Morality, you say? STOP THAT!

[Promethium147]

Wait a minute here - again and again, I see those who claim an Atheist Morality.

Let's not get confused. Morality is a matter of religious doctrine, a fixed, inflexible, unquestionable set of arbitrarily rules from an unknown source, from which we proceed to deduce correct action. Good Luck.

Thou shall not Kill, for instance, precludes self-defense, appropriate suicide and euthanasia. By en large, we all know better, and act accordingly - regardless of stated belief.

This is 'cause we can figger. Can't be helped. Ethics draws us. To evade the voice of natural ethics in favor of a synthetic morality is a discipline of Willful Ignorance.

Ethics, on the other hand, deduces appropriate action on the basis of minimal assumption, and applies logic (rather than mere common sense) to achieve a result appropriate to each special case - which is exactly what all cases are. The logic being found correct, and the result unacceptable, the premises are refuted, and we then seek simpler, more universal premises. It is self-correcting; it is Science - it is labor, but it is Minimum Human Duty for all those capable.

But the Moral tend to overlook their most serious failures completely. It doesn't matter if my choice results in unnecessary mass human extinctions - it's what God wants. It is Mystery, but that's the way it is, Son - so sayeth  the (Neolithic) Book.

One great value of Ethics over Morality is that we may, by longer chains of logic, achieve counterintuitive results - which turn out to be remarkably effective. Do ends justify means? Certainly - for what are means unrelated to ends? RANDOM ACTS - nothing more.

Comparatively, Morality is a Great Destroyer. Let's dump it - quick!

When asked if I am Moral, I respond with a definite No - I only appear so, even exceptionally so, but - correlation does not imply causation.

I am not Moral. I am not Amoral, or even Immoral - I am definitely AntiMoral. I am inexorably driven to this - by my Natural Ethics.

DIG IT. Response?

[a_jaynepayne]

wait...WHAT...just a minute let me reread your post...okay I'm not so sure if you're using big words and sentances to confuse me....are you saying...I have no idea what you're sayin'.  how often do we hear about MASS HOMICIDE of one species  vs. itself?  Wait I'm completely confused?

[Promethium147]

Otay, here's a straight answer to the only question I see here -

Pick a mass homicide, such as the Holocaust. Was the decision by Hitler to do this not based upon a doctrine - say, that Jews were inherently inferior? Was this doctrine throughly and impartially investigated before it was applied? Naw. He just made it up. The source was Arbitrary. He made the "inferior race" argument to the people, but it was a little more complex than that.

And the killing of Jews became a Moral Act within Nazi Germany - make no mistake about it. `

So, the argument does not just apply to religion, but to ANY untested dogma. Doctrine is a shot in the dark; Ethics is a Plan calculated to achieve a desired result most efficiently - say, doing Good while causing minimal Harm. The means are selected accordingly.

Here's the biggest mass killing of all time - done with all good intent, as well - the unintentional starvation of approx. 55 million Chinese, through starvation and political purges.

Mao decided that chinese agriculture needed reform - to conform with his Revolutionary Principles, matters of HIS own personal doctrine, no doubt himself convinced it would work. It didn't. They died.

In the ensuing chaos, no blame could fall upon the State - and so, it was placed upon the enemies within - intellectuals, artists, free-thinkers operating outside the doctrine - and great purges ensued, followed by more blame and more vicious pursuit of the very principles that caused it - until near collapse of the most Populous Nation on Earth.

This is the power not only of False Doctrine, but Doctrine Itself. Doctrine is not subject to investigation or revision, its source is arbitrary - it cometh of our chosen God, or any other Tyrant we deem fit.

[tomday]

Wait a minute here - again and again, I see those who claim an Atheist Morality.

Let's not get confused. Morality is a matter of religious doctrine, a fixed, inflexible, unquestionable set of arbitrarily rules from an unknown source, from which we proceed to deduce correct action. Good Luck.

Thou shall not Kill, for instance, precludes self-defense, appropriate suicide and euthanasia. By en large, we all know better, and act accordingly - regardless of stated belief.

This is 'cause we can figger. Can't be helped. Ethics draws us. To evade the voice of natural ethics in favor of a synthetic morality is a discipline of Willful Ignorance.

Ethics, on the other hand, deduces appropriate action on the basis of minimal assumption, and applies logic (rather than mere common sense) to achieve a result appropriate to each special case - which is exactly what all cases are. The logic being found correct, and the result unacceptable, the premises are refuted, and we then seek simpler, more universal premises. It is self-correcting; it is Science - it is labor, but it is Minimum Human Duty for all those capable.

But the Moral tend to overlook their most serious failures completely. It doesn't matter if my choice results in unnecessary mass human extinctions - it's what God wants. It is Mystery, but that's the way it is, Son - so sayeth  the (Neolithic) Book.

One great value of Ethics over Morality is that we may, by longer chains of logic, achieve counterintuitive results - which turn out to be remarkably effective. Do ends justify means? Certainly - for what are means unrelated to ends? RANDOM ACTS - nothing more.

Comparatively, Morality is a Great Destroyer. Let's dump it - quick!

When asked if I am Moral, I respond with a definite No - I only appear so, even exceptionally so, but - correlation does not imply causation.

I am not Moral. I am not Amoral, or even Immoral - I am definitely AntiMoral. I am inexorably driven to this - by my Natural Ethics.

DIG IT. Response?

I also have great difficulty trying to get a handle on your message - if you want anyone to respond maybe you should explain, in one or two simple sentences using simple words, what you are trying to say?    :?

[Promethium147]

The message is - Morality means "based in the doctrine." - whatever that doctrine might be.

Doctrine - religious or otherwise - is a set of rules which can't be changed, can't be questioned, and come from some arbitrary source - such as God or Dictator.

This is inferior to Ethics in every way. The result has often been mass death, as illustrated in my previous post - and every religious war or conflict is motivated by it, a perceived difference of Moral Doctrine.

Ethics is a Science - the "rules", or Premises, are as simple as possible - if we apply good logic to them , and the result is GOOD, then the premises were probably correct, and we keep them.

- UNTIL THEY FAIL in some case. Then, as in Science, we attack the premises - the logic was perfect, the result was bad, therefore the Premises are at fault, and must be revised before this Ethical Argument may be used again; it is a dangerous thing, fix it before repeating it.

In all probability, the premises ASSUMED TOO MUCH - they need to be simplified. This is the basic Scientific Principle of Parsimony, Occam's Razor.

Ethics avoids "snap" moral judgments by demonstrating all the logic and using tested principles. It is tested as a MODEL - it is debated - before use. It is subject to immediate and complete revision by anyone, anywhere, anytime - who can demonstrate a better Premise (by agreement or performance) and an unassailable logic. If the majority agrees (of their own free will), they will follow it - it's a completely free and useful tool for generating GOOD itself.

I propose that Atheists quit defining themselves as Moral, or attempting to "justify" themselves as Atheists, "yet" Moral. Why settle for Morality when YOU ALREADY have Ethics?

Virtually no one acts Morally - Christians in particular, there are none that follow the vicious dictates of Leviticus or Deuteronomy. They would be executed for horrendous crimes - under our Ethical System of Law. Yet their Doctrine - the Bible is Inerrant - says they must act so.

Now an Example of Ethics - Utilitarianism!

The "commandments" are simplicity itself -

Pleasure = GOOD
Pain = EVIL

That's it. Couldn't be simpler. We may further state -

If Pain > Pleasure, it is EVIL
If Pain < Pleasure, it is GOOD
If Pain = Pleasure, it has no Ethical Value.

From there we may develop a simple arithmetic - an unassailable logic.

Sounds almost silly. It can be - it is the basis of modern American Liberalism. Then as now, it is cited as insensitive to Individual Rights.

How am I doin'? Getting the drift? Questions, please please?

I simply love a good question - I know I am obscure, and I like it.

I mean my inner state, not my grandiose expression of it.

[Promethium147]

OH and I should also clarify a previous point, where I said "correlation is not causation" regarding my APPARENTLY Moral behavior.

Just because it appears Moral, it doesn't mean it was motivated by Morality.

I have frequently been cited as particularly Moral. This is because I am NOT Moral, I am Ethical, and this is regarded, in practice, as exceptionally Moral - the results are better. Actually, such citations are often associated with a Creative Act - things no one is familiar with, yet upon viewing, instantly regards as Good. This is because Ethics actually rule us, not Morals, and virtually any viewer automatically applies Ethics - or at least, does so eventually.

Here's a wild and weird example -

I found a wallet on my boulevard, a fine one, filled with much cash, and a complete set of Identification. I immediately went in the house, called the owner, and told him I had found his wallet. He excitedly asked "Is the money still in it?" to which I replied, "Sir, there is money in it, I can't imagine that someone stole only some and left the rest, but I do not know how much, since I refuse to count it - it's none of my damned business!"    

He arrived shortly thereafter, I gave him the wallet, he took a wad of twenties out, and thrust them at me. I recoiled and said, "sorry - I can't possibly accept reward for such a thing."

He was overwhelmed - with ANGER, and came at me, waving the money wildly.

I hopped backwards inside the door, closed and locked it, and stood staring - greatly amused - at his raves.

He cooled very abruptly - and stumbled off in confusion. He never imagined such a thing - and had simply FREAKED OUT.

No Morality was applied. No windfalls were needed, counting the money could only lead to Bias, I lost nothing by returning it - he apparently felt great relief, Pleasure > Pain, and It is Good.

Keep it up, you may get the reputation as a Reliable Man - which is better, and leads to much - including Much Money. Another benefit.

Furthermore, he just mighta learned something.

[SteveS]

DIG IT. Response?

I do dig it - I like what you're doing separating morality from ethics - makes good sense to me.  I suspect I've probably been misusing the word "moral".  If we're taking this to mean an adherence to a doctrine that can never be questioned, then yeah, its bunk.

[Will]

I'm ethical too.

[MommaSquid]

Morality is subjective.  Ethics are situationally subjective.  Very few things in life are black and white.  Most of us live in the gray...

[donkeyhoty]

You cannot divorce ethics and morality.  Morality is simply the what, and ethics is the how and why.

If, in whatever belief system you follow, it is morally "right" to kill the other, it is through ethics that this action is shown to be "right".

By proclaiming that atheists cannot be moral you are allowing theists to lay claim to a word that belongs to everyone.  When theists say, "atheists can't be moral" they mean that atheists can't be moral based upon their worldview.  If you say we cannot not be moral, then you are agreeing with the theists that their beliefs hold the one and only truth.

simplified example:  When you say, "It is wrong to do X, but right to do Y" that is morality.  When you ask, "Why is it wrong to do X and not Y?"  that is ethics.

[McQ]

Nicely stated, Promethium147. Dig it.  

[HappyBigPicture]

There is a universal definition of morality known as the rules of right conduct.    Look in the current dictionary, and you will find that the word "religion" is nowhere to be found in the definitions, but rather as an example (and not even an example for the primary definition).

Ethics, however, is defined as a system of moral principles and in fact, morals and ethics are considered synonymous.

There are sections of the Bible that are simply out of date.  In my opinion, the New Testament is more logically consistent than the Old, and rightly so, because, it is after all, newer along the evolutionary history of morality.

We shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[jcm]

I think morality is more about following rules. People who are ethical care about rules as well as the outcome of following the rules. An example would be people who mistreat animals. A Christian would feel morally justified in mistreating an animal, because god has granted them dominance over all creatures. A moral person most likely would not care how an animal is treated before a slaughter because it is just an animal. An ethical person might take an animal’s pain into consideration. I think most “moral” people don’t really know why they are “right” beyond simply following the rules.

[Chris Johnston]

Promethium, I think you are splitting hares with your over-excited distinction between morality and ethics. While not exactly synonmyms, they do tend to be used interchangeably, with one notable difference being that with regards to religion, the word "moral" is usually used.

That being said, I like your main thrust in that moral codes or codes of ethics need not be "handed down from on high" and can and should be derived from reality by use of reason. If this is done, they are authoritative and life-affirming.

Morality is subjective.  Ethics are situationally subjective.  Very few things in life are black and white.  Most of us live in the gray...

MommaSquid, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Religious based morality, or irreligious hedonism are subjective. But the mind-based ethics that Promethium exposed is based in objective reality. It is the only kind that does not rely on the whim of the god or the spoiled child. It relies on the mind and on reality.

[Chris Johnston]

I think morality is more about following rules. People who are ethical care about rules as well as the outcome of following the rules. An example would be people who mistreat animals. A Christian would feel morally justified in mistreating an animal, because god has granted them dominance over all creatures. A moral person most likely would not care how an animal is treated before a slaughter because it is just an animal. An ethical person might take an animal’s pain into consideration. I think most “moral” people don’t really know why they are “right” beyond simply following the rules.

jcm,
You have done an injustice to morality and to christians. The only christians I have ever known who felt justified in mistreating an animal were twisted, sick individual who were nominal christians. Many do not pay close attention to where their food comes from, but kick their dog or cat and watch them.

If you wish to broaden the "mistreatment" category to the point that requires a rabbi to actually kill our food, then you have another issue entirely.

One of the big surprises of the 21st century is the way that evangelical christians are joining environmental activists. This is because their god has told them not only that they have dominion over the earth, but that they are stewards of the same.