have exceptions, and even if you think it translates as “thou shalt not murder” - well sometimes the line between murder and righteous killing is blurry.

If you believe in moral relativism (you do not judge other people’s actions or cultures because their moral code is different than your own,

what if I believe in moral relativism AND I judge others actions? Some moral codes are shit. =) Believing in moral relativism does not necessary imply that I believe any set of morals is ok. At least not as I define it.

then you must necessarily also not use the morality argument as a reason to be an atheist

There is only one reason one would rationally use to be an atheist - the lack of evidence of a supernatural god existing. that is it, nothing more. you don’t decide to believe in god or not based on how convenient or useful the ethos may be, but on whether you think it is likely TRUE.

How do you trust any human being, no matter how smart they are, to prescribe what is moral and what is not. How can you be sure that what you do today will not be immoral 10 years from now?

You can’t trust humans to do this, you can’t be sure what is moral today will be moral in 10 years. This is inconvenient but we have survived a couple hundred thousand years with this system, and it is all we have. We do our best to make rational decisions about what is acceptable behavior given our current environment. We will get it wrong, we will change our minds. Hopefully we will trend towards improvement.

11

The only thing I got from your post is that you seem to have a big misunderstanding of what moral relativism means.

12

If you introduce two children to one another while their minds are still clean of social and cultural biases, they are fully capable of existing together in a civil (and more often friendly) manner. I’d consider that to be the purest moral plane. In my mind, any behavior that acts to diminish that purity of unconditional human relationship has some relative value of immorality. As such, religious affiliations effectively distinguish otherwise peaceful/agreeable individuals from one another, making religion - itself - an immoral entity. The belief systems are irrelevant in a moral discussion. It’s all about relative division and discourse that they generate.

13

I’ve answered these before.

A “semse of morality” is developed through genetics, education, and culture. My genetics will never change, but my education and culture could have. Had I been raised in the Taliban, I would likely have a completely different opinion about what is “right and wrong.”

The question might be, “if this is the case, then how can you be certain you are doing the right thing?” I’m not. But as a leader at work once said, "we have to base our decisions off of the evidence we have. None of us knows that we aren’t brains in a jar receiving electrical impulses, but the current evidence available does not suggest this, so we go through life assuming that we are not. Likewise, a religious person does not know that their religion is true, but since they believe that it i sthe most likely answer, they have to go through life as if it is.

Edit: sorry, another engineering analogy. We were testing blast effects on transport vehicles and we couldn’t put 96 sensor dummies in every seat, so it was suggested that we use the old 16 sensor dummies. “That’s not adequate.” “But it was adequate 5 years ago.” “Yes, and if you go back 20 years, a ball of clay was adequate, but we don’t run tests based off of old standards. We run them based off of today’s standards.”

IOW, since we no more today than we did then, we can’t simply hold ourselves to standards that were based on our limited knowledge, even though it was perfectly acceptable to do so when that was all the knowledge we had.

Likewise racism in America my be explained 100 years ago because they didn’t “know any better,” but we can use it as an excuse today because now we should know better.

Again, how do we “know” racism is bad? We don’t, but we make the best decisions we can given the evidence we have.

14

Do you consider your morals to be distinct, or different, than those practiced by adherents to most religions? And, how do you come about those definitions? Were they innate or learned? And, if learned, are you not just co-opting parts of structured religions?

Not trying to challenge you in any way, I’m just curious. I don’t consider myself an atheist or a follower of a religion. But, I can’t deny that my moral compass was shaped by many, many years of being subjected to catholic teachings (attended catholic/jesuit schools all the way through college). I often wonder if my moral view would be different - and how - if I hadn’t been exposed to those teachings.

sure they would, didn’t you just admit that your environment played a part

On a somewhat related thought, have often times challenged religious people with the question of if they had been born in a Muslim country to a Muslim family if they think they would still be a christian. I don’t know what the numbers of folks who change religions are, but backing out the folks who do it for marriage purposes and I would guess the number is pretty small.

Some folks don’t like it when you ask them that.

15

I think my next post covered these. Let me know if you have more questions.

16

I really don’t like the term “morals” because it seems loaded to me. So let me tell you how I judge right and wrong. The golden rule of do unto others. The idea that there is a standard set of morals that all people use is bullshit. People do what they want to do and justify it however they want.

17

I can only answer for myself.

I am the source of what I deem to be “moral” or “immoral.”

That’s what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao said, too.

18

I can only answer for myself.

I am the source of what I deem to be “moral” or “immoral.”

That’s what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao said, too.

Barry is basically Hitler, Stalin and Mao wrapped into one. Thankfully, this combination of supervillains is so abhorrent to even the most twisted among us that he is having real trouble raising armies to conquer the world and wreak havoc on decent society.

19

If you follow the teachings of the Bible, you are by necessity a moral relativist, since hardly anything in the bible is cut and dried and everything can be interpreted basically however you want.

Nope.

20

“That’s what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao said, too.”

I find your basic lack of intelligence highly immoral.