Godless morality

[PipeBox]

Welcome to the forums!  In my opinion, morals may be widely shared but are subjective.  One man may think it's right to break up a couple by informing them that they are cheating on each other, another may find that immoral.  One person may consider assisted suicide to be morally acceptable if there's only a 5% of a person living through an illness.  Another may find that reprehensible until 1%.  But there are core morals we share by evolution (don't kill each other), and there are other morals shaped by our reasoning and ethics (consider all human beings equals, but not copies).

We should follow society's laws.
If we wish to remain social, we should should make our morals to coincide with those of the people we wish to socialize with.
But we should each decide our own morals.  It may make for disagreements and strife, but this, I think, is paramount to being a human being, much as is making your own purpose in life.  The universe being unpurposed and without concrete morals is no reason for people to be as well.

Hope this helps you out a bit, and you might introduce yourself in http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewforum.php?f=10 if you plan on staying with us for awhile.  

[john31]

thanks for responding
should one be blamed for deciding to live a moral life when he/she considers raping/murdering morally acceptable? what is to stop them from living lives like that?
you mentioned that we share core morals because of evolution, let me for a brief second picture myself in a rapists shoes, if I go out and decide that I need to experience raping someone, lets say I am 100% positive I can get away with it too, what is to stop me?  rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of evolution has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong,  apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with me raping someone, And since I am sure I can escape the social consequences I am free to go about and rape away...

Lets say that is my frame of mind...where did I go wrong?
 

[Kyuuketsuki]

IMV morals are subjective but social (so what Pipebox said) i.e. they are not individual but an ethical system that has no relevance except between & within groups of individuals though exactly where the cut off line is I do not know  (I suspect at any point above 1).

Kyu

[john31]

so im guessing you believe in following societies standards? and accepting there morals ideals ect?
if so then if I visit a society where cannibalism is morally acceptable; should I follow what society tells me is morally right/wrong? i.e. is it morally acceptable for me to be a cannibalistic being if it is expected by society?
 would it have been a moral thing if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews and brainwashed everyone to think that what he had done was morally acceptable, or would it be wrong regardless of our opinion of it...

[LARA]

The universe as a whole may be indifferent to suffering, there is no capacity for this understanding at the atomic level as far as I can see scientifically.  Humanity, however, is part of the universe and we do have a consciousness and a capability for understanding the suffering of others and the realization that our actions help to create the structure of the society we live in.  

If a person believes that they might rape or murder, there is nothing preventing others from doing the same to them.  From the basics of what causes pain and suffering we can construct a basic plan of appropriate actions to make the world as fair as possible.  Some of these appropriate actions are always true, others change when the environment changes.  

It doesn't matter if the universe is indifferent or not, because I am not indifferent to the suffering of others.  Evolution has made me this way, my empathy contributes to the survival of my species.  Without this capacity for empathy and compassion and the ability to build societies, humanity would not last very long at all in nature.

Just because I am an atheist does not mean I am inhuman.  My humanity confers a great deal of empathy and responsibility by my capacity to understand the nature of suffering.

[john31]

thanks for responding LARA,
you make some really good points but I don't think that the question has been answered completely.
"If a person believes that they might rape or murder, there is nothing preventing others from doing the same to them."
true but in my "scenario" I mentioned that there would be no repercussions for my actions, if I did get away with it unscathed why should I feel bad? because of empathy? well what If im misogynistic in my thinking and I decide that woman are as the animals. worth no more, no less.
can you judge my actions when in fact I am just stating that I don't have empathy for woman?

"Evolution has made me this way, my empathy contributes to the survival of my species. Without this capacity for empathy and compassion and the ability to build societies, humanity would not last very long at all in nature."
what about acts that are not beneficial to society? what about handicapped people? why should we as a US society spend all the loads and loads of money on them when they are not "Beneficial" to our society?" why should we empathize for them? I personally have no idea what it would be like to be mentally retarded ect. why should we empathize the mentally handicapped? because we evolved that way?
well...so what? if they are not beneficial why should we be taking care of them? what if I have no empathy?
(note: I am just presenting this for discussion...I do not think that handicapped people should be exterminated ect.

[PipeBox]

Before I say anything, LARA captured it in ace fashion.
I normally don't dissect posts, as it seems unfair, but this is one question after another, so . . . *grabs scalpel*

so im guessing you believe in following societies standards?

No, actually, I think society has plenty wrong with it, but I do obey society's laws (for the most part *cough*), but I cannot say I "believe" in them.  I believe in the human ability to reason and, and it's my hope society will improve as time goes on.

and accepting there morals ideals ect?

I accept them in the sense that I respect most of them, but I don't necessarily adopt them, if that's what you were asking.  A man has his own sense of morality, and it isn't all sold as a packaged deal, though I'd say a few morals come with the body (killing is "bad", being empathetic is "good" and generally the folks that don't hold these to be true have a mental illness of some sort).

if so then if I visit a society where cannibalism is morally acceptable; should I follow what society tells me is morally right/wrong? i.e. is it morally acceptable for me to be a cannibalistic being if it is expected by society?

If it is morally acceptable to the society, and you, then it is morally acceptable.  Otherwise it'd be a self-contradicting statement.  
Anyway, as to whether you should follow what that society tells you, well, that's up to you as person.  But I will say that it is ethically unsound to inflict unnecessary harm on other sentient beings.   And all of this aside, if you visit a canibalistic  society, you're likely to find they're very tribal (small tribes, too, as it leaves more folks on the OK-to-eat list), and instead of waiting to find out if you're willing to eat people, they'll just eat you.

would it have been a moral thing if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews and brainwashed everyone to think that what he had done was morally acceptable, or would it be wrong regardless of our opinion of it...

Morality is subjective, but something so large a violation as genocide would clash pretty hard against ethical reasoning.  That'd be some powerful brainwashing.   You'd have to teach people not to reason ethically, lest the cognitive dissonance destroy them.  But let's say he did it, it likely wouldn't last forever, just as it was once morally acceptable to own slaves and that didn't last forever.  And then you must ask yourself if you consider the people of the time to be morally bankrupt, or just mislead and less reasoned.  But it's still up to you what you call them.  They were ethically irresponsible, but their morality was theirs and typically any morality but ours seems repulsive to us, so I'm not qualified to weigh morals directly against each other.  I can ask what that morality, achieved, though, and judge it along those lines.  Anyway, I think that covers it!

[PipeBox]

what if I have no empathy?

Let me take this to its conclusion, please.  

[curiosityandthecat]

[rlrose328]

CURIO!!  I LOVE IT!!!!  Thank you so much for posting that!!

[john31]

Then you do whatever the blazes you feel like, don't you? But what's that have to do with morality or ethics, you've placed yourself outside all those values and outside repercussion.
aha! now we are getting somewhere....
If I find myself justified in crimes and my society does as well then I can not be logically judged for my actions by others. You are correct in stating that I should do whatever I feel like but It is inconsistent to then go and condemn the actions of a man like Hitler or Stalin when in fact he was doing what he was supposed to be doing...whatever the heck he wanted
note: I dont mean to anger anyone by bringing up hitler/stalin arguments. I understand many christians and other theists like to use them...I am merely presenting arguments. I am not claiming to agree or disagree with them
I do the same things on christian, muslim, agnostic ect forums as well so dont take it personally

[PipeBox]

Curio, not that you don't already know, but you're awesome.  

[rlrose328]

I don't do whatever the blazes I want to do.  I'd love to take out a few motorists occasionally because they just don't know how to drive, but I don't.  It's a fleeting flight of fancy when I'm late getting somewhere.  It's never a serious consideration.  Because it's against the law, it would make me feel very bad, and I don't like feeling guilty.

I once had an atheist tell me that he doesn't apologize because that would mean he feels guilt and guilt is a religion (specifically Christian) concept.  I was stunned.  For me, guilt is the internal mechanism that tells me I've done something wrong.  My conscience, my internal parent.  

Yes, I was raised with religion, so one could argue that I've retained what I was taught.  However, I know many families now that are headed by parents who had no religion growing up... first generation atheists who now have their own kids.  And those kids are just as well-behaved, sometimes moreso, than kids I know who are raised with religion.

Hitler and Stalin were damaged humans.  I don't think you can compare them to the average human being.  They both had psychological issues, as do MANY humans, that went unaddressed and led to self-aggrandization.  They both had reasons for what they did... they didn't just do what they wanted to do.  They were driven, just like religious folks.

I do see your point... honestly, I do.  And I don't necessarily disagree.  I just disagree with using that comparison.

[Kyuuketsuki]

It’s a little unclear who you were responding too, I assume it was me but quoting what you are responding to and making it clear who said it helps to give context to replies

so im guessing you believe in following societies standards? and accepting there morals ideals ect?

Not necessarily, I simply recognise that it is against a given societies moral values that our behaviour is evaluated.

so then if I visit a society where cannibalism is morally acceptable; should I follow what society tells me is morally right/wrong? i.e. is it morally acceptable for me to be a cannibalistic being if it is expected by society?

In a cannibalistic society the non-cannibal might well be judged a immoral and a social deviant ... it doesn’t make that society right but then again it doesn’t make my society’s morality right either. In essence, when it comes to evaluating social behaviour, I would argue that there is no objective right or wrong.

would it have been a moral thing if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews and brainwashed everyone to think that what he had done was morally acceptable, or would it be wrong regardless of our opinion of it...

We have deemed it wrong but, despite the horror (despite the massive scale of what was done), it doesn’t mean there is any objective way to say that what Hitler did was wrong.

I am not supporting Hitler and his genocidal acts any more than I would support a god that carried out the atrocities claimed in the OT ... at this point I assume it goes without saying that I believe what happened to the Jews was one of the most horrific, appalling and morally reprehensible acts of all time.

Kyu

[PipeBox]

Then you do whatever the blazes you feel like, don't you? But what's that have to do with morality or ethics, you've placed yourself outside all those values and outside repercussion.
aha! now we are getting somewhere....
If I find myself justified in crimes and my society does as well then I can not be logically judged for my actions by others. You are correct in stating that I should do whatever I feel like but It is inconsistent to then go and condemn the actions of a man like Hitler or Stalin when in fact he was doing what he was supposed to be doing...whatever the heck he wanted
note: I dont mean to anger anyone by bringing up hitler/stalin arguments. I understand many christians and other theists like to use them...I am merely presenting arguments. I am not claiming to agree or disagree with them
I do the same things on christian, muslim, agnostic ect forums as well so dont take it personally

Yes, I think it's safe to say that if you're God then you do whatever you feel like.  But the rest of us, people, want betterment, not control, and given power we seek to be fair, empathetic, and strive for betterment.  Sometimes we get greedy, sometime psychotic people surface, sometimes we use what power we have in malice.  But all the evidence is that things go better if we go with what the majority reason to be "right."  That doesn't even mean the majority will always be right.  Much of this scares religious people, the fact that we have the ability to decide for ourselves what is right and, that it is up to us how we go about it.  See, if the laws in their holy books were ever interpreted as wrong, they wouldn't be that holy.  Also, they don't want to live in a world that doesn't bring judgment to those who have committed crimes or who have wronged others or who have spoken critically of those same religious people and their religions.  It's too painful to live in a world of responsibility and to think that there isn't retribution for the wrongs of those we can't harm ourselves.  I'll stop straying on religious ground, now, as this would turn to an argument of why those religions consider themselves moral, how they can claim such authority if they're all BS, etc.

Well, there you go.  Keep asking if there's anything else.