Can Atheists be Moral? Can the Religious?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Can Atheists be Moral? Can the religious be moral?

I've heard the idea that atheists can't be moral, because physically, we're all just selfish apes, protecting and increasing our genes, and without some supernatural addition to this formula, good is not possible. The ape mother protects her child because that increases her genes. This act, the idea goes, is not moral, but selfish. Any time a human helps another human, this idea would apply.

I've also heard that religious people can't really be moral because whatever they do that is supposedly moral, they don't do it for its own sake, but for the reward. I've even heard that religious people can't be moral because their morality is unthinking. Random total obedience is morally neutral at best, so, the idea goes, if you're just blindly trusting somebody, even a powerful entity, that's not really morality.

Both of these ideas frankly seem to hold water so I'm curious if anyone can be moral.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, I think so. I don’t just decide what flavors I like, either. Sure, I can grow to like a flavor I didn’t before because I kept making myself try it and eventually liked it (that’s me with salad, for instance). But it doesn’t matter how many times I’ve tried to get myself to like coffee; I just can’t like it. I naturally like some flavors more than others. I naturally have fun playing sports, always have. Not everyone does, even if they try to like them.

That's fine, this is what I had in mind when I said you "decide" what is fun. Do you accept that this "fun" is not built into football, but is something relatively to you? Presumably you do accept that. If so, then I would like to bring back my earlier question. What's so different between "fun" and "purpose" that one is built into football, but not the other?

I’m using “assigned” more loosely than that. Obviously, if God exists, God could have assigned the shape of the earth, but even if atheism is true, there was an outside process that “assigned” (maybe determined is a better word?) the shape of the Earth to be what it was.

Okay, then an obvious grounding an atheist can appeal to is the same outside processes that assigned the shape of the Earth, can't objective morality was assigned by natural processes? Atheists don't need to appeal to God for math and logic, why not morality?

That’s my point. To use “should” is useless in your own view (because it really means the other thing that is already covered by your language) and confusing when comparing it to a view like mine, where “should” touches a different concept from what we like.

Would you say words like "tasty" and "pretty" are useless in your own view because it really means "liking something" which is already covered by our language? It's not all that confusing, people accept the subjectivity of a preference and words associated with it intuitively, just view moral through the same lens as you do food taste.

[The Tanager]

That's fine, this is what I had in mind when I said you "decide" what is fun. Do you accept that this "fun" is not built into football, but is something relatively to you? Presumably you do accept that. If so, then I would like to bring back my earlier question. What's so different between "fun" and "purpose" that one is built into football, but not the other?

I would word it more like the “fun” comes from a connection of our two natures (what the game is and who I am), and I don’t think you’d have a problem with that, but maybe you do. Where we might disagree is that I think some people have natures that don’t connect to the nature of football in that same way, but I think all humans connect to objective morality in a way that it is optimal for us is to choose good. In other words, not everyone needs football to be truly happy, but I do think everyone needs to be good to be truly happy.

Okay, then an obvious grounding an atheist can appeal to is the same outside processes that assigned the shape of the Earth, can't objective morality was assigned by natural processes? Atheists don't need to appeal to God for math and logic, why not morality?

Well, I actually think God is needed to ground math and logic, too, but that’s a different issue that we can hold off on because one could be true and not the other. Just focusing on morality, how do the natural processes assign good/evil? How do you bridge the is-ought gap? The natural process can assign that X damages one’s life, but I don’t see how it can assign that damaging that one’s life is evil. Sure, not preferred by the one being damaged, but that's different. The cancer that ravages us is the flourishing of those cells, both good and evil, which means those words would be useless.

Would you say words like "tasty" and "pretty" are useless in your own view because it really means "liking something" which is already covered by our language? It's not all that confusing, people accept the subjectivity of a preference and words associated with it intuitively, just view moral through the same lens as you do food taste.

You aren’t accounting for everything here. Yes, ‘tasty’ is a good word to use for liking a certain flavor. But we are talking about how we should talk about liking it when someone else likes the same flavor as us. ‘Tasty’ isn’t fitting there. Neither is ‘should’. To say “you should like this flavor” is useless and confusing when what you mean is “I like it that you like this flavor”. That is not what ‘should’ has traditionally meant and changing its meaning is not only confusing, but then can trick people into thinking there was no other concept that ‘should’ used to cover that can be discussed.

That’s what you are doing with morality. Tons of people have meant more than just “I like it when you don’t like child abuse” by going on to say “you should not abuse a child, whether you or I like it or not.” By using ‘should’ to cover the first phrase you not only are bringing in a second way to say something you already have easily recognized and used language for, you are also taking away the second concept that uses easily recognized and used language from the discussion, or, at least, muddying the waters.

The objectivist is talking about 'should' in that other sense. You are saying, yeah but I use 'should' to talk about the first sense. Okay, then at the very least come up with a new word to talk about what the objectivist is talking about if you want to claim you are disagreeing with them.

[Bust Nak]

I would word it more like the “fun” comes from a connection of our two natures (what the game is and who I am), and I don’t think you’d have a problem with that, but maybe you do.

That's fine, but with things that are objective, there is no connection of two natures, it's purely on the nature of the game.

Where we might disagree is that I think some people have natures that don’t connect to the nature of football in that same way, but I think all humans connect to objective morality in a way that it is optimal for us is to choose good. In other words, not everyone needs football to be truly happy, but I do think everyone needs to be good to be truly happy.

Most of that is okay, I fully accept that we are indeed connect with morality in such a way that everyone needs to be good to be truly happy, but that not mean that this "be good" is an objective good.

Well, I actually think God is needed to ground math and logic, too, but that’s a different issue that we can hold off on because one could be true and not the other. Just focusing on morality, how do the natural processes assign good/evil? How do you bridge the is-ought gap?

The universe is a certain way, it's the nature of the universe, there are facts about the nature of the universe, one such fact is that it's immoral to kick babies. Objectivists would deny there is such a gap - they are not going proposing that X is harmful -> X is immoral; instead they are proposing X is immoral full stop, both is and ought is presented as one thing together.

You aren’t accounting for everything here. Yes, ‘tasty’ is a good word to use for liking a certain flavor. But we are talking about how we should talk about liking it when someone else likes the same flavor as us. ‘Tasty’ isn’t fitting there. Neither is ‘should’. To say “you should like this flavor” is useless and confusing when what you mean is “I like it that you like this flavor”. That is not what ‘should’ has traditionally meant and changing its meaning is not only confusing, but then can trick people into thinking there was no other concept that ‘should’ used to cover that can be discussed.

That other nature is only relevant in a debate between subjectivism and objectivism, and under such condition, I think it's fair that you make explicit the objectivity when referring to the other concept.

That’s what you are doing with morality. Tons of people have meant more than just “I like it when you don’t like child abuse” by going on to say “you should not abuse a child, whether you or I like it or not.”

We call those people objectivists. There is never a something else for me to account for: I am a subjectivist, I have no obligation to account for something that only exist under a worldview I don't hold. In every day use "you should not abuse a child" is taken to mean "you are obliged to refrain from child abuse," whether the nature of that obligation is an objective fact, or a subjective preference is left unstated.

By using ‘should’ to cover the first phrase you not only are bringing in a second way to say something you already have easily recognized and used language for, you are also taking away the second concept that uses easily recognized and used language from the discussion, or, at least, muddying the waters.

The objectivist is talking about 'should' in that other sense. You are saying, yeah but I use 'should' to talk about the first sense. Okay, then at the very least come up with a new word to talk about what the objectivist is talking about if you want to claim you are disagreeing with them.

It's up to you guys to make explicit the "whether you or I like it or not." The traditional meaning isn't owned by objectivists, it's neutral on its nature re: subjectivism vs objectivism. Most people are objectivists, so of course they take it for granted. But look at it from our perspective, as subjectivists, we too take it for granted that 'should' is just the first sense. Must we be the ones to give up on our intuition because we are the minority?

[Purple Knight]

But more toward the OP, you have to go outside that trust to 1) acquire that trust in the first place, to decide this God is a good person and 2) to be moral. Just trusting somebody blindly is not moral.

I agree. My point is that you don’t really hate moral castigation itself, you hate moral castigation by beings whom you can't trust to be correct.

I think I hate it because they really are endowed with a higher morality than I am, so every time a moral person comes around with oh you can't do that, you have to do this, it's one more way I have to bend over backwards just because they're more moral, just because they're on top. If you're personally evil it's an unwinnable game. I can do as they say, but they can just say, "Well you only did that because we told you; you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. You can't. You're not that kind of person." And they're right. So here I am thinking of them first and myself last, because I ought to anyway even if it is without reward or recognition, and it brings me no joy whatsoever. It just makes me hate. I hate because it's a rigged game. And if everything you Christians say is real, I'm doing absolutely everything I can to be good, they're doing nothing but hurting someone else, and I go to Hell and they go to Heaven.

And they probably get sticks long enough to poke the people down in Hell, because that's how they express being good: They hurt and correct bad people who deserve it. Besides, there would be no Hell without the constant assault of genuine moral betters. It's not like the bad people can ever do the right thing and not be corrected. They're bad, that means their motives were bad, that means the act, no matter what it was, was still bad, and they can still be corrected. And it gives the good people the higher joy of knowing they are righteous, hurting people for their own joy, which is righteous, because they really are better than the bad people.

Here you’ve hit on what Jesus says is our optimal, though. There is no greater love than to lay one’s life down for others. Love your neighbor as yourself. The kind of love that is willing to do this (if necessary) is what maximizes joy in humans, I think. There are many ways (short of sacrificing one’s own life) that express this kind of love, too. Jesus says pursue that kind of love. He taught about it constantly and calls his followers to do that. If we choose a different purpose from this in the various situations we find ourselves in, while we can feel some joy, we will be settling for second best at best. That's the Christian claim, at least.

I think the Christian claim is a subset of truth, and the greater joy is choosing your own purpose. If you feel joy because you lay down your life for someone else, it's because you believe you have made a good choice. It must be both: Good, and a choice. If you thought it was an evil act, there would be no joy. If you thought it wasn't your choice, if someone forced you to do it, there would be no joy there either.

We still have the benefit of generally expecting people to not lie otherwise we deem them immoral.

How? He didn't agree like we did. Your way of coming up with a moral code is more mutually beneficial but unlike a strong moral code, ours is based on something, so when that something is not there, I have to assume it doesn't apply. Baseless or divine command morality has other problems, but not this problem. It doesn't rely on anything, so the people who uphold it have no problem applying it to others.

Baseless morality works this way. Murder is just wrong. It just is. End of story. So of course I can punish a murderer.

Morality based on mutual benefit or agreement arguably disappears when the basis for it does.

I think you’d be justified in trying to make the Festens stop, yes. But that doesn’t mean you turn around and start forcing the Festens to do everything like you would like them to. Freeing the Blops by resisting the Festens and controlling the Festens moving forward are two different things. You can use the word ‘oppress’ to cover both freeing the Blops from the Festens' control and the safeguards you put into effect to keep the Festens from oppressing others, but they are clearly different senses of that word.

That's what I'm trying to tell Benchwarmer. If something is objectively morally wrong, you're justified in invading and changing their way of life. It doesn't mean that you can change other ways of life they have that are not objectively morally wrong, but objective morality does provide this trump card while subjective morality does not.

So if you believe morality is objective, it is a strong, overriding morality that others must heed. And if you believe in subjective morality, or morality that is based on anything like benefit or agreement, that morality is weak in that others need not heed it.

[Purple Knight]

So are you saying that our morality is objective in relation to one another, and that is all you mean by objective morality?

I'm saying that if morality is subjective, then morality is objective (to a tiny, tiny degree) because you can't apply your morality to me and that's what subjective morality means.

[William]

So are you saying that our morality is objective in relation to one another, and that is all you mean by objective morality?

I'm saying that if morality is subjective, then morality is objective (to a tiny, tiny degree) because you can't apply your morality to me and that's what subjective morality means.

So yes, you are saying that our morality is objective in relation to one another, and that is all you mean by objective morality...

[The Tanager]

That's fine, but with things that are objective, there is no connection of two natures, it's purely on the nature of the game.

Not in that previous system of phrasing (although I think you may be meaning the same concept with your phrasing here). There is the same connection between the nature of the game and any other nature connecting to it (it is “fun” for all or “not-fun” for all) for objectivity and different connections for subjectivity (fun for one, not-fun for another).

Most of that is okay, I fully accept that we are indeed connect with morality in such a way that everyone needs to be good to be truly happy, but that not mean that this "be good" is an objective good.

That’s the same phrase, but not the same concept because your ‘being good’ is simply a synonym for ‘liking’ and ‘being truly happy’, while my ‘being good’ is an entirely different concept. You reject that that concept exists and, so, don’t accept that everyone needs to be that to be truly happy.

The universe is a certain way, it's the nature of the universe, there are facts about the nature of the universe, one such fact is that it's immoral to kick babies. Objectivists would deny there is such a gap - they are not going proposing that X is harmful -> X is immoral; instead they are proposing X is immoral full stop, both is and ought is presented as one thing together.

But to you ‘immoral’ is a synonym to ‘doesn’t like”. And, so, it’s not a fact that it’s immoral to kick babies. It’s a fact that it is both moral and immoral to kick babies in your worldview (some people like it…or doing even worse to the baby…some people don’t like it). You have two “is”-es and no way to judge one of those to be an “ought”.

Objectivists believe there are these two is-es, as well, but think there is a bridge from one to “ought” and a bridge from the other to “ought not”. We also do propose that X is immoral because it is a bad harm.

We call those people objectivists. There is never a something else for me to account for: I am a subjectivist, I have no obligation to account for something that only exist under a worldview I don't hold.

You are saying you disagree with the objectivist, right? If so, then you are accounting for that something else by saying it doesn’t exist, just like atheists (in its traditional sense) account for the non-existence of God. If not, then you would be saying subjectivism and objectivism aren’t competing views, but completely different questions. Which is it?

In every day use "you should not abuse a child" is taken to mean "you are obliged to refrain from child abuse," whether the nature of that obligation is an objective fact, or a subjective preference is left unstated.

But now you are adding a “because” into the equation that I thought you said you didn’t have. Here you seem to be saying that someone else is obliged to refrain from child abuse because of your subjective preference.

Otherwise you are simply now changing the meaning of ‘oblige’ to just another synonym of “Iike” and ignoring the objective concept that initially attached to ‘oblige’ that you are supposedly rejecting as being true.

It's up to you guys to make explicit the "whether you or I like it or not." The traditional meaning isn't owned by objectivists, it's neutral on its nature re: subjectivism vs objectivism. Most people are objectivists, so of course they take it for granted. But look at it from our perspective, as subjectivists, we too take it for granted that 'should' is just the first sense. Must we be the ones to give up on our intuition because we are the minority?

No, the traditional meaning is absolutely a product of the objectivists. ‘Should’ definitely has objectivity at its foundation; it’s not neutral. Modern dictionaries don’t even define ‘should’ like you are. Traditional subjectivists didn’t do it either. They didn’t say “should” really means “I don’t like,” they said they didn’t believe in that “should”. I’m not asking you to give up your intuition; I’m asking you to use clear language already present to talk about it and not to redefine words that have been in use for centuries for specific purposes.

[The Tanager]

I think I hate it because they really are endowed with a higher morality than I am, so every time a moral person comes around with oh you can't do that, you have to do this, it's one more way I have to bend over backwards just because they're more moral, just because they're on top. If you're personally evil it's an unwinnable game. I can do as they say, but they can just say, "Well you only did that because we told you; you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. You can't. You're not that kind of person." And they're right. So here I am thinking of them first and myself last, because I ought to anyway even if it is without reward or recognition, and it brings me no joy whatsoever. It just makes me hate. I hate because it's a rigged game.

If you agree their way is better, then it seems that it’s not because your heart is bad, it's that you can't follow your heart.

If you don't do it because it doesn't bring you the feels you want, then it seems you may be trusting your own wisdom (that the immediate feels are more desirable and will make you happier) and don't really believe their way is better.

And if everything you Christians say is real, I'm doing absolutely everything I can to be good, they're doing nothing but hurting someone else, and I go to Hell and they go to Heaven.

I don’t see how that follows from Biblical Christianity being true. Christians aren’t called to force their morality on others (even though many Christians do). On stuff like murder, yes, we can lock people up to protect society, but we aren’t called to force others to adopt all of our religious and moral practices (many Christians have gotten this wrong). We definitely aren’t called to judge your motives and tell you that you didn’t do something out of the goodness of your heart or that you can’t because you aren’t that kind of person. Only God can know and judge that kind of stuff. Biblical Christianity is very inclusive in that sense, that all can be redeemed.

Christianity teaches that you and I can’t (and were never meant to) do everything we can to be good and meet God’s standard of perfection. It teaches that God’s plan from the beginning was to partner with us so that we could live in good ways. We want to get the wisdom and goodness without the relationship, and while we will do some good, we are going to mess up in lots of ways as well. But God never gives up and continues to seek that partnership (heaven) that will lead us into more and more good. Without that partnership we are stuck in the hell we are creating for ourselves.

And they probably get sticks long enough to poke the people down in Hell, because that's how they express being good: They hurt and correct bad people who deserve it. Besides, there would be no Hell without the constant assault of genuine moral betters. It's not like the bad people can ever do the right thing and not be corrected. They're bad, that means their motives were bad, that means the act, no matter what it was, was still bad, and they can still be corrected. And it gives the good people the higher joy of knowing they are righteous, hurting people for their own joy, which is righteous, because they really are better than the bad people.

I definitely realize a lot of Christians have given this kind of image, but it’s not Biblical. Poking those who are down the hellish path isn't a Christian expression of being good. Hurting them isn't. Gloating that they are wrong isn't. Saying they never do anything good isn't (neither is it true). You love them, you seek their good, you offer corrections if they are up for it. You don’t push your beliefs down their throat. You don’t write them off. You don’t think you are better than them; we are all people in a complex world that need help to be more moral.

I think the Christian claim is a subset of truth, and the greater joy is choosing your own purpose. If you feel joy because you lay down your life for someone else, it's because you believe you have made a good choice. It must be both: Good, and a choice. If you thought it was an evil act, there would be no joy. If you thought it wasn't your choice, if someone forced you to do it, there would be no joy there either.

I agree that it must be good and a choice. I agree that we choose what we think is good. But I think we are often wrong about what is truly good (for a complexity of reasons). So, our greatest joy isn’t about choosing our own purpose, but freely coming to choose the best purpose. Freedom is what necessitates that Hell exists (what Hell is is another matter). God won't force people to join his loving (more and more each day) community, if they believe another path is going to bring them more joy, even though it won't.

That's what I'm trying to tell Benchwarmer. If something is objectively morally wrong, you're justified in invading and changing their way of life. It doesn't mean that you can change other ways of life they have that are not objectively morally wrong, but objective morality does provide this trump card while subjective morality does not.

So if you believe morality is objective, it is a strong, overriding morality that others must heed. And if you believe in subjective morality, or morality that is based on anything like benefit or agreement, that morality is weak in that others need not heed it.

I think you are justified in invading and changing some aspects of immorality, but not all. Let’s assume homosexuality is wrong for this point. I don’t think objective morality necessarily gives one the right to invade the lives of homosexuals, look them up, fine them, etc. But murderers need to be locked up (and try to be redeemed) for the safety of others.

I do agree that subjective morality is weaker in your sense here, that by its very nature it isn’t binding on others. Moral disagreements are very much just fights and whoever is stronger wins. But if objective morality is true, at least in the long run (and I’m not talking just about eternal states here), immoral acts will lead to a lower level of happiness and joy. Whoever is stronger may get their way in the immediate, but they will end up not liking that victory.

[Bust Nak]

Not in that previous system of phrasing (although I think you may be meaning the same concept with your phrasing here). There is the same connection between the nature of the game and any other nature connecting to it (it is “fun” for all or “not-fun” for all) for objectivity and different connections for subjectivity (fun for one, not-fun for another).

Okay, but that's a different kind of connection.

That’s the same phrase, but not the same concept because your ‘being good’ is simply a synonym for ‘liking’ and ‘being truly happy’, while my ‘being good’ is an entirely different concept. You reject that that concept exists and, so, don’t accept that everyone needs to be that to be truly happy.

That's kinda the point, I agree with the statement yet come away with an different understanding. That's why I said the statement isn't an indication that morality is objective.

But to you ‘immoral’ is a synonym to ‘doesn’t like”...

Here I was referring to how an atheistic objectivist would reason, they would deny and is-ought gap like that. I would not agree with them.

You are saying you disagree with the objectivist, right? If so, then you are accounting for that something else by saying it doesn’t exist, just like atheists (in its traditional sense) account for the non-existence of God. If not, then you would be saying subjectivism and objectivism aren’t competing views, but completely different questions. Which is it?

Saying the second concept doesn't exist counts as accounting for it? Then I have accounted for it, why did you say I didn't in an earlier post?

But now you are adding a “because” into the equation that I thought you said you didn’t have. Here you seem to be saying that someone else is obliged to refrain from child abuse because of your subjective preference.

There is no "because" here. I am saying someone else is obliged to refrain from child abuse is my subjective preference, as opposed to is an objective fact.

Otherwise you are simply now changing the meaning of ‘oblige’ to just another synonym of “Iike” and ignoring the objective concept that initially attached to ‘oblige’ that you are supposedly rejecting as being true.

Google says obliged mean make someone morally bound to do something. There is no objective concept attached to "oblige," it's attached to morality. You view it as an objectivist so you associate it with the objective concept.

No, the traditional meaning is absolutely a product of the objectivists. ‘Should’ definitely has objectivity at its foundation; it’s not neutral.

Show me how morality is at its foundationally/traditional objective.

[The Tanager]

Okay, but that's a different kind of connection.

Not a different connection than I was talking about to begin with, though. You brought in the new connection to the discussion.

That's kinda the point, I agree with the statement yet come away with an different understanding. That's why I said the statement isn't an indication that morality is objective.

I never claimed the statement indicates morality is objective. I claimed that this language picks out a certain concept to be discussed and that you aren’t accepting that concept, but using the phrase to speak about your view on a different concept.

Here I was referring to how an atheistic objectivist would reason, they would deny and is-ought gap like that. I would not agree with them.

You disagree that there isn’t a gap, but do you think they are logically consistent and rational in their denial of that gap? Can they consistently and rationally say it’s immoral (remember they are objectivists, not you, so this is different from them meaning “I don’t like”) to kick (or do something worse to) babies?

Saying the second concept doesn't exist counts as accounting for it? Then I have accounted for it, why did you say I didn't in an earlier post?

Which post? Post 53? If so, because you didn’t account for it in post 52. You said the moral “should” is just another way to share one’s preference on a matter like ‘tasty’ and ‘pretty’. Saying the second concept doesn’t exist (or it’s false) goes beyond this because that second concept objectivists have is in addition to any preference on the matter. You obviously distinguish the two things because you think personal preference exists, but that the second concept doesn’t. But you didn't account for that second option in that post.

Show me how morality is at its foundationally/traditional objective.

First, we were talking about ‘should’, not ‘morality’. Second, it doesn’t really matter for this discussion. You don’t want to use ‘should’ or ‘oblige’ to talk about the second concept that you reject as existing/being true. Fine. What term do you want to use so that we can focus on the issue?