The basis of morality.

[McCulloch]

It has been claimed that atheists by definition are amoral. If we do not believe in the spiritual basis of the universe and we do believe that all that is is from materialist causes, we cannot have true morals. That without the belief in the eternal consequences of our lives, we have no motivation to be moral.

On the other hand, it can be claimed that traditional theism also is not a basis for true morality. If you have to be threatened with eternal consequences, if you are only good because someday you will be called to account to an all knowing God, then you are being good not because it is the right thing to do, but to please the all powerful benefactor. The bargain is stated as between gaining the whole world and losing your soul.

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

I originally thought to put this into Right and Wrong, because it deals with morality. But then I thought it would be better in Philosophy because it deals with the philosophical basis for morality. But finally, I moved it to Christianity and Apologetics because each side of this argument is aimed at disproving the validity of the other.

[ChaosBorders]

To me this is just like an analogy between a child and his/her parent. When a parent teaches a kid how to act, you don't expect that kid to question his parents every move or to justify why this or why that.

Why not? I certainly did. Your following explanation seems faulty.

We don't expect that because the child lacks knowledge, lacks power, is dependent on his parents for much of it's safety, etc.

The whole point of asking is to gain knowledge. Lacking power is a poor excuse for not trying to figure out if the people actually in power have your best interests at heart. (Fact: Most parents are as self-serving as anyone else).

Now how much more are we like kids to a Being with omniscience, omnipotent, who's always existed, who the Universe (and not just us) may as well be dependent on, etc and why would we ask it or Him for justification?

I certainly don't mind giving God an omniscient morality license, but it should be noted that even if God's overall plan is the best one that can be enacted, it should not be assumed that something written by humans perfectly conveys God's own personal standard of morality. And even if one did assume that, it should certainly not be assumed that one's personal interpretation of those writings is in line with God's.

[bjs]

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

The basis for morality, both of the theist and non-theist, is a fascinating question to me.

While there are a lot of twists and turns and nuances along the way, I think here is where we end up:

For theist, ethics are based in authority. God, as the creator and sustainer of the universe, has the right and authority to communicate moral decrees to His creation. While God can enforce ethical behavior with eternal consequences (and thus it is beneficial for me to live according to His commands), it is His authority that is the basis of ethics for a theist.

For atheist, ethics are based in selfishness or self-interest. It must ultimately be in my own best interest to act according to certain ethics. While certain ethical behavior might be harmful in the short run, in the long run obeying ethical mandates will be an overall benefit for me.

[Goat]

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

The basis for morality, both of the theist and non-theist, is a fascinating question to me.

While there are a lot of twists and turns and nuances along the way, I think here is where we end up:

For theist, ethics are based in authority. God, as the creator and sustainer of the universe, has the right and authority to communicate moral decrees to His creation. While God can enforce ethical behavior with eternal consequences (and thus it is beneficial for me to live according to His commands), it is His authority that is the basis of ethics for a theist.

And, here is where I have problems with that claim. I see no actual 'communication of moral decrees' by any deity. I see people make claims about it, but as far as I can determine, it is just people making up the 'morality' and then claiming divine insight, or communication with a God, yet, no actual indication , except for their own say so, that it is true.

Since you say that it is "His Authority" that is the basis for ethics for a theist, show me how he communicates this basis. Show me what this basis is. Show me a way to distinguish this basis between something actually from God, and something that is merely the theist's preconception.

For atheist, ethics are based in selfishness or self-interest. It must ultimately be in my own best interest to act according to certain ethics. While certain ethical behavior might be harmful in the short run, in the long run obeying ethical mandates will be an overall benefit for me.

What mechanism to you propose to distinguish enlightened self interest from the dictates of a deity? What moral value do theists have besides 'worshiping a god and giving to the church', do theists have that is absent in atheists?

Since ethics and morality are supposedly by god, why do not all theists have the same 'rules from god'?

[Angel]

To me this is just like an analogy between a child and his/her parent. When a parent teaches a kid how to act, you don't expect that kid to question his parents every move or to justify why this or why that.

Why not? I certainly did. Your following explanation seems faulty.

We'll have to make a distinction between questioning with the motives of only seeking information and questioning with the motives of challenging authority and in some cases rebelling and the like. The latter type of questioning is what I should've specified in my comment you've responded to here and the rest down below.

I'd have to ask you WHY did you question your parents EVERY instruction. I'd also would want to know why did you ask so many questions since sometimes you need to simply do what your parents tell you right there and then and not just sit there and question A LOT or all the time. I ask these questions to you because questioning your parents a lot is usually a sign of not wanting to do what they tell you. Maybe some parents here can relate.

We don't expect that because the child lacks knowledge, lacks power, is dependent on his parents for much of it's safety, etc.

The whole point of asking is to gain knowledge. Lacking power is a poor excuse for not trying to figure out if the people actually in power have your best interests at heart. (Fact: Most parents are as self-serving as anyone else).

I'd question if a child is capable of knowing his/her own best interests, even better than his/her parents- and the younger the child is the more I'd question.

Now how much more are we like kids to a Being with omniscience, omnipotent, who's always existed, who the Universe (and not just us) may as well be dependent on, etc and why would we ask it or Him for justification?

I certainly don't mind giving God an omniscient morality license, but it should be noted that even if God's overall plan is the best one that can be enacted, it should not be assumed that something written by humans perfectly conveys God's own personal standard of morality. And even if one did assume that, it should certainly not be assumed that one's personal interpretation of those writings is in line with God's.

I don't know if you're saying that from your statement we can therefore never know what God wants at all, because I would disagree or call that going too far. For example, there are many different interpretations of the Bible, but that doesn't mean we can't ever test them to see which one is right. We may not be able to determine that all of the time but at least that's better than not being able to do it at all.

[cnorman18]

Personally, I think this whole question rather gives the lie to the assertion that absolutely everything must be objectively and logically proven true or else assumed to be false and rejected. I think it was Bertrand Russell who remarked to the effect that he couldn't PROVE that gratuitous cruelty was immoral, but that he believed that to be true anyway. I don't think he ever solved that problem, and I haven't seen where anyone else has either.

Let's begin with the claim that there is such a thing as "morality" at all, beyond mere utilitarian social convention. Anybody got an objective proof of that proposition?

I'm not arguing for God as a source for morality. I'm arguing for morality existing in its own right. I think it does, but I certainly can't claim to prove it, and I don't think anyone else can either. Seems to me that morality itself is an unprovable metaphysical axiom. I'm OK with that, but then I believe in an undefined God as an unprovable metaphysical axiom, too, so I'm weird. I just wonder how those who believe that everything must be proven deal with the question.

[Zzyzx]

.

To me this is just like an analogy between a child and his/her parent. When a parent teaches a kid how to act, you don't expect that kid to question his parents every move or to justify why this or why that.

Why not? I certainly did. Your following explanation seems faulty.

Those who are trained to obey and believe without question may have difficulty understanding that those who are not similarly trained or indoctrinated are often inclined to question “Why?�

In my observation, it is natural and healthy for ANY person, including children, to ask “why?�. That is (or should be) part of the learning process. Those whose natural tendency to question decisions or “orders� are suppressed are denied the learning opportunity (perhaps because the “authority� has no sound, rational reason for pronouncements).

Parents, preachers and politicians often or usually desire obedience and acceptance without question (while often giving lip service to “free will� – which requires thought, question and decision). Those in “authority� realize that questioning may lead to conclusion that they do not know what they are talking about – or that what they say is self-serving, mistaken or even dishonest.

;]We don't expect that because the child lacks knowledge, lacks power, is dependent on his parents for much of it's safety, etc.

The whole point of asking is to gain knowledge.

Exactly – and knowledge or independent thought by subjects is dangerous to those whose power depends upon obedience.

Because children may lack knowledge and power (and judgment and discernment) is NO reason to conclude that adults should be considered to be similarly lacking (excepting those who choose willful ignorance and who forgo independent decisions).

[Lacking power is a poor excuse for not trying to figure out if the people actually in power have your best interests at heart.

EXACTLY

However, such thinking by subjects is obviously resented by those in control – be they parents, preachers or politicians.

[ (Fact: Most parents are as self-serving as anyone else).

Blasphemy. Blasphemy I say. Parents ALWAYS have the best interest of their children foremost in mind in everything they do. They are always selfless and dedicated. They never put their personal desires and agendas ahead of the interests of their children. [/sarcasm]

In reality, parents tend to be humans – complete with human strengths and weaknesses, including self-interest to varying degrees. Some strive to be selfless with regard to their offspring, others may be quite the opposite, most are probably somewhere between the extremes.

Parenthood does not confer special abilities or characteristics.

[I certainly don't mind giving God an omniscient morality license, but it should be noted that even if God's overall plan is the best one that can be enacted, it should not be assumed that something written by humans perfectly conveys God's own personal standard of morality. And even if one did assume that, it should certainly not be assumed that one's personal interpretation of those writings is in line with God's.

Remarkable clarity of thought. Thank you.


Here we have a twenty year-old Theist and a seventy year-old Non-Theist in complete agreement -- including “granting an omniscient morality license� to a supernatural being if such thing exists.

[LittlePig]

Let's begin with the claim that there is such a thing as "morality" at all, beyond mere utilitarian social convention. Anybody got an objective proof of that proposition?

Premise 1: Social conventions are abstractions.
Premise 2: Ants are astoundingly moral yet incapable of abstract thought.
Conclusion: Morality exists outside of social conventions.

[Flail]

If morality can be defined as the altruistic love and care of others, then atheists win out hands down over god fearing, god worshipping, heaven seeking, forgiveness seeking, acceptance seeking theists.

[cnorman18]

Let's begin with the claim that there is such a thing as "morality" at all, beyond mere utilitarian social convention. Anybody got an objective proof of that proposition?

Premise 1: Social conventions are abstractions.
Premise 2: Ants are astoundingly moral yet incapable of abstract thought.
Conclusion: Morality exists outside of social conventions.

Not bad; but who's to say that the behavior of ants can be characterized as "moral"? Doesn't that beg the question of the concept of morality itself being a human-generated abstraction?

More to the point: Even if I concede your point, how is one to determine the content of that independently existent morality in detail?

[Zzyzx]

.

Now how much more are we like kids

I have no objection to those who liken themselves to children – and support their contention – for them. However, I do not include myself in their likening, but consider myself an adult capable of making decisions based upon observation, experience and convergence of evidence (without “assistance� from invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural beings).

to a Being with omniscience, omnipotent, who's always existed, who the Universe (and not just us) may as well be dependent on, etc

This is pure conjecture and opinion. There is no assurance that any of the thousands of proposed supernatural beings, or “gods�, exist or influence human affairs.

Human choice to believe in one or more of the proposed “gods� CAN influence their decisions and actions, but that has not been shown to be actually caused by a “god�.

and why would we ask it or Him for justification?

Justification, while a rational question, is secondary in my opinion to asking for evidence of existence. All that is offered by proponents of “gods� is OPINION presented by people expressing their thoughts about “gods� (including bible writers, whoever they may have been, telling their stories about what they think about “gods�).

Those who are willing to accept existence of “gods� SHOULD, in my opinion, ask for justification (except if they think their chosen “god� prefers automatons – defined as: “a creature whose actions are fixed, routine, and mechanical with little or no indication of active intelligence�).

More particularly, I suggest that those who choose to believe in “gods� would be prudent to question those who purport to “speak for god� (including bible writers, whoever they may have been).

We'll have to make a distinction between questioning with the motives of only seeking information and questioning with the motives of challenging authority and in some cases rebelling and the like.

Questioning can seldom be said to be ONLY one or the other. That is a false dichotomy and is unnecessarily simplistic. Questions asked seeking information can lead to questioning authority.

Is challenging authority WRONG somehow?

Is rebellion against what one does not accept WRONG somehow?

Should children (and adults) simply accept what they are told by “authorities�?

If the demands of a parent are morally wrong, can any thinking person expect the child to obey unquestioningly – say in the case of parent / child molestation; a father fondling (or more) a young daughter for example? In an ideal world such things would not happen, but in the real world they do.

Admittedly, that is an extreme example, but much the same can be said of a parent who demands that a quiet, mild, non-violent son become a gladiator (football player). Should the son unquestioningly obey rather than ask “why?� and express opposing views (i.e., “rebel�)

I'd have to ask you WHY did you question your parents EVERY instruction. I'd also would want to know why did you ask so many questions

I will hazard an answer that CB may be too modest to supply. He is an extremely intelligent young man who is now and probably always has been “wise far beyond his years�. Wise and intelligent people often ask far more questions than those who are less wise and intelligent, because they are “driven� to learn.

since sometimes you need to simply do what your parents tell you right there and then and not just sit there and question A LOT or all the time.

In situations where there is a clear need for immediate action, a demand for instant obedience may have merit. Other than those times, a demand for unquestioning obedience serves the needs or desires of the parent.

I ask these questions to you because questioning your parents a lot is usually a sign of not wanting to do what they tell you.

That may be true of some children; however, it is only one of the reasons a child may ask for an explanation. Assuming the “lowest common denominator� applies to a particular child (person) or a particular situation is an indication of one’s biases.

Maybe some parents here can relate.

Many parents desire or demand instant, unquestioning obedience – perhaps because that makes things easier for them.

Other parents are more interested in the development of their child’s ability to make sound decisions than developing in them an instant, unquestioning obedience.

I say this as a parent who (long ago) initially sought obedience without question, who realized his mistake, and who reversed direction. It was far more difficult for me to explain “why� (sometimes repeatedly) than to simply demand obedience – but the children (who are now fifty years of age) benefited by the learning experience and incorporated that in their own child rearing.

I'd question if a child is capable of knowing his/her own best interests, even better than his/her parents- and the younger the child is the more I'd question.

Quite often a parent may know better than a child what is in his/her best interest, but not always. In my opinion, if the parent is actually acting in the best interest of the child (and not out of convenience or self-interest), they should, in the interest of the child’s learning, be willing to explain the situation in a clear and convincing manner (repeatedly if necessary).

I certainly don't mind giving God an omniscient morality license, but it should be noted that even if God's overall plan is the best one that can be enacted, it should not be assumed that something written by humans perfectly conveys God's own personal standard of morality. And even if one did assume that, it should certainly not be assumed that one's personal interpretation of those writings is in line with God's.

I don't know if you're saying that from your statement we can therefore never know what God wants at all, because I would disagree or call that going too far.

How, exactly, do you propose that anyone can know what any of the proposed “gods� want?

For example, there are many different interpretations of the Bible, but that doesn't mean we can't ever test them to see which one is right.

How can ANY of the writings of ancient people regarding their beliefs about “god� be shown to actually represent “what god wants�? Kindly show how your answer does or does not apply to those who wrote about Quatzequatel or Zeus.

When two different “interpretations� of the bible differ, exactly how does one determine with certainty which is “right�? Is that not simply a matter of personal opinion (i.e., “which one do I like best� or “which is closest to what I think�)?

We may not be able to determine that all of the time but at least that's better than not being able to do it at all.

We can usually determine our opinion; however, there is no assurance that our opinion is accurate. The less evidence upon which we base our opinion, the greater the likelihood of error in my opinion. One may “get lucky� and choose the “one true god� from among thousands proposed, and choose the “right interpretation�. The odds of choosing the right god from among two thousand proposed are 1 in 0.0005 (half of one percent) – and choosing the “right interpretation� is purely a matter of personal opinion and speculation or “blind luck�.

Depending upon religious promotional literature to choose between competing “gods� and “interpretations� is akin to depending upon promotional or advertising literature to decide between competing products.