Godless morality

[PittsburghBrandon]

A friend of mine wrote a great post in response to the question: “As an atheist, what keeps you from doing just anything?”

His response can pretty much be summed up with one word: empathy.

I’m new to the forum and would really love to hear what you guys think of his article.  Feel free to comment on the blog as well.  I’m sure he’d be pumped to hear feedback.

Check it out here:

http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2008/09/08/secular-morality/

[dodgecity]

Loved it. Although I've always found Dawkin's reply to be substantial, this is important to understand as well.

[Asmodean]

Hmm...  

I guess empathy is a good answer for many but it doesn't quite work for me. I'm not immoral out of desire not to hurt someone's feelings, nor am I moral out of desire to help.

My stock answer to where my morality (just like yours and his and her and their) comes from is the very basic social contract there is: I won't harm you if you won't harm me and I will attempt to aid you if you will attempt to aid me. What it means is that I usually treat the world how I myself wish to be treated. And since I don't wish to be killed or stolen from or raped in a dark alley or you name it, I don't do it to others.

[afreethinker30]

Hmm...     Good answer.But put simply.Treat others the way you want to be treated.One thing that bothers me the most is why is it that the religious always say because they have the good book they have morals.I think it's rather sad that you have to have a book tell you what is good and not.

[Squid]

I think in this context, talking about empathy - he could substantially find more support for his argument by referencing the research involving mirror neurons.

Wikipedia actually has an excellent article:

Clicky

In relation to empathy:

Empathy

Mirror neurons have been linked to empathy, because certain brain regions (in particular the anterior insula and inferior frontal cortex) are active when a person experiences an emotion (disgust, happiness, pain, etc.) and when he sees another person experience an emotion.[26] [27][28] However, these brain regions are not quite the same as the ones which mirror hand actions, and mirror neurons for emotional states or empathy have not yet been described in monkeys. More recently, Christian Keysers at the Social Brain Lab and colleagues have shown that people that are more empathic according to self-report questionnaires have stronger activations both in the mirror system for hand actions[29] and the mirror system for emotions[30] providing more direct support to the idea that the mirror system is linked to empathy.

[Martian]

What the hell is morality in the first place? That which is right or wrong? Okay, what is the definition for right or wrong? It appears to me that morality is meaningless because right and wrong are undefined.

[dodgecity]

What the hell is morality in the first place? That which is right or wrong? Okay, what is the definition for right or wrong? It appears to me that morality is meaningless because right and wrong are undefined.

That's the whole point of the article! Right and wrong are very easy to define. When you do wrong, you make someone else suffer, and you know this because of empathy. It's very simple. No wonder people hate atheists so much, atheists themselves are going around spewing this nonsense.

[Martian]

What the hell is morality in the first place? That which is right or wrong? Okay, what is the definition for right or wrong? It appears to me that morality is meaningless because right and wrong are undefined.

That's the whole point of the article! Right and wrong are very easy to define. When you do wrong, you make someone else suffer, and you know this because of empathy. It's very simple. No wonder people hate atheists so much, atheists themselves are going around spewing this nonsense.

What's the point of saying wrong is making someone else suffer? I could just as well say that right is whatever is on my shopping list, and wrong is whatever is not on my shopping list. The tells me nothing. Morality is a weird concept that deals with "shoulds" and "oughts", which are simply propositions and not facts (cannot be true or false). But people take it to mean that "the cosmos/evolution/government/God require that you [do these actions]" or "these things have the property of not-to-be-done-ness". Why on earth is it wrong to make someone suffer? Becuase it has the property of not-to-be-done-ness said by some atheists. This is entirely different from Christians saying that not following God's law has the property of not-to-be-done-ness. If anyone can assert that something is wrong, then morality is arbitrary and meaningless.

Of course you can still do whatever you want because you want to (and of course you will), but that doesn't mean that right and wrong mean anything.

[dodgecity]

Hopefully, you're talking about a specific definition of right and wrong that none of us are discussing here.

I'm talking about suffering. It's real. It's how we know we are alive. So if you go around saying "Who decided that suffering is bad and happiness is good?", people are going to respond with animosity, and for good reason.

right and wrong are undefined.

Again, an emphatic no! When you wrong someone, you hurt them. You're using the logic of a Christian fundamentalist, and it's frustrating. You seem to be the exact kind of atheist that puts us all to shame, justifying your actions simply because there is no god.

I give up.  

[Asmodean]

Hopefully, you're talking about a specific definition of right and wrong that none of us are discussing here.

I'm talking about suffering. It's real. It's how we know we are alive. So if you go around saying "Who decided that suffering is bad and happiness is good?", people are going to respond with animosity, and for good reason.

right and wrong are undefined.

Again, an emphatic no! When you wrong someone, you hurt them. You're using the logic of a Christian fundamentalist, and it's frustrating. You seem to be the exact kind of atheist that puts us all to shame, justifying your actions simply because there is no god.

I give up.   ... ... That make sense?  

[Tanker]

It's starting to become more of a debate of neitchzeian philosopy which I suspect is what martian is getting at. As callous as it sounds after Iraq I lost most the little empathy I had for others. Don't get me wrong I do care for my friends and family, but if I dont know you, I could care less what happens to you, if it doesn't directly affect me. The thing that guides me is probably that I fear the repercusions, leagal and otherwise. If you were to imagine a world of total anarchy (no government, laws, or religion) and you relied on the empathy of others to protect you or help you, you would be dead within a week.

[PittsburghBrandon]

@squid - Thanks for bringing up mirror neurons.  If you check out the original post you'll see that in the comments section I brought up the subject of myelination as a response to someone who said "children can't empathize; so it must not be in our nature; so we must learn it from god / the Bible."

Here is the original post if you want to check it out:
http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2008/09/08/secular-morality/#comment-127

[dodgecity]

Yeah, that makes sense, Asmodean. I guess I define right and wrong through the target, which is what empathy is all about.

[PaintmePlum]

Someone asked where morals came from.....here's what I think;

I think morals are derived from us working in a group, which has been the key to our survival as a species. Anything morally wrong originated as anything that would hurt you or alienate you from the group or society you had to function in. For example, any move or action that would threaten other people around you or possible endanger any of them...like telling a lie, which would alienate the trust you needed from other people to be accepted, or killing someone...for obvious reasons.

I think anything morally good would have arisen from any action that would have helped or protected the group and society you functioned in. Either by helping you build stronger bonds with a kinsman or actually delivering something of substance, or helping in some way, that would in turn strengthen the group.

Either way, in prehistoric times, it was necessary to be a part of a group in order to hunt and survive, so I would assume that it was the group mind set that orginally began to foster morals as a set of rules to act accordingly in society so that you could best survive to your advantage.

That's the best answer I could come up with based on what I know. Can anyone add or correct?

[john31]

hey guys, just wondering if us atheists should believe in absolute morals ect or if morals are completely relative...
dawkins said in one of his books that "If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention . . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference"
now I take it that most atheists believe in temporary morals...however what should we base our morals on? should we write ourselves a moral code to live by? should we just follow societies moral laws? once I get a response I have a few more questions!
thanks!