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.

[LittlePig]

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?

I doubt ants characterize their actions. The best way to solve definitional problems is to agree on definitions. Define 'moral' and make a reasonable case for the definition. Then we'll see if it can be applied to ants.

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

Proverbs 6:6 - Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!

Observation will have to suffice in the absence of mind(less) reading. Ants are fairly simple in their behaviors.

[cnorman18]

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?

I doubt ants characterize their actions. The best way to solve definitional problems is to agree on definitions. Define 'moral' and make a reasonable case for the definition. Then we'll see if it can be applied to ants.

Hey, don't look at me! I didn't give that example.

Me, I draw my ethics and morality from the almost literally endless debate and discussion in the Talmud and from other aspects of Jewish tradition. I can't prove that it's the best or even necessarily good, and I can dictate nothing to anyone, but it seems to have worked pretty well for round about 3,000 years.

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

Proverbs 6:6 - Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!

Observation will have to suffice in the absence of mind(less) reading. Ants are fairly simple in their behaviors.

Exactly. I doubt that observing ants will tell us much about how to handle biomedical issues, political dilemmas or economic theory in the 21st century, to name only three examples. The Bible may or may not be much help there either, but in any case it's going to require some extrapolation and independent thought and debate. As you say, mindless reading isn't going to tell us much.

[Reticulatus]

To be able to assign a valid answer to this question, surely we need some way to determine exactly what counts as an act of morality, and what doesn‘t?

To be able to come up with a universally accepted gauge for morality, all involved would be required to have a harmonious view of each act, and be able to place it in a specific area on a grid, or chart of some sort. Correct me if I’m wrong, but due to individual values, beliefs, and upbringing; this is an impossibility. What some see as moral, others may see as amoral, or in some cases, immoral.

How would a ‘scale’ of this sort be derived, and who would be the correct individual/group who decides where the ‘scale’ begins and ends, and where a person, group, or action belongs on the ‘scale‘?

It can’t be God.

[LittlePig]

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?

I doubt ants characterize their actions. The best way to solve definitional problems is to agree on definitions. Define 'moral' and make a reasonable case for the definition. Then we'll see if it can be applied to ants.

Hey, don't look at me! I didn't give that example.

But you did question whether ant behavior can be considered moral, and that suggests you don't consider it such. Answering the question requires common terms.

What is a moral? When is behavior moral in its nature?

Exactly. I doubt that observing ants will tell us much about how to handle biomedical issues, political dilemmas or economic theory in the 21st century, to name only three examples. The Bible may or may not be much help there either, but in any case it's going to require some extrapolation and independent thought and debate. As you say, mindless reading isn't going to tell us much.

The ants weren't offered to answer those questions, only the one about whether or not morality exists outside of social convention. Ants probably don't have theories about their politics, economics, or biomedical practices.

I could have given you a different sort of proof for the existence of morality. One time on a camping trip I saw it glowing and hovering among the trees. I stopped to take a picture but stumbled backward off a cliff and lost my camera. Oh well.

[McCulloch]

Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

As a theist, I follow the morals of my belief-system because the I've had experiences of God, and to me it's just as simple as following instructions from who I believe to be the Creator.

Take it to the next step. Why do you follow what you perceive to be the instructions from the Creator? Is it that you want the Creator to be pleased with you? Is it that you fear the Creator's vengeance? Or is it that you feel that the Creator is both wise and benevolent, and that by following his instructions, things will be better for you? These are all self-serving reasons, yet I can find each of them implied or articulated in Christian sermons and apologetics frequently.

Yes, I also feel good about it, it doesn't cause me any harm

Morality is not about doing the right thing only when it does not cause you any harm. What about when doing the right thing means sacrifice or risk?

Most of the ones [theists] I know try to be moral because they think it is the right thing to do, end of story.

Then why is it, do you think, that so many Christians don't think that we atheists could try to be moral for exactly the same reason.

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.

So ethics and morality become not a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis, but is merely a matter of finding and correctly interpreting the revelations from the god. Right?

For atheist, ethics are based in selfishness or self-interest.

How do you jump to this conclusion? Cannot atheists have genuine love or practice genuine altruism?

[Flail]

Christian's often claim 'moral high ground' despite the fact that 'Christian moral concepts' are co-opted and not unique. Their basic moral precepts are similar to those that had already been created by mankind to ensure fundamental societal justice and order...as has been argued previously.

Although Jesus Jewish philosophy had focus on 'others', not so much with Pauline Christianity.
What strikes me is the selfish,self-serving motivations replete in the popular Christian life-style. Is it not the height of selfishness and the furthest from altruism to live and act motivated by promise of eternal benefit and/or in fear of eternal punishment? The common Christian pleas of 'save me, heal me, see me, hear me, bless me, forgive my sins, comfort me, hear my prayers', are clearly focused on a me first, 'me me me mentality'.

[bjs]

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.

So ethics and morality become not a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis, but is merely a matter of finding and correctly interpreting the revelations from the god. Right?

I have discovered that finding and correctly interpreting the revelations of God is a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis.

Within Christianity, God has given us the principles of morality that He desires from us (love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and your mother, etc.), and calls us, under the guide of the Spirit, to work out those principles in the complexities of daily life.

For atheist, ethics are based in selfishness or self-interest.

How do you jump to this conclusion? Cannot atheists have genuine love or practice genuine altruism?

I don’t think that I am jumping to a conclusion. I have never heard of any form of atheist ethics that doesn’t rely on selfishness or self-interest. Atheists are certainly capable of showing genuine love or practicing genuine altruism, but if we are looking for a basis for morality – a reason for showing love or altruism – then within atheism somehow it must be good for me. For showing love I receive love in return, or obeying certain apparently altruistic principles is good for society and a stable society is good for me, etc. Perhaps there is a form ethics in atheism I have not heard of. Do you know of a form of atheistic ethics in which the reason I act morally has nothing to do with me?

(I should also throw in that in real life people are often not reasonable. We do things, both good and bad, without any basis or reason for our actions. Sometimes we act out of emotion, and sometimes we act without any real understanding of why we are doing something. Or, at least I do…)

[Flail]

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.

So ethics and morality become not a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis, but is merely a matter of finding and correctly interpreting the revelations from the god. Right?

I have discovered that finding and correctly interpreting the revelations of God is a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis.

Within Christianity, God has given us the principles of morality that He desires from us (love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and your mother, etc.), and calls us, under the guide of the Spirit, to work out those principles in the complexities of daily life.

For atheist, ethics are based in selfishness or self-interest.

How do you jump to this conclusion? Cannot atheists have genuine love or practice genuine altruism?

I don’t think that I am jumping to a conclusion. I have never heard of any form of atheist ethics that doesn’t rely on selfishness or self-interest. Atheists are certainly capable of showing genuine love or practicing genuine altruism, but if we are looking for a basis for morality – a reason for showing love or altruism – then within atheism somehow it must be good for me. For showing love I receive love in return, or obeying certain apparently altruistic principles is good for society and a stable society is good for me, etc. Perhaps there is a form ethics in atheism I have not heard of. Do you know of a form of atheistic ethics in which the reason I act morally has nothing to do with me?

(I should also throw in that in real life people are often not reasonable. We do things, both good and bad, without any basis or reason for our actions. Sometimes we act out of emotion, and sometimes we act without any real understanding of why we are doing something. Or, at least I do…)

Selfishness is a basic human tendancy perhaps hard wired for survival. Christianity however, serves selfishness on a platter wherein it becomes preferred as a motivator over altruistism.

[LittlePig]

I have discovered that finding and correctly interpreting the revelations of God is a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis.

I would love to see this quote on bumper stickers and mugs.

Do you know of a form of atheistic ethics in which the reason I act morally has nothing to do with me?

The problem I have with this statement is that it suggests the moral behavior of atheists is coldly calculated to benefit oneself. 'I won't kill you if you won't kill me' truce morality is indeed all about you, but it's a very low form of morality. Golden Rule morality is more of a commitment to building a better world for all of us. Altruism, for theists and atheists, is motivated by empathy.

In the Christian system I'd think that morality 'from the heart' is more respectable than self-disciplined submission. And that means your highest level of morality is about you in the sense that it's what you want.

[Grumpy]

bjs

I have discovered that finding and correctly interpreting the revelations of God is a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis.

"Correctly"? You can't even provide a hint that the "revelations" are any more valid than any other philosophical grounds. You do not have a method to determine their value that is any better than enlightened self interest. You cannot even show why anyone would conclude that these revelations were not made up out of whole cloth by religious believers and leaders, just like all of the religions that preceded yours.

Within Christianity, God has given us the principles of morality that He desires from us (love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and your mother, etc.), and calls us, under the guide of the Spirit, to work out those principles in the complexities of daily life.

This may be what you want to believe, but it is not anything but sophistry.

I don’t think that I am jumping to a conclusion.

But you are. Everyones morals are based on self interest, yours as well as mine. Enlightened self interest broadens the things cared about to others in society, the society itself and the whole world, as everyone who is not mentally ill wants to live in a comfortable world. That comfort is not attainable without cooperation, that cooperation requires rules of engagement that all must adhere to(or face sanctions), those rules are our morals(laws)and they evolve as our understanding of ethics and the interactions with society improves, that understanding is gained through philosophical development informed by scientific study. Or, if one is unable or unwilling)to do this for yourself, reliance on the development done by others(religions, philosophies, etc.).

Do you know of a form of atheistic ethics in which the reason I act morally has nothing to do with me?

Do you know any other basis for morality, in anyone? Those who subscribe to any religion do so because it is best for them, they are just relying on the philosophical work of others instead of that they themselves have determined as best.

Grumpy