A less selfish Pascal's wager

[KebertX]

[Tank]

The only point I am trying to make is exceedingly practical. You will encounter the popular argument more often than the standard. The only reason I brought up the latter was to suggest a better method in handling it.

Totally understand what you were getting at.

[KebertX]

notself,

If you want to start another thread on Buddhism and morality, I'll be more than happy to pursue the discussion with you there. To do that in this thread would take it further off topic than it has already been taken. Nothing you said, though, has anything to do with objective moral foundations.

Let me start off by saying you seem to be one of the smartest Christians I have ever encountered. Your arguments are intelligent, and well thought out. I think a lot of people think about god in limiting terms (i.e. Constrain it to what is described in the Bible) rather that the infinite thing God is supposed to be.

But I'm afraid that you are incorrect in your assertion that atheists don't have any grounds to state that morality is objective.  I will grant that if God is infinite (and actually real), then it's assertions of morality are not subjective at all, but rather an inescapable construct of the universe. Any conscious thing that really held dominion over all the universe would, in fact, have a will that sets itself into an inevitable construct of reality. Conformation to this will would not be a matter of subjective opinion, but rather like obeying the law of gravity.  It's simply the nature of the universe, it's been set, and there is no breaking it.

But the fact that there are people who do things that we consider to be immoral is proof that our morals are not set by an omnipotent and infinite consciousness.  If God asserted something to be "right" then that thing would be the absolute inevitability of conscious behavior. No thing would be able to escape moral behavior, because the universe itself would have been set entirely against it. And no one could exit this moral construct any more than they could defy gravity.

And I've heard the Free Will argument. God didn't think we could be happy if we were slaves to his will, so he gave us all the choice as to whether or not to obey his commands.  Where this argument falls apart is that, God created happiness. Could he not, just as easily, made it so that we could only be happy if we were slaves? Or made it so that we do have a choice, but are inherently good people, and therefore always choose to do good?  Just something to think about.

But there is a grounds to say that morality is objective without god. Notself was doing a rather good job at explaining the Buddhist view of this (including no god), and you shot him down by saying it was irrelevant. I don't know, that just annoys me.

[Jac3510]

KerbertX,

Thanks for the kind remarks. Let me clarify why I said notself's comments explaining Buddhism were irrelevant. Whether I agree or disagree with the statements themselves doesn't matter, because that would only show an agreement or disagreement on our opinions. The issue, however, is the nature of morality itself. How to discover what is moral and what is immoral is an epistemological question. Whether or not morality is objective or subjective is an ontological question. A very important, and basic, philosophical fact to always keep before us is that epistemology does not determine ontology. I cannot tell you how many people have gotten off track, in my opinion, by missing that one little thing . . .

In other words, the methodology we use to discover what something is, is not the same thing as the nature of the thing we are discovering. We have to keep very separate the issues of moral epistemology--how we know what is right and wrong--and moral ontology--what is the nature of morality. My assertions are focused on the latter. Notself's assertions, which I see as extremely valuable and very much worth considering, relate to the former and need to be considered in that context. We couldn't do them justice by applying them to my point.

Again, I'm going to be making a thread on this in the very near future. I'm visiting family in south FL now, but I'll be driving home tomorrow. Hopefully, I can offer some deeper and more appropriate explanations Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

Sorry for the confusion if I wasn't clear on that!

[philosoraptor]

It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard. The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Here, I have to heartily disagree with you.  The philosophical community is a lot smaller than the world of lay people, so to claim that the standard set by one little community is the general standard for everyone else is somewhat ridiculous.  It's also silly to imply that the theist viewpoint is more dominant in the philosophical community than the atheist viewpoint-I'd say it's probably more 50/50 than anything.  For every philosopher arguing a god's existence, there is one arguing against it.  Perhaps you don't mean to imply that the theist viewpoint is the standard, but it certainly seems that way.

[AntigoneRisen]

This is precisely why I debate with myself anymore on whether true ethics can exist with religious belief. The reward/punishment system of morality is motivated by self-interest, not compassion or evaluation of relative harm caused by various options.

[notself]

This is precisely why I debate with myself anymore on whether true ethics can exist with religious belief. The reward/punishment system of morality is motivated by self-interest, not compassion or evaluation of relative harm caused by various options.

Most religious systems have some sort of Golden Rule that would be a teaching on relative harm. I have no idea what "true ethics or true morality" is or whether such a thing can exist or how it can be proved to exist.  Some philosophies/religions have a more detailed system that teaches about evaluation of relative harm even though Western religions may not.  The following is a paraphrase of a much longer statement on evaluation of harm and benefit.  One could say that this is also an example of self interest but it includes the interests of others on an equal basis. Of course it should be read in the context of a much larger philosophical system.

...all actions are to be done with repeated reflection.
"Whenever you want to do an action, you should reflect on it: 'This action I want to do â€" would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful action with painful consequences, painful results, then any action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing an action, you should reflect on it: 'This action I am doing â€" is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.

"Having done an action, you should reflect on it: 'This action I have done â€" did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having discussed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful qualities.

[Jac3510]

Here, I have to heartily disagree with you.  The philosophical community is a lot smaller than the world of lay people, so to claim that the standard set by one little community is the general standard for everyone else is somewhat ridiculous.  It's also silly to imply that the theist viewpoint is more dominant in the philosophical community than the atheist viewpoint-I'd say it's probably more 50/50 than anything.  For every philosopher arguing a god's existence, there is one arguing against it.  Perhaps you don't mean to imply that the theist viewpoint is the standard, but it certainly seems that way.

I have absolutely no idea how the size of a professional community translates into whether or not the standards it sets for its field is valid. This is, of course, assuming that you are right about the size of the philosophical community relative to the general population as compared the same ratio of, say, scientists, engineers, or, as in Davin's example, computer programmers. But even granting you that assertion, how does the size of the community determine anything? That's based on a type of ad populum fallacy.

[AntigoneRisen]

Most religious systems have some sort of Golden Rule that would be a teaching on relative harm.

True, but the motivation to follow that is based in most religious systems on a reward/punishment model; thus, it is motivated not by compassion or care for others but by self-interest in the outcome for oneself.

[notself]

Most religious systems have some sort of Golden Rule that would be a teaching on relative harm.

True, but the motivation to follow that is based in most religious systems on a reward/punishment model; thus, it is motivated not by compassion or care for others but by self-interest in the outcome for oneself.

How does one take oneself out of the equation?  One has to look to one's own fear of harm, pain or death in order to have develop empathy for another.   There is reward/punishment motivation inherent in all volitional action.  If one smokes, one increases the chance of disease (punishment).  If one maintains a good diet, one increases the chance of health (reward).  

Most religious systems are based on a third party, a god, who rewards or punishes.  Is this what you are thinking of?

[philosoraptor]

Here, I have to heartily disagree with you.  The philosophical community is a lot smaller than the world of lay people, so to claim that the standard set by one little community is the general standard for everyone else is somewhat ridiculous.  It's also silly to imply that the theist viewpoint is more dominant in the philosophical community than the atheist viewpoint-I'd say it's probably more 50/50 than anything.  For every philosopher arguing a god's existence, there is one arguing against it.  Perhaps you don't mean to imply that the theist viewpoint is the standard, but it certainly seems that way.

I have absolutely no idea how the size of a professional community translates into whether or not the standards it sets for its field is valid. This is, of course, assuming that you are right about the size of the philosophical community relative to the general population as compared the same ratio of, say, scientists, engineers, or, as in Davin's example, computer programmers. But even granting you that assertion, how does the size of the community determine anything? That's based on a type of ad populum fallacy.

No more fallacious than your claim that the philosophical community determines the standard argument.  If you really want to argue logic and arguments, you could just as easily say that you've commit argumentum ad verecundiam.  All the same, as a member of the philosophical community, it has not been my experience that your argument is in fact the standard.  I'm merely trying to understand why you think it is.  If we examine different definitions of the word standard as an adjective, we both technically could be correct.

From the Free Dictionary:
2.  Widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence
4.  Normal, familiar, or usual

All I'm saying is that my experience does not show your argument to be the standard.  This is speaking as a member of the philosophical community who has encountered theists both inside the philosophic academic circle and out in the world.  The attitude that atheists lack morality is an attitude that I experience commonly, regardless of whether or not the person is a philosopher or a lay person.  It is certainly even more common outside of academia, but is still the usual regardless.  I definitely did feel though that the program I was in as a graduate student was overwhelmingly theist, and not always hospitable towards atheists.  Of course this was only a small segment of the philosophical community.  That's really the point I'm trying to make-perhaps your experience is the opposite of mine.  Either way though, I don't think that you personally can claim what the standard is for the whole philosophical community.  I wouldn't make that claim, either.  I think it really will vary within different circles of the community.  Within philosophy, I don't think there is a standard.  If there were, it would almost defeat the purpose.  What would everyone have to argue about?

[Jac3510]

No more fallacious than your claim that the philosophical community determines the standard argument.  If you really want to argue logic and arguments, you could just as easily say that you've commit argumentum ad verecundiam.  All the same, as a member of the philosophical community, it has not been my experience that your argument is in fact the standard.  I'm merely trying to understand why you think it is.  If we examine different definitions of the word standard as an adjective, we both technically could be correct.

From the Free Dictionary:
2.  Widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence
4.  Normal, familiar, or usual

All I'm saying is that my experience does not show your argument to be the standard.  This is speaking as a member of the philosophical community who has encountered theists both inside the philosophic academic circle and out in the world.  The attitude that atheists lack morality is an attitude that I experience commonly, regardless of whether or not the person is a philosopher or a lay person.  It is certainly even more common outside of academia, but is still the usual regardless.  I definitely did feel though that the program I was in as a graduate student was overwhelmingly theist, and not always hospitable towards atheists.  Of course this was only a small segment of the philosophical community.  That's really the point I'm trying to make-perhaps your experience is the opposite of mine.  Either way though, I don't think that you personally can claim what the standard is for the whole philosophical community.  I wouldn't make that claim, either.  I think it really will vary within different circles of the community.  Within philosophy, I don't think there is a standard.  If there were, it would almost defeat the purpose.  What would everyone have to argue about?

1. I've already noted the distinction between "standard" as used to refer to a technical standard and its meaning of normal and how that relates to this thread. If you want to press that issue further, please see my previous comments, as it does none of us any good to repeat ourselves.

2. You are changing your argument. I have very little objection to your words here, but your previous argument to which I responded was that because the philosophical community is so small, its standards don't matter. Now, if you want to drop that argument, then fine, but arguing that your fallacy is "no more fallacious" than mine is, as you know, another fallacy--for those of you who insist on silly Latinisms, it's called a tu quoque. You are essentially saying, "My argument is stupid? Well yours is too!" Fine, but if so, deal with it on the merits, not with a reference to the failure of your own argument.

3. I realize that I said that the standard is determined by the philosophical community. Allow me to clarify my meaning. My first words to you were "And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral." Now, who is the one who makes this argument? Certainly not atheistic philosophers. I am speaking specifically of Christian philosophers.

Are you really going to tell me that you have met Christian philosophers who claim that atheists can't be moral? Are seriously going to tell me that is their philosophical position? If so, I'd like some examples. I've certainly never met all of the Christian philosophers out there. I haven't met most of them. But I've read many, many, many works by them--the ones we all read in our basic educations and then many of the ones most of us don't. I've never once encountered that position. On the contrary, as I have expressed repeatedly, I have seen that position repudiated in the literature.

4. The idea that there is no such thing as philosophical standards is rather silly. The law of non-contradiction is a standard. Are there people who disagree with it? Sure, but they aren't taken very seriously, as you well know. A position doesn't become standard by vote. It becomes standard by time and rigorous discussion. Perhaps my mistake was to use the definite article, as in "the standard argument" rather than the indefinite "a." If that's the case, then feel free to adjust my words. The point remains that I've encountered absolutely no Christian philosopher who holds the position that atheists cannot be moral. Still less is that a standard argument.

[KebertX]

KerbertX,

Thanks for the kind remarks. Let me clarify why I said notself's comments explaining Buddhism were irrelevant. Whether I agree or disagree with the statements themselves doesn't matter, because that would only show an agreement or disagreement on our opinions. The issue, however, is the nature of morality itself. How to discover what is moral and what is immoral is an epistemological question. Whether or not morality is objective or subjective is an ontological question. A very important, and basic, philosophical fact to always keep before us is that epistemology does not determine ontology. I cannot tell you how many people have gotten off track, in my opinion, by missing that one little thing . . .

In other words, the methodology we use to discover what something is, is not the same thing as the nature of the thing we are discovering. We have to keep very separate the issues of moral epistemology--how we know what is right and wrong--and moral ontology--what is the nature of morality. My assertions are focused on the latter. Notself's assertions, which I see as extremely valuable and very much worth considering, relate to the former and need to be considered in that context. We couldn't do them justice by applying them to my point.

Again, I'm going to be making a thread on this in the very near future. I'm visiting family in south FL now, but I'll be driving home tomorrow. Hopefully, I can offer some deeper and more appropriate explanations Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

Sorry for the confusion if I wasn't clear on that!

I understand, but I still think something is wrong with your argument that morality can be objective without a god.  Let me provide a counter example just to demonstrate:

In my view, actions that cause people suffering are wrong. For me, that is the simple construct of morality, and everything else is just nonsense that someone made up. We don't kill, rape, steal, lie, etc. because these actions are harmful to others. If you view the nature of existence from an atheistic Buddhist perspective, then what you see is that these things are bad Karma, because suffering (The opposite of Nirvana: release from suffering) brings you further from enlightenment.  If you think of life as an unending cycle that flows in the direction of Nirvana, and know that causing suffering is a movement away from Nirvana, then of course morality is objective. Refraining from causing others suffering is what we consider to be moral, and it is also moving in the direction of the natural progression of life.  Inescapable.  Inevitable. It's simply the nature of our existence.  Promotion of this behavior is as objective as telling people to obey the law of gravity.

I'm not saying I necessarily believe in Nirvana, frankly I think societies naturally evolving the compulsion to be hospitable to each other is reason enough to be moral.  Even if it is subjective, that doesn't diminish the fact that it's right.  And it doesn't make a theistic view of morality superior to an atheistic one.  Just because your morals are determined by public opinion (which has been determined by the social evolution of the human mind) doesn't make it any less meaningful to adhere to them. Because at the end of the day, if you've done something good, it doesn't matter why you did it.

It doesn't matter if you were trying to get into heaven, or make your skydaddy proud of you, or working to obtain enlightenment, or just doing what other people think is right, or even if you just wanted to win a free gift certificate.  You're still setting out to do good, and your reasoning behind it is obviously pointing you in the right direction.

[Jac3510]

That's a fair example, Kerbert, but let me respond to a couple of things.

but I still think something is wrong with your argument that morality can be objective without a god.

Is this a typo? I think it is, but I want to confirm. You know that I am arguing that morality CANNOT be objective without God, correct? And technically, that isn't even what I'm arguing. Actually, I'm saying that there is no foundation for objective morality without God. Frankly, I think that morals are objective. I think that every atheist knows that some things are really right and some things are really wrong, objectively speaking. I just don't think that they have a foundation for their objective morality. They claim their morality is subjective, but they behave as if they are objective. That's the rub.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I are drinking from a fountain, and suppose you tell me that the water comes from a reservoir down the road. Suppose I say that the reservoir does not exist. Now, does the fact that I am denying the origin of the water mean that I can't drink the water or know that it is there or that I cannot benefit from it? Of course not! The same is true with reality. Atheist have all the benefits of objective morality because morality really is objective. They don't have to have the right belief to start experiencing reality itself -- to say that they did would be to argue that epistemology determines ontology, which it doesn't.

As to your counter example, let me use that to further clarify my position. It is very easy to have a foundation of objective morality without God. I could posit an invisible morality dispensing machine on the planet X120 in the Galaxy R538 in sector QueihIehhh&927y29 of the third universe on our left, and could then argue that all of us are psychologically connected to that machine, and that is the source of our morality. Thus, what it dispenses is right and wrong, making morality objective.

Fine. The point is that there must be something over and above the human experience in which to ground objective morality. I'm sure you would agree that my suggestion is rather silly. Philosophically, morality only comes from a sentient being. It doesn't take too much work to show that a being whose very nature is the root of morality would correspond to what we call God. In any case, all this is rather trivial, because what we should be able to agree on is that if there is nothing beyond the human experience, then there is nothing objective in which to ground morality. It is nothing more than a human construct and, as such, moral statements have no meaning whatsoever beyond personal opinion. In order to predicate real rightness and real wrongness to the essence of actions and attitudes themselves, we must have a sentient moral being over and above human beings in which to ground that meaning. I'm not, then, arguing that we can't agree on what is "right" and what is "wrong" for whatever our own personal reasons, be they religious or sociological. I'm arguing that the words "right" and "wrong" have no intrinsic, objective meaning if there is no God.

[philosoraptor]

2. You are changing your argument. I have very little objection to your words here, but your previous argument to which I responded was that because the philosophical community is so small, its standards don't matter.

I never said the standards of the philosophic community don't matter.  I'm just not convinced that it's prudent to claim that a group as small as the philosophical community sets a standard that accurately reflects the standard for all academics as well as the rest of the world.  And again, I'm not convinced there is a standard for this particular argument within the community because it is so divided between atheists and theists.

3. Are you really going to tell me that you have met Christian philosophers who claim that atheists can't be moral? Are seriously going to tell me that is their philosophical position? If so, I'd like some examples. I've certainly never met all of the Christian philosophers out there. I haven't met most of them. But I've read many, many, many works by them--the ones we all read in our basic educations and then many of the ones most of us don't. I've never once encountered that position. On the contrary, as I have expressed repeatedly, I have seen that position repudiated in the literature.

I guess that depends on your definition of what is a philosopher.  I'm speaking not in terms of big names, but in terms of people I have met personally-profs and graduate students, specifically.  Not all of whom have been published or would be known to you.  Surely I don't need to point out to you why it's fallacious to assume that because you have not encountered people like this, they can't exist.  It sounds like that's what you're saying, but perhaps that's a miscommunication.  And yes, I have (sadly) met academics in my field who think that atheists cannot be moral.  Of course, I find that view point ridiculous, but then again, I also find circular Cartesian arguments ridiculous as well, and there are more than a few philosophers that supported them (and still do).

4. The idea that there is no such thing as philosophical standards is rather silly. The law of non-contradiction is a standard. Are there people who disagree with it? Sure, but they aren't taken very seriously, as you well know. A position doesn't become standard by vote. It becomes standard by time and rigorous discussion. Perhaps my mistake was to use the definite article, as in "the standard argument" rather than the indefinite "a." If that's the case, then feel free to adjust my words. The point remains that I've encountered absolutely no Christian philosopher who holds the position that atheists cannot be moral. Still less is that a standard argument.

Yes, I guess it is your language I disagreed with.  I don't think there is ONE standard argument within the philosophic community here, which was what your initial post made it sound you were claiming.  I can agree though that it is a standard argument, just not the singular argument.  However, I still don't feel though that the philosophical community is necessarily the one responsible for setting standards outside of academia.  I hope that makes it a little more clear.