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?

[olavisjo]

I just don't see this as being "clearly" so. Even if morality began as a social contract, I see no reason why human reason could not--on its own--see the value of morality for morality's sake. I don't think an "accuser" need be involved. I think, as human beings, we can empathize with each other enough to wish to do no harm to another.

How does the insertion of God into the equation make morality more "real"? From the moment human beings began writing down moral codes, morality ceased to be "illusory" and became an evolving tradition. If God were the only source of this tradition, it would have been more consistent throughout human history. That just isn't the case.

We can empathize with each other, but others see empathy as a weakness. So who is right? If there is no God, then the only strategy that would make any sense is to pursue your own goals.
If you are like Gandhi you will work for world peace, if you are like Eric and Lyle then you will work for the family inheritance. But there is no reason to say that one strategy is right and the other is wrong. Every person can define their own evolving tradition to follow, there is nothing wrong with any of these moralities, there is also nothing wrong with forcing or manipulating others to follow your own morality.
With God in the equation, we just have someone who has enough intelligence to define the best morality or even perfect morality that we will do well to follow. The problem with perfect morality is that none of us can obey it, and that is the human condition we find in all history and the present.

[olavisjo]

You needed the Christian god in your life in order to care about people, but that is not the case for everyone. And you could have found the same care and respect for others through other religions that teach love, acceptance and tolerance such as Buddhism. All you needed was guidance and a reason to care.

There was a time that I did consider Buddhism, but it involved way too much work and dedication for me to ever endure for an uncertain reward. I did not have any desire to care about others, that was the last thing that I was looking for.

I do not believe in the Christian god, yet I believe that I am a very moral person. I know in my heart that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, and everything else the bible preaches against without believing in the bible. How do you explain this?

Man knew what was wrong and against his nature long before the bible was written. The Christian god did not create morality. His followers merely wrote down, in his name, what man already knew to be true.

In this regard Buddhism is a better religion than Christianity, in Christianity the more moral a person becomes, the more aware he becomes of of his own immorality.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, you say "that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery". But how do you know this is true? Could it be that those things are good if they are done in the pursuit of power and riches, which is the true goal of people as demonstrated by the Americans?
What makes your way or my way right? Or anybody else's way right? If we are all a collection of atoms that made good under natural selection and just follows natural law, then there would be no such thing as right or wrong.

[olavisjo]

Either that, or .. when we look at his reasoning , and his inability to address the counterpoints, it is just plain crazy talk. When you look at the 'objective morality' thread, we can look at pages upon pages upon pages of denial of evidence for subjective morality, and not one piece of evidence for objective morality.

Which counterpoints are you referring to?
And this is not the 'objective morality' thread, this is the 'Is morality an illusion thread'. What I am trying to tell you is that there is no evidence or reasoning that would demonstrate that morality is anything other than a myth. Possibly created by weak people who use guilt to manipulate the strong in this survival of the fittest world.
I do wonder what you are trying to say though?

There comes a time people become exhausted and don't feel like pointing out evidence yet again, when it is merely ignored, over and over again.

Let's look at this 'evidence' that you have brought to this conversation that I am ignoring.

You can have morality and ethics without religion.

I would call this a claim, not evidence.

You refuse to acknowledge the concept of enlightened self interest.

Not only did I acknowledge the concept, I agreed with you when I said...

There is no such thing as morality, only self interest.

Where we disagree is that you equate morality with self interest, while I consider morality a duty that you are obligated to do even when it goes directly against your own self interest.

Then again you claim without any evidence...

Morality is a result of enlightened self interest.

Then you demonstrated your faulty logic with this non sequitur...

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

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective.

Which I refuted...

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?

Then you admit that you really have nothing to say about the subject...

When it comes to the question of is morality an illusion, or if it is subjective or objective, my opinion or feelings on it one way or another is totally irrelevant, since I am a product of my time period and society.

Then you continue to make more claims without any evidence...

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.

Then you can't figure out what is wrong with my argument, so you try to just classify it as circular reasoning without saying why it is...

You are making some circular reasoning there.

So this is the 'evidence' that I am ignoring? If you are going to present a weak argument like that, you should consider it fortunate if it is ignored.

[Goat]

So this is the 'evidence' that I am ignoring? If you are going to present a weak argument like that, you should consider it fortunate if it is ignored.

Why don't you go back and read everything bernee and I have written, in this thread, and in the 'objective morality' thread.

I just do not feel like repeating myself over and over again.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of your ignoring what is written, your purposeful misrepresenting of what is said, and you unwillingness to try to understand what people are saying.

[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.

Are you trying to say...

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

The other way around.

Religion is an abstract concept which seeks to propagate a morality that it sees as appropriate.

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.

Sorry – I cannot see how this anything other than a non-sequitor.

You said ‘anyone’ not ‘everyone’.