News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Atheist Ethical Community

Started by Inevitable Droid, November 07, 2010, 11:16:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Inevitable Droid

I don't know if anyone will be interested in this, but the only way to find out is to put it out there for consideration.

It occurs to me that an atheist ethical community could develop, if such was desired.  I mean a community with boundaries, such that, one is either in or out, and if in, one has particular activities that one is expected to engage in, ignoring which would put one out, despite one's pretense at being in.  The particular activities would be (1) one's own rational inquiry into ethics, undertaken for one's own edification, with the serious intent of putting one's own conclusions into practice; (2) assisting others in the community, to the extent of one's expertise, in satisfactorily pursuing #1; and (3) advertising the existence and availability of the community to the general public.

The above in itself is a complete thought which can be independently debated as to desirability and feasibility.  From here I will merely offer how I personally would go about #2, which to me is the crux of the matter, as without it, there's no discernible value to the enterprise.

Ethics is the study of right conduct, what it is and how to accomplish it.  The word right has over a dozen definitions, but for purposes of ethical inquiry I define right as (1) the most just; (2) the most reasonable; (3) the most socially appropriate; (4) the most utile; (5) the most sane; and (6) the most authentic.  I therefore would guide ethical inquiry in the direction of studying the six principles listed, such that, in real world sitiations, one could (1) recognize each of the six and recognize its opposite or absence to one's own satisfaction; (2) prioritize each of the six against one another according to one's own scale of weights; (3) identify for each one the balance point between too much and too little emphasis in one's own decision process; and (4) enumerate methodologies for actualizing all six oneself to the extent recommended by one's own prioritizations and balance point formulations.  Given the foregoing, an atheist ethical community would be collecting, developing, preserving, and providing access to literature on the six listed principles, and helping novices to navigate what in effect would be a database, mechanized at least to the extent of existing on the web.  A cardinal maxim would be that each inquirer is an independent ethical agent, burdened with the responsibility of independently determining what is right and how to accomplish it, with the community there to suggest directions of inquiry and then stand back, hands off.

I'll stop here and see if anyone wants to talk about any of this.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

penfold

Well personally I find the answers to such questions in Taoism. Won't derail the thread by discussing it here, but if you're interested let me know. Always happy to share.

I think your idea does have some merit. I find it interesting that atheism, which previously was a very quiet position has recently become much louder. Part of this is the 'Dawkins effect' (ie books and celebrity), but part of it is that once a forum for atheism emerged many people came out of hiding. I went to the anti-papal visit protest in London; it was amazing how many turned out (about 10,000; not that the press went out of its way to report it).

So if you were to establish a cultural/intellectual space for secular ethical discussion and activities you may well find that there is genuine interest. However what I would warn against is being too prescriptive. Societies need rules, but ultimately they should be shaped by the people.

peace

Khalliqa

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I don't know if anyone will be interested in this, but the only way to find out is to put it out there for consideration.

It occurs to me that an atheist ethical community could develop, if such was desired.  I mean a community with boundaries, such that, one is either in or out, and if in, one has particular activities that one is expected to engage in, ignoring which would put one out, despite one's pretense at being in.  The particular activities would be (1) one's own rational inquiry into ethics, undertaken for one's own edification, with the serious intent of putting one's own conclusions into practice; (2) assisting others in the community, to the extent of one's expertise, in satisfactorily pursuing #1; and (3) advertising the existence and availability of the community to the general public.

The above in itself is a complete thought which can be independently debated as to desirability and feasibility.  From here I will merely offer how I personally would go about #2, which to me is the crux of the matter, as without it, there's no discernible value to the enterprise.

Ethics is the study of right conduct, what it is and how to accomplish it.  The word right has over a dozen definitions, but for purposes of ethical inquiry I define right as (1) the most just; (2) the most reasonable; (3) the most socially appropriate; (4) the most utile; (5) the most sane; and (6) the most authentic.  I therefore would guide ethical inquiry in the direction of studying the six principles listed, such that, in real world sitiations, one could (1) recognize each of the six and recognize its opposite or absence to one's own satisfaction; (2) prioritize each of the six against one another according to one's own scale of weights; (3) identify for each one the balance point between too much and too little emphasis in one's own decision process; and (4) enumerate methodologies for actualizing all six oneself to the extent recommended by one's own prioritizations and balance point formulations.  Given the foregoing, an atheist ethical community would be collecting, developing, preserving, and providing access to literature on the six listed principles, and helping novices to navigate what in effect would be a database, mechanized at least to the extent of existing on the web.  A cardinal maxim would be that each inquirer is an independent ethical agent, burdened with the responsibility of independently determining what is right and how to accomplish it, with the community there to suggest directions of inquiry and then stand back, hands off.

I'll stop here and see if anyone wants to talk about any of this.


Any study of conduct will be subjective and limited to our time period..  Not that that's a bad thing..    I think it should be done..   because ethics is a subject that tends to pierce the principles behind moral conclusions and I believe that an extensive study will yield principles that hopefully would become memes lol... and possibly a better universal ethical language/understanding..  

I am more interested in the "capability approach"...  this is not ethics..  but I mention it here because imo the goal of ethics is similar to the capability approach and that is to maximize human potential...  individually and collectively..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capabilities_approach

"
The approach emphasizes functional capabilities ("substantive freedoms", such as the ability to live to old age, engage in economic transactions, or participate in political activities); these are construed in terms of the substantive freedoms people have reason to value, instead of utility (happiness, desire-fulfilment or choice) or access to resources (income, commodities, assets). Poverty is understood as capability-deprivation. It is noteworthy that the emphasis is not only on how human beings actually function but on their having the capability, which is a practical choice, to function in important ways if they so wish. Someone could be deprived of such capabilities in many ways, e.g. by ignorance, government oppression, lack of financial resources, or false consciousness.
This approach to human well-being emphasises the importance of freedom of choice, individual heterogeneity and the multi-dimensional nature of welfare"

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Khalliqa"I am more interested in the "capability approach"...  this is not ethics..  but I mention it here because imo the goal of ethics is similar to the capability approach and that is to maximize human potential...  individually and collectively..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capabilities_approach

The above would fit the category of what I now am more interested in than ethics; namely, pragmatic idealism, by which I mean, "taking on aspirations for an ideal society because one perceives that ideal, if realized, as conducive to one's particular goals."

So far I've come at pragmatic idealism in two ways.  First, I suggested we could strive for a society in which it was commonplace for a person to make a sincere attempt at balancing personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness, grounded in complete and accurate data and valid logic.  Secondly, I suggested we might strive for a society in which it was commonplace for a person to think in terms of what would be good for "me; he/she/it/them; we; and you," with an eye toward balancing the sometimes conflicting demands of the four pronoun paradigms.

The two approaches of course dovetail.  Nothing in either of them implies or requires any sort of theology, and that's why I think atheists might find them appealing.  Both approaches also emphasize teaching people to think for themselves, rather than spoon-feeding them the answers, or, worse, ramming those answers down their throats, and here again, I think atheists would see an appeal.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Khalliqa

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
Quote from: "Khalliqa"I am more interested in the "capability approach"...  this is not ethics..  but I mention it here because imo the goal of ethics is similar to the capability approach and that is to maximize human potential...  individually and collectively..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capabilities_approach

The above would fit the category of what I now am more interested in than ethics; namely, pragmatic idealism, by which I mean, "taking on aspirations for an ideal society because one perceives that ideal, if realized, as conducive to one's particular goals."

So far I've come at pragmatic idealism in two ways.  First, I suggested we could strive for a society in which it was commonplace for a person to make a sincere attempt at balancing personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness, grounded in complete and accurate data and valid logic.  Secondly, I suggested we might strive for a society in which it was commonplace for a person to think in terms of what would be good for "me; he/she/it/them; we; and you," with an eye toward balancing the sometimes conflicting demands of the four pronoun paradigms.

The two approaches of course dovetail.  Nothing in either of them implies or requires any sort of theology, and that's why I think atheists might find them appealing.  Both approaches also emphasize teaching people to think for themselves, rather than spoon-feeding them the answers, or, worse, ramming those answers down their throats, and here again, I think atheists would see an appeal.


YES!!!!!!!!!! I agree with all that you have stated..  

However consider that many ancient societies considered it moral to execute innocents in favor of balancing nature.. or appeasing gods..

Now clearly.. we are speaking of a community not prone to fanciful illogic...  but I mention it here as a sort of admittedly weak attempt to present the fact that varying opinions regarding what it means to be fair/balanced..  to accept responsibility and self actualization may fundamentally counter another member/citizen's viewpoints..

I just can't think of a better example right now.. but wanted to make the point none the less..

I maintain that one would eventually go down the road to defining very subjective quality of life issues and lobbying for consensus in that regard..

What do you think?

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Khalliqa"YES!!!!!!!!!! I agree with all that you have stated..

It's always pleasant to meet someone on a similar wavelength to oneself. :)  

QuoteHowever consider that many ancient societies considered it moral to execute innocents in favor of balancing nature.. or appeasing gods..

That's why complete and accurate data and valid logic are so important, and why the sincere attempt to live by these is even more important.

QuoteNow clearly.. we are speaking of a community not prone to fanciful illogic...  but I mention it here as a sort of admittedly weak attempt to present the fact that varying opinions regarding what it means to be fair/balanced..  to accept responsibility and self actualization may fundamentally counter another member/citizen's viewpoints..

If both citizens are grounding their viewpoints in complete and accurate data and valid logic, the main discrepancy will be differing priorities with respect to "me versis he/she/it/them versus we versus you," and the solution will be negotiation and compromise.  A sane society will teach those skills to its young and provide its young with the opportunity to experience satisfaction in those endeavors.

QuoteI maintain that one would eventually go down the road to defining very subjective quality of life issues and lobbying for consensus in that regard..

One certainly would.  That's the challenge of deciding things without fists or guns.

If the ultimate goal is happiness for me as a direct goal and also as a by-product of seeking happiness for he/she/it/them, and us, and you, then subjectivity simply has to be taken into account.  Happiness, after all, is subjective.  But if objectivity can't be our guiding light in all things, something else, almost as good, can; namely, reasonableness.  I contend that reasonableness is what you get if all parties are striving to balance personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness.  Focusing on just one, or two, or even three, might cause us to slip up.  But focusing on all four and requiring that all four be realized as best we can will force us to stay on the straight and narrow most of the time.  When the going gets tricky, negotiation and compromise will get us back on track.  What remains is to ground all practical questions in complete and accurate data and valid logic, so that objectivity can play its part and as great a part as we can offer it.

A society that competently trained all of its young as I describe would wake up one day to discover that it had ushered in a Golden Age.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

LARA

Hmmm.  Inevitable Droid seems that you might want to check out Secular Humanism and Ethical Societies.  The ideas that you and a lot of others have aren't so unusual and there are organizations that you can check out to see if you are interested.  Just being an atheist can entail a lot of different perspectives, ideas and ethics; these groups tend to hone their ethical viewpoints down to specifics.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
                                                                                                                    -Winston Smith, protagonist of 1984 by George Orwell

Wilson

In the absence of God, there is no such thing as absolute morality.  Everybody has his own.  There are atheists you wouldn't want to be assoicated with, and atheists who live in the best Christian tradition.  Mao and Stalin were atheists.  Sounds like Mother Theresa was agnostic.  So trying to get all atheists to agree on moral issues is a losing idea.

The best you can do is define the objectives on which the the participants at that particular meeting agree, and then try to develop principles to meet those objectives.  That's apparently what secular humanists have done.  But we have to remember that things which seem morally clearcut to some of us will not be to others.  Guns, the death penalty, prison, drugs, prostitution, welfare, the right to medical care - atheist men and women of good will will never all agree.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "LARA"Hmmm.  Inevitable Droid seems that you might want to check out Secular Humanism and Ethical Societies.

I checked into secular humanism.  Wherever I found it, there was this notion that atheists can be moral in an objective sense, and then Kant (or someone like him) would get mentioned.  When I was exploring morality on various threads here on this message board, part of my motivation (not all, but part) was to see whether I could buy into objective morality, or else, if I couldn't, whether I could develop a subjective alternative, or something else that stood at the mid-point between objective and subjective, to the extent that made any sense - all in the hope of being able to engage with secular humanism.  None of these worked for me.  The same epistemology that makes me drop the God concept makes me drop the morality concept as well.  Just as we can't get to God from a starting point of logical empiricism, or math or formal logic, so likewise we can't get to morality from those starting points either.  I finally concluded that just as God is useless baggage, so likewise is morality.  We don't need either of them.  Unfortunately, a side effect of my conclusion is that I can't seriously engage with secular humanism.  I could do it half-heartedly but I don't see the point.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Whitney

Morals are basically the grouping of ethics accepted by a given culture as right. If you think that morals are just as made up as god (not going to argue against that here) how can you consider ethics not equally made up?  

Btw, I haven't read it yet but didn't Sam Harris come out with a book in which he claims to explain how ethics are justified through biology or something like that?

Sophus

Quote from: "Whitney"Morals are basically the grouping of ethics accepted by a given culture as right. If you think that morals are just as made up as god (not going to argue against that here) how can you consider ethics not equally made up?  

Btw, I haven't read it yet but didn't Sam Harris come out with a book in which he claims to explain how ethics are justified through biology or something like that?
His book claims that neuroscience and psychology can show when people are really suffering. You have to assume suffering is what you should base morals on, but that's about it. So I hear (haven't actually read it myself).
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Wilson

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I checked into secular humanism.  Wherever I found it, there was this notion that atheists can be moral in an objective sense, and then Kant (or someone like him) would get mentioned.  When I was exploring morality on various threads here on this message board, part of my motivation (not all, but part) was to see whether I could buy into objective morality, or else, if I couldn't, whether I could develop a subjective alternative, or something else that stood at the mid-point between objective and subjective, to the extent that made any sense - all in the hope of being able to engage with secular humanism.  None of these worked for me.  The same epistemology that makes me drop the God concept makes me drop the morality concept as well.  Just as we can't get to God from a starting point of logical empiricism, or math or formal logic, so likewise we can't get to morality from those starting points either.  I finally concluded that just as God is useless baggage, so likewise is morality.  We don't need either of them.  Unfortunately, a side effect of my conclusion is that I can't seriously engage with secular humanism.  I could do it half-heartedly but I don't see the point.

Well, you should try and define morality before you chuck it.  For me, morality is what that little inner voice tells you is right and wrong.  Almost all of us instinctively believe that some things are right and some are wrong.  I believe our conscience developed because it was helpful in promoting cooperation within the hunter-gatherer tribe.  Part of it is empathy, and part of it is the rules of society.  I think most of us want to be "good" people, which means we want to follow the rules that we believe are important.  We feel virtuous (a good emotion) when we do what we consider morally right; we feel guilty (an unpleasant emotion) when we do what we consider morally wrong.  

I'd hate to live in a society where nobody had a conscience.  It's the sociopaths in our species who don't have much conscience, if any, and they are responsible for much of what we consider evil in the world.

So if you are thinking of morality as a universal set of rules, I agree that it doesn't exist.  But if you believe morality to be the set of standards that our conscience bases its recommendations on, as I do, I sure think we need it.

LARA

Inevitable Droid wrote:

QuoteEthics is the study of right conduct, what it is and how to accomplish it. The word right has over a dozen definitions, but for purposes of ethical inquiry I define right as (1) the most just; (2) the most reasonable; (3) the most socially appropriate; (4) the most utile; (5) the most sane; and (6) the most authentic.
and
QuoteI finally concluded that just as God is useless baggage, so likewise is morality. We don't need either of them. Unfortunately, a side effect of my conclusion is that I can't seriously engage with secular humanism. I could do it half-heartedly but I don't see the point.

I'm hazarding a guess that the terms 'ethics' and 'morals' aren't interchangeable in this discussion.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
                                                                                                                    -Winston Smith, protagonist of 1984 by George Orwell

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "LARA"I'm hazarding a guess that the terms 'ethics' and 'morals' aren't interchangeable in this discussion.

That's technically true, although I wasn't relying on that fact in anything I said.  The two words aren't fully interchangeable in any conversation, if the conversants are sufficiently knowledgeable as to how the two words have historically (sometimes) diverged.  On this thread, what you're mostly seeing is the result of me starting it when I was still considering morality per se as a potentially workable concept, and then coming back when I no longer was.

My current perspective is best summed up by differentiating between moral good and evil, on the one hand, and practical good and evil on the other, with a rejection of the former and strong acceptance of the latter, with the expectation that the latter can be made into a subject of inquiry and education, not so much with regard to answers written in stone, but rather, in the knowledge of how to ask the right questions, and the sanity of wanting to.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.