Godless morality

[curiosityandthecat]

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

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

Aw, shucks. You guys make me want to dance.

[Sophus]

Society is what defines "right and wrong." But out of respect or love for others we should still strive to be scrupulous, however we perceive that to be. The selfish person does not love himself, so it's really a question of how you want to live your life.

[Titan]

I apologize for not reading all the comments in this thread. I had a few questions. If we are merely time + matter + chance why should I care for another random assembly (to a degree) of atoms in a temporal  universe? Why should you care what I feel in regards to another assembly of atoms? Hypothetically, a logical outworking of atheism (as it seems to me, I apologize if this is wrong) is complete self-centrism wherein might makes right only because might can impose its will. Those who possess such strength, while no more justified in their actions in the broad scheme of things, simply have the luxury of being able to do what they want. Am I on the wrong track here?

[curiosityandthecat]

I apologize for not reading all the comments in this thread. I had a few questions. If we are merely time + matter + chance why should I care for another random assembly (to a degree) of atoms in a temporal  universe? Why should you care what I feel in regards to another assembly of atoms? Hypothetically, a logical outworking of atheism (as it seems to me, I apologize if this is wrong) is complete self-centrism wherein might makes right only because might can impose its will. Those who possess such strength, while no more justified in their actions in the broad scheme of things, simply have the luxury of being able to do what they want. Am I on the wrong track here?

Yep, you're wrong.  

[Titan]

Yep, you're wrong. That position is what I like to call Assholism

I laughed, that was good.

To answer your first question, you should care for another randomly assembled atoms because, as you are essentially the same, you would like them to care about you.

But isn't that assuming you NEED them to care for you. Hypothetically, if I could live in wealth and splendor at the cost of everyone else or live in poverty by being nice to everyone (without psychological punishments I'm going to assume are merely sociological constructs in this case) wouldn't I be inclined to do so.

It's simple tit-for-tat. Golden rule. Do unto others, and all that. If you (a general you, not you specifically, of course) don't care what happens to others or yourself, then you are most likely a socio- or psychopath, and are deemed unfit for the society in which all the other randomly assembled atoms live.

Oh God, my reply was "assuming you need tits" which luckily I stopped myself from saying...Well, I guess, technically I didn't, but that is besides the point. What is society? Why am I more inclined to care for a person that I don't need than a rock which I find rather aesthetically pleasing?

[Whitney]

I apologize for not reading all the comments in this thread. I had a few questions. If we are merely time + matter + chance why should I care for another random assembly (to a degree) of atoms in a temporal  universe? Why should you care what I feel in regards to another assembly of atoms? Hypothetically, a logical outworking of atheism (as it seems to me, I apologize if this is wrong) is complete self-centrism wherein might makes right only because might can impose its will. Those who possess such strength, while no more justified in their actions in the broad scheme of things, simply have the luxury of being able to do what they want. Am I on the wrong track here?

I think that when we take into account that humans are social animals, any logical argument for being purley self centered falls flat on its face.  It is actually a big part of human nature to seek out companionship and in doing so we also naturally want to look out for the needs of others.  It could be said that through concern for the self we develop concern for others since we want people to like us (of course, there is empathy too).  As a theist, you don't think the same bodies you talk to now will exist forever yet you still respect the body by not causing physical harm.  I think a parallel could be drawn to why an atheist would not want to cause harm to that collection of atoms just because it's not eternal.  Regardless of theological beliefs, humans are emotional beings and will have feelings towards each other.  There is of course a lot of science to be dicsussed on the chemical processes which make us feel the way we do (most of which I can only explain in general terms), but hopefully I've covered the jist of why I think you are on the wrong track...please let me know if I need to expand on parts further.

[Titan]

I think that when we take into account that humans are social animals, any logical argument for being purley self centered falls flat on its face. It is actually a big part of human nature to seek out companionship and in doing so we also naturally want to look out for the needs of others. It could be said that through concern for the self we develop concern for others since we want people to like us (of course, there is empathy too).

Hypothetically, if someone was to "evolve" (I'm sorry to bastardize the word) past the need for sociological companionship wouldn't this argument be a moot point?

As a theist, you don't think the same bodies you talk to now will exist forever yet you still respect the body by not causing physical harm. I think a parallel could be drawn to why an atheist would not want to cause harm to that collection of atoms just because it's not eternal.

But the basis for that, from a theistic perspective, is that God assigns value so the body has value because it's God's. I don't see how value is assigned in an atheistic philosophy. Again, this is probably due to my lack of education on the matter.

[curiosityandthecat]

I laughed, that was good.

I'm glad.   I try to keep a sense of humor... religion is something that can go from laid-back to pissed off pretty quickly.

But isn't that assuming you NEED them to care for you. Hypothetically, if I could live in wealth and splendor at the cost of everyone else or live in poverty by being nice to everyone (without psychological punishments I'm going to assume are merely sociological constructs in this case) wouldn't I be inclined to do so.

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with not believing in a deity. The assumption this is based on is that without God there is no morality. Atheists tend to find this rather laughable, as we are without gods and (the vast majority of us, I'm sure) are quite moral, nice, ethical people. As for the wealth and splendor, are you sure wealth and niceness are mutually exclusive?

Oh God, my reply was "assuming you need tits" which luckily I stopped myself from saying...Well, I guess, technically I didn't, but that is besides the point. What is society? Why am I more inclined to care for a person that I don't need than a rock which I find rather aesthetically pleasing?

Evolution, basically. That's why. Every animal has evolved to be social, as it improves the chances of their survival. It becomes hardwired into the DNA. It's also easier to survive if you divide the labor: one animal makes a nest while the other hunts for food. It's the humanity in us that leads us to help people we don't know or "need" per se. We believe it makes us good (whatever "good" is).

I suggest you pick up a copy of Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors next time you're in the library or the book store. It gives a wonderful account of how we got to where we are, both physically and ethically.

[Titan]

. Atheists tend to find this rather laughable, as we are without gods and (the vast majority of us, I'm sure) are quite moral, nice, ethical people. As for the wealth and splendor, are you sure wealth and niceness are mutually exclusive?

But the problem I come across is that if life is time + matter + chance how can you keep morality as something solid since every single one of those factors is either temporal or changing?

Evolution, basically. That's why. Every animal has evolved to be social, as it improves the chances of their survival. It becomes hardwired into the DNA. It's also easier to survive if you divide the labor: one animal makes a nest while the other hunts for food. It's the humanity in us that leads us to help people we don't know or "need" per se. We believe it makes us good (whatever "good" is).

So if the "ubermensch" evolves past the need for social involvement what happens? Yes, it is easier to survive if everyone divides out the labor, but it is even easier if you get everyone else to do the work for you.

Out of ignorant curiosity, can you justify stopping slave trade in in African countries from an external perspective? (External in the sense that you are not part of the culture nor even have a vested interest economically speaking).

[Whitney]

Hypothetically, if someone was to "evolve" (I'm sorry to bastardize the word) past the need for sociological companionship wouldn't this argument be a moot point?

Would this person also not have the ability to empathize with others?  A person like that would not care about others no matter what their personal religious beleifs are.  I think it would be easier to discuss this topic if we stuck with what normal people are like rather than going into hypotheticals...Normal people do have a need for companionship. even self described loners tend to have a friend or two.  Also, since we are on a forum I think it is safe to assume anyone posting here enjoys at least the intellectual companionship of others.

But the basis for that, from a theistic perspective, is that God assigns value so the body has value because it's God's. I don't see how value is assigned in an atheistic philosophy. Again, this is probably due to my lack of education on the matter.

Let me ask you this before moving on...if you somehow found out tomorrow that God does not exist, would you value humans any less?  

I will go more in depth later (I'm a little distracted right now installing chat, by popular request...btw, the board will go down for a few mintues when I get to the install point)..the above is rhetorical so you don't have to answer it unless you want to.

[Titan]

Would this person also not have the ability to empathize with others? A person like that would not care about others no matter what their personal religious beleifs are. I think it would be easier to discuss this topic if we stuck with what normal people are like rather than going into hypotheticals...Normal people do have a need for companionship. even self described loners tend to have a friend or two. Also, since we are on a forum I think it is safe to assume anyone posting here enjoys at least the intellectual companionship of others.

You are absolutely right, but I believe if we are to form a coherent conception of morality we need to be able to apply it to the psychopaths too. Or, in this case, to the Ubermensch.

Let me ask you this before moving on...if you somehow found out tomorrow that God does not exist, would you value humans any less?

Instantly? Probably not. But the reason I'm asking this is because from my vantage point the answer would probably be "yes." Since it suddenly becomes subjective. I would be all that matters since the self is all I can be sure about.

I will log on later, I need to run some errands. Thank you for the great replies, you are answering a lot of questions and I appreciate it.

[curiosityandthecat]

btw, the board will go down for a few mintues when I get to the install point)

The board will be down? But.. BUT... WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!?!?!

[LARA]

Titan, I have to wonder how much your opinions of atheists and morality are affected by what you might have read of Nietzche and his philosophy of the Ubermensch, since you are using the term.  I am pretty rusty where it comes to Nietzche, it has been a while since I've read anything by him, but it doesn't follow that an atheists freedom from a belief in God means that they believe they are superior to others and should rule them.  Atheism is more of a breakdown of religious metaphors into the proven facts that we can perceive through science.

I think one of the biggest challenges facing atheism is that many religious people associate it with the past philosophies of thinkers like Nietzche that are viewed as pure egoism and immoral, authoritarian mindsets like Social Darwinism.  These movements and philosophies forgot some important realities that science does not, that humans are rather poorly adapted animals whose main strengths lie in social ties and networks rather than brute physical abilities.  The ruler at the 'top' is still subject to the reality that they can't survive without the work of those 'below' them on the social scale and true tyranny can't last forever.  There are more fair and stable systems of social order than the Master/Slave relationship of the Ubermensch.

To accept that there is an anthropomorphic, biblical God is similar to the idea of accepting an Ubermensch as an overlord.  It's the same authoritarian system, but instead of a supernatural being, we have a human that has achieved some sort of greater than human status with the power to rule over others, free from morality.  The biblical God is free from morality and punishment in this same way.  God can kill those it deems immoral without fear of punishment.  In the Old Testament this included people whose sins we wouldn't punish by death today.  Yaweh's actions in the light of today's morality are morally reprehensible.  Later the New testament tried to change this with a kinder, gentler God named Jesus, but Judeo-Christian Tradition still clings to the Old Testament mythologies and moralities even with Jesus.

An atheist can be a pacifist, be able to turn the proverbial cheek, and use the techniques of non-violent action for social change that Ghandhi and King laid out.  Denying dogma and supernatural magic isn't about destroying morality.  It's about understanding reality and rejection of non-materialistic causation for real, physical events.  In doing so, we can actually gain a better understanding of what the true nature of morality is.

[Titan]

Titan, I have to wonder how much your opinions of atheists and morality are affected by what you might have read of Nietzche and his philosophy of the Ubermensch, since you are using the term. I am pretty rusty where it comes to Nietzche, it has been a while since I've read anything by him, but it doesn't follow that an atheists freedom from a belief in God means that they believe they are superior to others and should rule them.

Absolutely, but it can be a logical outworking of the philosophy. Can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty? If so, what do you base it on...assuming that your society already has all the pieces it needs in place and doesn't require any other workers but could use some more land without the hassle of getting permission.

I think one of the biggest challenges facing atheism is that many religious people associate it with the past philosophies of thinkers like Nietzche that are viewed as pure egoism and immoral, authoritarian mindsets like Social Darwinism. These movements and philosophies forgot some important realities that science does not, that humans are rather poorly adapted animals whose main strengths lie in social ties and networks rather than brute physical abilities.

Again, I believe you are exactly right. But the problem is by defining these things in terms of what our needs are the world view appears to run into one of two problems:
1. You are limited to the conception that as long as mankind is a social animal society will stay intact, there is no continual hope for this. One day someone could really be outside of the need for human interaction.
2. There is no necessary care for those who fall outside the bubble. If I create the master race and find midgets to bother my world view, I could kill them without having any interpersonal relational issues.

The ruler at the 'top' is still subject to the reality that they can't survive without the work of those 'below' them on the social scale and true tyranny can't last forever.

If you consider how the pyramids were built, how long the enslaving Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans it appears that tyrannies can easily surpass a few lifetimes.

To accept that there is an anthropomorphic, biblical God is similar to the idea of accepting an Ubermensch as an overlord. It's the same authoritarian system, but instead of a supernatural being, we have a human that has achieved some sort of greater than human status with the power to rule over others, free from morality.

The Ubermensch is, however, an incomplete source of value since he is ultimately temporal and has no true claim over that which is in existence. His power only rests in people being forced to obey it. Whereas a supernatural being's power rests in the nature of him/her/them in the singular and nature itself derives its value from the higher order. Therefore if one disobeys, while they may not be punished directly (depending on the belief system) they are ultimately accountable on a more permanent scale.

In the Old Testament this included people whose sins we wouldn't punish by death today. Yaweh's actions in the light of today's morality are morally reprehensible. Later the New testament tried to change this with a kinder, gentler God named Jesus, but Judeo-Christian Tradition still clings to the Old Testament mythologies and moralities even with Jesus.

I disagree with this, do you mind if we open up this topic in a new thread entirely? I would love to explore the coalescence of contrariety in the Judeo-Christian deity if you would like to throw some of your objections towards me.

An atheist can be a pacifist, be able to turn the proverbial cheek, and use the techniques of non-violent action for social change that Ghandhi and King laid out. Denying dogma and supernatural magic isn't about destroying morality. It's about understanding reality and rejection of non-materialistic causation for real, physical events. In doing so, we can actually gain a better understanding of what the true nature of morality is.

How can there be a true nature of morality if the universe is changing in every perceivable way?

[PipeBox]

Hiyas Titan!

I had a similar discussion with a John31 earlier in this thread as you are having with others now (to clarify, everyone had a similar discussion and mine wasn't even the best of it).  I request that you read those posts, as I think the "what if" line of reasoning, with a superior human being, always terminates the same way.  With them being all powerful and beyond human retribution, and with them being able to supplant the human race if they aren't also given the attribute of eternal life (which they often aren't as that would put them outside the generally accepted reach of God).  The idea is to create, taken to its extreme, is to create a new deity, which is ironically similar to a lot of older deities (though not specifically the Christian God).  This creature exhibits the power to harm anything it doesn't need, and it needs nothing, and it cannot be harmed.  That is a scary thing, and that is why humans aren't going to be looking to let it happen, even us atheists.  We atheists do not have, nor assume such power.  Heck, IF we could bring ourselves to kill another human being, other human beings would take us down.  We have a built in altruism, we protect each other, so when something comes along that can kill any of us equally we kill it instead.  Humans don't need to be on the earth, but we humans search for cures to diseases and generally try to avoid annihilating ourselves.  And us atheists aren't in a hurry to die, not because we fear what might happen, but because we generally enjoy life, and we like progress and progeny.  Well, most of us.  There's crazy folks from everywhere, but that's why there are laws, agreed upon by humans.  Our law, specifically, is in our hands as people, and is not in itself governed by religion, but by logic, empathy, and ethics.  I could write more on this point, but I just woke up and my mind is groggy.

I don't think an ubermensch is possible in our world.  Despicable morals are possible, but not a complete lack of them, lest those serving the ubermensch would be free to tear it apart (unless it was immortal or could directly influence the will of people, a deity).  If people DON'T serve it, and it harms us, we either kill it or keep it from us.  And without granting it yet more powers, we are certainly free and able to do that.  Mind, I have never read Nietzche in any detail, so maybe he has a complete list of all the powers and hypotheticals required to support such a thing, but if it isn't possible, it falls back on human morality, and what that is.  And we're all human here.  And, if you honestly think you could kill people without an absolute morality telling you not to, you scare me, but you'd be dealt with by the rest of us who rely on each other.  Our morality IS based on our position, it IS subjective, but it is also based on ethics, which are in turn based on reason, logic, and empathy.

Please, read this thread, it's roughly only a page before you show up and that certainly won't take too much of you time.  You'll also get to see me in better form.