Is morality an illusion?

[olavisjo]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

[Goat]

As I understand it, the eventual overthrow of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic was initially a hugely unpopular change, and those that did so were decried in various ways for their efforts.

Were they immoral for changing the apparently moral behavior of their society?

Or was the society immoral for changing their previously moral behavior?

Is it moral for nations to behead homosexuals if it is within their law?

Does this mean that gay marriage should be banned, since it is currently the law in the majority of the states, indicating that society at large considers it immoral?

Or perhaps, morality is irrelevant except in the present and within our own culture, and it's just stuff that happened?

The needs and wants of society change. What fueled a lot of the southern slavery was the need for labor because of the introduction of the cotton gin... what fueled the elimination of slavery in the north was industrialization, which eliminated the need for a lot of the unskilled labor.

What drives changes in morality is disagreements in a society about what should be considered moral, and what shouldn't be.

So, are you finished building straw men?

I'm asking for your perspectives of moral behavior in specific situations. A straw man is a directed assessment about someone else's argument that is incorrect. Since I am exploring your perspective, and not misstating it, this is hardly a straw man.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

So, given your last statement regarding my actual questions, which you didn't answer, You are stating that morality is culturally and chronologically dependent and moral in and of itself?

Does this mean that you agree with the following statement: "Might makes Right"?

Yes, I didn't answer them.... because they were making assumptions that were a distraction from the point in hand, and totally irrelavent. ..


Now, are you finished attacking arguements people are not making?]

[olavisjo]

Yes, for the atheist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that selects beneficial genes.

It also informs of a worldview which is the most appropriate for further evolution.

Yes, eugenics.

Which what teaching a god given morality is.

I have read your response many times now, and I have to admit that I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I have stated that the reasons for moral behaviour are an evolutionary imperative. Without the emergence and ongoing evolution of moral behaviours we would not be having this conversation.

Yes, you did state some reasons for moral behaviour, but that is irrelevant to the question that we are talking about. So again, I will ask you, is there any reason why anyone should be moral?

[olavisjo]

Morality boils down to making sure one's actions to do not affect any other person in a negative way. Lying, cheating, stealing, committing adultery, etc all cause harm to other people. We do not need the bible to tell us that we should not act in ways that will hurt others. Even Atheists know this.

I agree with all that you have said, but is it rational for us to think like this? Why should we care if we cause harm to others? Eastern religions have karma, what we do to others will come back to us, to the rational mind this is a silly superstition. In western religions we have a God who says "Vengeance is mine; I will repay", which is another silly superstition.
There really is no good reason why we should care about others, although there is a lot of benefit in giving off the appearance of caring for others, this gives you a lot of prestige in the minds of the weaker superstitious people.
So, if you pretend to believe in morality, you are rational but if you really believe in it, then you are just superstitious.

[kayky]

One reason to be moral is reciprocity. If I agree not to harm you and you agree not to harm me, we both benefit. This makes social grouping possible, which enhances our ability to survive and reproduce.

[TXatheist]

Morality boils down to making sure one's actions to do not affect any other person in a negative way. Lying, cheating, stealing, committing adultery, etc all cause harm to other people. We do not need the bible to tell us that we should not act in ways that will hurt others. Even Atheists know this.

I agree with all that you have said, but is it rational for us to think like this? Why should we care if we cause harm to others? Eastern religions have karma, what we do to others will come back to us, to the rational mind this is a silly superstition. In western religions we have a God who says "Vengeance is mine; I will repay", which is another silly superstition.
There really is no good reason why we should care about others, although there is a lot of benefit in giving off the appearance of caring for others, this gives you a lot of prestige in the minds of the weaker superstitious people.
So, if you pretend to believe in morality, you are rational but if you really believe in it, then you are just superstitious.

Are you saying that the only reason you care about harming others is because the bible tells you it is wrong?

I do not believe in karma or god, but I still act morally because I do not want to hurt someone whether it be physically or emotionally. Like most people, I am compassionate and guided by my conscience.

[bernee51]

Yes, for the atheist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that selects beneficial genes.

It also informs of a worldview which is the most appropriate for further evolution.

Yes, eugenics.

Which what teaching a god given morality is.

I have read your response many times now, and I have to admit that I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Teaching what is believed to be a god given morality is an attempt to inform of a worldview most appropriate (in the eyes of the believer) to the evolution (change over time) throughout humankind toward that particular belief system.

I have stated that the reasons for moral behaviour are an evolutionary imperative. Without the emergence and ongoing evolution of moral behaviours we would not be having this conversation.

Yes, you did state some reasons for moral behaviour, but that is irrelevant to the question that we are talking about. So again, I will ask you, is there any reason why anyone should be moral?

Yes – to evolve.

[olavisjo]

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

In their culture, that is moral.. here, it is not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective

That is one possibility. But if a woman in Afghanistan does her arithmetic different than we do here, does it show that math is subjective or does it show that someone might be wrong?
When we form our conclusions, it is often a good idea to look at all possibilities, not just the ones we like.

[olavisjo]

One reason to be moral is reciprocity. If I agree not to harm you and you agree not to harm me, we both benefit. This makes social grouping possible, which enhances our ability to survive and reproduce.

If your desire is to survive and reproduce, then that strategy might be good for you, but if you are more into murdering, raping and robing then you may prefer a different approach to life.
You can still get the benefit of reciprocity by pretending to not harm the other person until such time that the benefits of stabbing them in the back is just to good to resist, and then do it in such a way that nobody knows about it.
If you take harming others out of your arsenal, you are limiting your options, and limiting your ability to get the most out of this life. So why would you believe that it is good not to harm others?

Just for the record, to me reciprocity is not a moral transaction, it is a business transaction.

[olavisjo]

Are you saying that the only reason you care about harming others is because the bible tells you it is wrong?

I do not believe in karma or god, but I still act morally because I do not want to hurt someone whether it be physically or emotionally. Like most people, I am compassionate and guided by my conscience.

There was a time when I did not care at all about others, they were just a means to an end. But God has given me the ability to love others (work in progress). And that ability is in his son, who now lives in me.

[olavisjo]

Yes, for the atheist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that selects beneficial genes.

It also informs of a worldview which is the most appropriate for further evolution.

Yes, eugenics.

Which what teaching a god given morality is.

I have read your response many times now, and I have to admit that I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Teaching what is believed to be a god given morality is an attempt to inform of a worldview most appropriate (in the eyes of the believer) to the evolution (change over time) throughout humankind toward that particular belief system.

Are you trying to say...

For the theist morality is just an abstract concept to describe the behaviour that propagates their religion.

I will ask you, is there any reason why anyone should be moral?

Yes – to evolve.

This may be your reason to be moral, but the person who has no interest in evolving, would not have that reason to be moral. So my assertion that 'there is no reason why anyone should be moral' stands.