You Lost One - Atheist Converts

[xSilverPhinx]

Back to my illustrative examples: Do I value a random human life? No. However, do I acknowledge that human's right to have and keep that life? Again, yes.

The first is a personal standpoint. The second is a moral one. In my case, at least, in the event of a conflict of interest, the second will usually - if not nearly always - trump the first.

If you live in a society that doesn't value human life, then your own life is in danger. For survival, you desire a society that values human life.

Social contract basically? Some animals which live in groups have forms of social contracts.

Help feed others and you will be fed, etc. Evolutionary, it gives a major advantage over solitary animals.

[Recusant]

. . .

As a society we have deemed that it is unsafe (and hence undesired) to let people go around killing each other. We have mutually given up our right to kill in favour of our right not to be killed. This doesn't have to be considered a moral decision, it could be considered a mutual survival preference supported by law.

Yet there is no reason not to call it a moral decision or judgment, unless one is defining morality as only objective for some reason.

I think it is fascinating to consider shows like Survivor or what happens in war time. Normal rules don't apply, because society is different, people behave differently because the game is different. It is not that morality has changed, I presume the concept of morality doesn't change.

What justification is there for that presumption? There is a well defined concept of moral relativism which is "an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons." (Source) It seems that you have chosen to only recognize a concept of objective morality as "true morality" and any subjective or mutable morality does not actually qualify as morality according to you. I think that by doing so you are accepting the position of the moral absolutists (who are generally, but not always theist). I personally do not accept that position.

You might think you do the "right" thing because you are a "good" person, but I think there is much more to it than that. That, sounds like a fairytale. This mentality is very much inbred into us via movies, books, comic books. Good triumphing over Evil. I think this black and white mentality is a major source of conflict and wars.

I think that you are right that morality is largely cultural, but I also think that there is an underpinning of instinctive proto-morality which arises from our evolutionary heritage. Part of that heritage includes the tendency to look at the world from a tribal perspective, with in-groups and out-groups. This tendency is nurtured and emphasized for cultural reasons: people are easier to manipulate when they subscribe to some form of nationalism (with a subtext of "us=good, them=bad").

[xSilverPhinx]

I think that you are right that morality is largely cultural, but I also think that there is an underpinning of instinctive proto-morality which arises from our evolutionary heritage.

This. And just because it can be called subjective, doesn't mean it's totally arbitrary.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying Stevil, but I the way I'm reading your posts still makes me think you're arguing semantics. Thing is, you're trying to disprove the theistic position of absolute objective morality handed down by a law-giver but not other forms of non-arbitrary morality. I think that ultimately moral philosophy and the science surrounding our behavior in groups is way more complicated than theists think it is. If they take the word 'morality' as their own to describe their type, then I'd be the first to disagree with them. I still don't think I would call myself amoral, though. ???

[Stevil]

I think I get the gist of what you're saying Stevil, but I the way I'm reading your posts still makes me think you're arguing semantics. Thing is, you're trying to disprove the theistic position of absolute objective morality handed down by a law-giver but not other forms of non-arbitrary morality. I think that ultimately moral philosophy and the science surrounding our behavior in groups is way more complicated than theists think it is. If they take the word 'morality' as their own to describe their type, then I'd be the first to disagree with them. I still don't think I would call myself amoral, though. ???

What I am trying to do, is to be clear and specific. I think morality, hides a lot of detail, hides reasoning, hides agendas. When two people talk about morality, they can quite easily be talking about different things. It is too confusing.

But we have other terms that can be used, ones that don't hide the detail, reasoning or agendas.
A theist can refer to god's law instead of morality. Theists are happy with the term god's law. Some atheists can refer to the term "personal opinion" or "personal values" instead of subjective morality. If speaking in such terms then these two groups can communicate with each other with less confusion.
If a government comes out with a law against homosexuality and states that it the reasoning is that it is against the Christian god's law, then this is much better than saying it is because homosexuality is immoral. I say it is better, because at least the society members know why the government made the decision. The reasoning is not hidden behind the morality word. When a theist argues about god's law, then it is hard to argue against them, an atheist's reasoning will fall on deaf ears because it doesn't address or overrule god's law (in the mind of the theist).

To overcome this stalemate we need to reassess the purpose for government's law. If we simply state that we want a moral society enforced by government defined law, then we lose (depending if we are outnumbered by the coordinated theists).

Being an amoralist, (moral nihilist) is not a claim that rules aren't desired or that collectively we can't decide on some common rules of society. It is a claim that object right and wrong don't exist. This means that objective morality is absurd.

But it also means that subjective morality is absurd, in the instance that an individual claims to know what is right and what is wrong (without the need for a specific goal). Thus this subjective morality can make claims of right and wrong without qualifying the situation, without putting things in context. As if this person has a special connection to a magical definition of right and wrong.

Of course there is a different type of subjective morality, this is where a person defines a goal (because they have a personal preference for that goal) they then assess right and wrong against that. Most atheists use the golden rule as this goal, which works quite well, some people think this is too subjective and have attempted to come up with a more prescriptive rule set such as the philosopher Kant. Follower's of Kant's philosophy might claim that Kant defines objective morality, in that if you follow his rules then you are likely to come objectively to the same conclusion as others also following his rules. What makes his philosophy subjective is that people don't have to and often don't agree with the rule set, therefore acceptance of the rule set is a subjective choice. I find it absurd to put your faith into a rule set and then dedicate your life to following the output of that rule set.

Another aspect of amoralism is that we are opposed to using the terms moral and immoral, I agree with this approach, not because I want to wear the amoral label but because I want to remove ambiguity. We can more clearly express our thoughts and wants without using these horrible words. Goals must be set and actions judged against those goals (do they improve the chances of that goal or reduce the chances?), agendas are laid bare for all to see, it also lays a foundation for open discussion and compromise. Using the morality terms, closes off discussion, it makes thing appear to be irreconcilable differences.

So an amoralist is not a person whom does as they immediately please, is not a person whom does not recognise the importance of a cohesive society, is not a person without empathy or values. If you think these things then your perception is incorrect.

[xSilverPhinx]

So an amoralist is not a person whom does as they immediately please, is not a person whom does not recognise the importance of a cohesive society, is not a person without empathy or values. If you think these things then your perception is incorrect.

Ok. Actually what I see as amoral is something which wouldn't have any concept of any morality, such as animals, even though they do adopt strategies such as social contracts, to enhance their chances of survival in groups.

That and stuff such as natural disasters, which even though cause suffering, just aren't either good or evil, or anything in between. Morality as a concept just doesn't apply to them.

I'd like to better reply to the rest of your post soon, just making a brief interlude now.

[Stevil]

Yet there is no reason not to call it a moral decision or judgment, unless one is defining morality as only objective for some reason.

Based on my previous post, I hope you can see my thinking as to the many reasons why I would not call this a moral decision.

I think it is fascinating to consider shows like Survivor or what happens in war time. Normal rules don't apply, because society is different, people behave differently because the game is different. It is not that morality has changed, I presume the concept of morality doesn't change.

What justification is there for that presumption?

If a person uses the terms moral or immoral without qualification or justification then I presume they are suggesting that morality is static rather than dynamic, that there is no need for qualification or justification because right is always right and wrong is always wrong.
Basically I want them to qualify their statements, to be consistent with their philosophy rather than to be ambiguous with implied messages that confuse the audience.

[Stevil]

Ok. Actually what I see as amoral is something which wouldn't have any concept of any morality, such as animals.

Funny you say this.
I do see us just as another species of animal. If your definition of morality does not apply to them, then I would make a claim that your definition of morality does not apply to us either. There is nothing magical about human animals.

It is funny that some philosophers suggest that amorality is philosophically inconsistent. Non human animals are amoralists, how can they possibly be philosophically inconsistent?

[Sandra Craft]

Depends on what kind of morality we're discussing.  None if it's my personal morality. 

OK, so you have dressed up your own personal opinion as "morality".

I don't know if I'd consider personal opinion and morality the same thing.  It's hard to tell when definitions are up for grabs.

You could easily interchange between "That isn't aligned with my personal values" or "That is immoral".  Do you think the second option could be ambiguous to your audience?,

I doubt it, since what I would say is "I think that's immoral".  Doesn't mean it is, at least not for anyone other than me, and I think that's plain enough.  Besides, there is no force on this planet strong enough to make me say the words "isn't aligned with my personal values". 

Do you think with the second option that your audience might think that you are telling them what they ought to believe as right and wrong?

Again, I doubt it because I have no trouble using qualifying words up front to make it clear I'm talking about my personal morality, or the morality that's common to a particular society or group.  I really don't see why it should be any harder to say "personal morality" or, even easier, "my morality" than "personal values".

So, if a government makes laws based on morality or ethics, stating that prostitution is illegal because it is immoral. Or if they state that homosexual marriage is illegal because it is immoral. Or if they make stem cell research illegal because it is immoral.
What would your response be?
a) Whose morality are we referring to?
b) No, these activities are not immoral.
c) I don't want laws based on the law maker's moral beliefs, I want laws based on specific disclosed goals e.g. safe and stable society.

My response would be c, altho I'd amplify that beyond just the law-makers moral beliefs to include the standard morality of the culture as a whole.  Laws that come into being based purely on some system of morality can be removed, and this is where voting and civil disobedience come in. 

Frankly, I think your example of homosexuality being outlawed by a Xtian majority is flawed.  A Xtian majority is exactly what we have now and, altho it took awhile, homosexuality isn't illegal.  Some states, all with a Xtian majority, permit same-sex marriage.  This is, however, a good example of how civil disobedience and voting have changed morality based laws that should have never existed in the first place but do because humans screw up. 

I think you're looking for a way of making things perfect and that just isn't going to happen.  Some people will be just as willing to use the law to impose their personal values on others as their morality.  Semantics don't matter, we'd still have the same legal fight on our hands.

[Stevil]

Frankly, I think your example of homosexuality being outlawed by a Xtian majority is flawed.  A Xtian majority is exactly what we have now and, altho it took awhile, homosexuality isn't illegal.  Some states, all with a Xtian majority, permit same-sex marriage.  This is, however, a good example of how civil disobedience and voting have changed morality based laws that should have never existed in the first place but do because humans screw up. 

I think you're looking for a way of making things perfect and that just isn't going to happen.  Some people will be just as willing to use the law to impose their personal values on others as their morality.  Semantics don't matter, we'd still have the same legal fight on our hands.

Possibly true, I don't know.

I think even hard core theists, can be convinced to leave moral judgement upto their god and hence out of societies rules (laws).
Many theists think this way (I presume) which is possibly why some think there shouldn't be a law against homosexuality.

It funny, in NZ when we made prostitution legal, there were may comments from people being aghast because they stated that prostitution is immoral. Well, even if prostitution is immoral then who cares? What place is it for law to be based on this distinction? So those comments seemed irrelevant to me.

If we get rid of the concept of morality then it would easily be clear for all to see that prostitution, gay marriage, euthanasia, polygamy etc are fine within society. We don't need laws against them. The answer to me is very clear. I just have a huge problem convincing anyone else of it. People (regardless of being theist or atheist) love the moral concept, people want to be good, they want their society to be good.

I don't believe in good, evil, right, wrong, morality.

[xSilverPhinx]

What I am trying to do, is to be clear and specific. I think morality, hides a lot of detail, hides reasoning, hides agendas. When two people talk about morality, they can quite easily be talking about different things. It is too confusing.

But we have other terms that can be used, ones that don't hide the detail, reasoning or agendas.
A theist can refer to god's law instead of morality. Theists are happy with the term god's law. Some atheists can refer to the term "personal opinion" or "personal values" instead of subjective morality. If speaking in such terms then these two groups can communicate with each other with less confusion.
If a government comes out with a law against homosexuality and states that it the reasoning is that it is against the Christian god's law, then this is much better than saying it is because homosexuality is immoral. I say it is better, because at least the society members know why the government made the decision. The reasoning is not hidden behind the morality word. When a theist argues about god's law, then it is hard to argue against them, an atheist's reasoning will fall on deaf ears because it doesn't address or overrule god's law (in the mind of the theist).

I wouldn't use "personal opinion" or "personal values" for morality, I'm a product of my culture and its moral zeitgeist. My personal opinion one what is good or bad sometimes stops with me, and is not projected onto society. I also arrive at my own conclusions based on my reasoning, so it's a mix between the two. 

To overcome this stalemate we need to reassess the purpose for government's law. If we simply state that we want a moral society enforced by government defined law, then we lose (depending if we are outnumbered by the coordinated theists).

The purpose of the law isn't to be moral, it's to protect interests. Preferably the interests of the weaker parties. Morality in a culture or society predates it's incorporation into laws in most cases, and I doubt even the most hardcore Christians would see what people of the same religion did 2000 years ago as moral.

Being an amoralist, (moral nihilist) is not a claim that rules aren't desired or that collectively we can't decide on some common rules of society. It is a claim that object right and wrong don't exist. This means that objective morality is absurd.

I agree with that.

But it also means that subjective morality is absurd, in the instance that an individual claims to know what is right and what is wrong (without the need for a specific goal). Thus this subjective morality can make claims of right and wrong without qualifying the situation, without putting things in context. As if this person has a special connection to a magical definition of right and wrong.

Of course there is a different type of subjective morality, this is where a person defines a goal (because they have a personal preference for that goal) they then assess right and wrong against that. Most atheists use the golden rule as this goal, which works quite well, some people think this is too subjective and have attempted to come up with a more prescriptive rule set such as the philosopher Kant. Follower's of Kant's philosophy might claim that Kant defines objective morality, in that if you follow his rules then you are likely to come objectively to the same conclusion as others also following his rules. What makes his philosophy subjective is that people don't have to and often don't agree with the rule set, therefore acceptance of the rule set is a subjective choice. I find it absurd to put your faith into a rule set and then dedicate your life to following the output of that rule set.

The way I see it, some form of morality is emergent when you have a society, with rules that make it more stable, otherwise it would collapse. The whole purpose of living in a group is to have more advantages over disadvantages, otherwise no one would.

That moral emergence is then seen by people - theist, atheist and everything in between - as an objective morality, because it comes from the outside (society) in (individual values). It's why people know that at least in principle, morality doesn't depend on what they see as right or wrong, mostly it's what people see as moral that's influenced in most part by society. So it would be wrong to say that it's purely subjective as in what each individual believes is law. It just has a subjective origin.

Of course, people will also cheat the system if they feel they can get away with it, but that's another issue. "Protomoral" animals do that as well.

Another aspect of amoralism is that we are opposed to using the terms moral and immoral, I agree with this approach, not because I want to wear the amoral label but because I want to remove ambiguity. We can more clearly express our thoughts and wants without using these horrible words. Goals must be set and actions judged against those goals (do they improve the chances of that goal or reduce the chances?), agendas are laid bare for all to see, it also lays a foundation for open discussion and compromise. Using the morality terms, closes off discussion, it makes thing appear to be irreconcilable differences.

Or we can claim the word to show that theists don't have a monopoly on what they see as a exclusive divine attribute. Saying "ok, we don't want to use the word morality, we'll use something else", will only help feed their perceptions that we're immoral (in their eyes). At least for a while, can't say for sure what would happen if we take this approach in the long term.

So an amoralist is not a person whom does as they immediately please, is not a person whom does not recognise the importance of a cohesive society, is not a person without empathy or values. If you think these things then your perception is incorrect.

Ok. Actually what I see as amoral is something which wouldn't have any concept of any morality, such as animals.

Funny you say this.
I do see us just as another species of animal. If your definition of morality does not apply to them, then I would make a claim that your definition of morality does not apply to us either. There is nothing magical about human animals.

It is funny that some philosophers suggest that amorality is philosophically inconsistent. Non human animals are amoralists, how can they possibly be philosophically inconsistent?

Yes, we're animals, but we have the capacity for language and so can reason through these things, or at least we like to think we can. : Morality IMO is the result of discussion about dynamic but non arbitrary "rules" that emerge when a group lives together, based on neurobiological and evolutionary programming. 

[Sandra Craft]

People (regardless of being theist or atheist) love the moral concept, people want to be good, they want their society to be good.

I don't believe in good, evil, right, wrong, morality.

And I believe in all those things -- the fact that they're all subjective (IMO) and vary from person to person, society to society, even circumstance to circumstance doesn't make any difference to me.  They seem to me very effective in defining and communicating concepts essential to our lives, whether it's our private lives or the life of our society.  That the word 'morality' requires a little extra work by adding qualifiers to make it clear what kind of morality we mean is not a problem.

[Stevil]

I wouldn't use "personal opinion" or "personal values" for morality,

Exactly, I wouldn't term these as fitting the moral definition. I don't believe that anything fits the moral definition.

I'm a product of my culture and its moral zeitgeist. My personal opinion one what is good or bad sometimes stops with me, and is not projected onto society. I also arrive at my own conclusions based on my reasoning, so it's a mix between the two. 

A mix between culture and personal opinion?
I am not sure how cultural norms prescribe morality. In the Indian culture it is normal for a woman to wear a sari, does this make it the moral thing to do?
In some cultures it is normal to be married before you turn 30, does this mean if you turn 30 and are not married you are then immoral?
If we are talking about the mutual rules of a society, e.g. not allowing murder, why do we call this a moral rather than a law?
Are you defining morals as being equal to rules?
If we play a game of chess, are the moves that are against the rules classified as immoral?
I really think we are not clearly defining what morality means.

The purpose of the law isn't to be moral, it's to protect interests.

This I think is the end game. To get everyone to agree with this.
If Christians didn't think the purpose of law was to enforce morality, then how can they justify making homosexuality or same sex marriage against the law? What argument are they going to make that also aligns with the purpose of law?

The way I see it, some form of morality is emergent when you have a society, with rules that make it more stable, otherwise it would collapse. The whole purpose of living in a group is to have more advantages over disadvantages, otherwise no one would.

As an amoralist, I also want to live in a society with rules. I don't want them based on any form of morality though.
Again i think we need to define morality, are you suggesting it is merely a set of rules created by a group of people, thus our law can be considered the morality of our society?

Or we can claim the word to show that theists don't have a monopoly on what they see as a exclusive divine attribute.

If we claim the word and have a different definition to them, then we argue points but don't address each other's concerns, we talk cross purposes when in discussions with each other. It becomes a numbers game and they win.
I would prefer to show how moral belief causes oppression and wars. It makes people judgmental and self righteous, it gives them the incentive to control, punish or kill others. Without moral belief, people would be content to minding their own business, being accepting and tolerant of the differences of others.

Yes, we're animals, but we have the capacity for language and so can reason through these things, or at least we like to think we can. : Morality IMO is the result of discussion about dynamic but non arbitrary "rules" that emerge when a group lives together, based on neurobiological and evolutionary programming. 

Animals talk, especially dolphins and whales. Dogs talk, many animals do, their vocab is probably primitive but they speak to each other. Those that live in groups also have social rules. I'm not sure why you think "morality" applies to us but not them.

[En_Route]

People (regardless of being theist or atheist) love the moral concept, people want to be good, they want their society to be good.

I don't believe in good, evil, right, wrong, morality.

And I believe in all those things -- the fact that they're all subjective (IMO) and vary from person to person, society to society, even circumstance to circumstance doesn't make any difference to me.  They seem to me very effective in defining and communicating concepts essential to our lives, whether it's our private lives or the life of our society.  That the word 'morality' requires a little extra work by adding qualifiers to make it clear what kind of morality we mean is not a problem.

I think Stevil is arguing that these concepts have no objective existence, so there is no real disagreement on the issue of subjectivity. I think you can however conduct your life perfectly well  without falling back on these concepts.

[Sandra Craft]

Without moral belief, people would be content to minding their own business, being accepting and tolerant of the differences of others.

If that's the root of you problem with morality, I think you're living in a dream world.  Toss moral (and I assume here you mean religious) beliefs all you want, people aren't going to mind their own business or be accepting and tolerant any more than they already are, which is not too much.  Being an asshole is pretty much part of human nature and without religious morality we'll just find another justification.

There's a line from the movie "For Your Consideration": In every actor, there lives a tiger, a pig, an ass and a nightingale. You never know which one's going to show up.

I think that can easily be applied to the entire human race.

I think Stevil is arguing that these concepts have no objective existence, so there is no real disagreement on the issue of subjectivity. I think you can however conduct your life perfectly well  without falling back on these concepts.

I'm sure you can, I'd be willing to bet money on it in fact, but I do find the words useful.

[Stevil]

If that's the root of you problem with morality, I think you're living in a dream world.  Toss moral (and I assume here you mean religious) beliefs all you want, people aren't going to mind their own business or be accepting and tolerant any more than they already are,

I beg to differ, us atheists are proof otherwise. For the most part we don't worry about "morality", if it doesn't impact us or make society unsafe.
Take homosexuality for example, who cares if it is moral or immoral or neutral, it is not a threat, so we don't care.