Ask an atheist

[ciphergoth]

In a discussion about religion in wildeabandon's journal, meihua writes: "this seems to have turned into me interrogating you. [...] Is there anything you'd like to challenge me on, instead?"

I think it's only fair enough to open up my own beliefs to the challenges of others, since I'm always keen to respond when theists invite me to give my perspective on some aspect of their beliefs as wildeabandon has in a series of recent posts. So, is there anything you'd like me to respond to?

Rules:

• You don't have to read this thread. This post is an invitation, not a challenge; if you don't like to read me talking about this then feel free to skip this.
• Be honest. Please don't advance arguments you don't personally buy, unless you're also an atheist and you want to discuss how best to counter it.
• If you come to change your mind about the validity of an argument, think about how you can generalise the lesson learned so as not to misassess similar arguments in future.
• Don't just match the politeness of what you reply to, but try to exceed it - see Postel's Law. Otherwise it is very easy to end up with a thread where each contributor thinks they are merely matching the snark level of the other, and yet the thread starts with the very slightest suggestion of rudeness and finishes with "please choke on a bucket of cocks".

Comments

atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

A lot of atheists seem to take the same approach to morality as they do to God - that moral statements have no meaning. Hence, for many people their only justification for behaving morally is "because it's in my interests". Do you agree with this?

[I'm just rather confused at the moment about how to reconcile atheism and morality.]

Re: atheism and morality

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I am I think a moral non-cognitivist. That means that there's no ultimate justification either for self-interest or for generosity. We work towards the world we would like to see.

Re: atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

OK, so your ethical beliefs (whatever they are) are just a choice? It seems that it would be difficult to persuade anyone else to behave differently if you can't show them that your beliefs are ultimately justified. So if someone decides "I want to behave like a self-interested bastard" you can't really show them that they are ultimately wrong in doing so. You can show them that they are not ultimately justified in behaving in such a way, but behaving generously is equally unjustifiable. That is to say that unless another person has decided that generosity is good, you cannot really persuade them of anything.

Re: atheism and morality

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Indeed, no, you can't make a purely rational case against pure self-interest. Fortunately, many people have instincts you can appeal to in favour by bringing rational machinery to bear on the subject. For example, if someone who does evil manages to stave off guilt through self-delusion, by rational argument you could hope to strip away the self-delusion, cause them to see things as they really are, and thus allow their better selves to hold a stronger hand.

[duranorak.livejournal.com]

It seems that it would be difficult to persuade anyone else to behave differently if you can't show them that your beliefs are ultimately justified.

Why would anyone try to persuade anyone else to behave differently using morality as part of the persuasion?

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

If someone is convinced that it is in their interest to behave like a selfish bastard. You could try convincing them that it's not in fact in their interest. For most that is true, but suppose this person is incredibly clever, and can get away with behaving selfishly. I was suggesting that the only way to try to get them to behave differently would be to persuade them that behaving generously is somehow more morally justified than behaving selfishly.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Because it sometimes works.

Of course, that leads to the question "why does it work? Why is it that you can sometimes persuade people to change their behaviour using moral arguments?" But that is not a philosophical question any more - it's a question about a matter of fact in the world, about human psychology. Our ancestors could cooperate from very long ago, and it seems pretty likely that much of our evolution into talking, thinking beings has to do with cooperation, so in part it's a (very interesting) question in evolutionary psychology.

This isn't what the question is getting at though. The question is, what underlies morality? What is the philosophical justification through which we derive the necessity of moral behaviour? And in short terms, the answer is, there isn't one. Fortunately, in the face of this disappointment, people continue to behave in a moral way. People were never moral because they had a philosophical justification for it anyway.

Re: atheism and morality

[hamsterine.livejournal.com]

I largely agree with this, except that I don't think ethic are usually a choice, but something which stems ultimately from empathy. We ["we" being both ethical athiests and probably other types of people too] imagine the suffering that a certain action would cause and because we empathise to some extent with the being which would suffer, we find the action abhorant. Some of us also use our rationality to conclude that although there are certain types of person or animal that we find it hard to empathise with, it is probably true to say that they also experience suffering, and it would be wrong to cause this. In my experience, there is less motivation for good deeds that stem from purely rational thought than those which stem from empathy. For example, I strongly believe that the life of any one conscious being is equal in worth and value to any other. However, because I can empathihise with other human beings more than I can with, say, chickens, I would find it even harder to kill another human being than I would to kill a chicken. However, unlike many people, I do have a degree of empathy for most types of animal. This is why I believe that it is important to be vegan while many people's moral codes tell them that being vegan doesn't matter.

There is also a secondary factor which helps motivate me to behave morally- the wish to have a positive self-image and be able to respect myself as a kind, moral person. Ultimately, this can only bolster my commitment to uphold moral behaviour according to the code I arrived at through a degree of empathy.

I do think that is it funamentally impossible to convert another person to your own moral values by rational argument unless they happen to have similar moral criteria in the first place and you are just showing them a better way of fulfilling those. I also believe that any such criteria mainly amount to a rationalisation of one's own instincts, stemming mainly from empathy. This is not to say that such rationalisation is bad, quite the opposite as it can make a person behave morally even though they are not feeling vey empathetic at a certain time, but that there is probably a fundamental difference between the morality of different people which cannot be fully reconciled. Of course, it is arguable that empathy with certain groups can be learned or unlearned and that this would in turn shift a person's moral values.

Re: atheism and morality

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

As an aside, I'd point out that theists have a similar problem: whilst one can assert that something is wrong because God/religion says so, there is no way to show the self-interested bastard that this is really true. He could also justify his actions by saying that this is what God wants.

On the idea that morality comes from God, one question to ask is: Is something good because God says so, or does God say so because it's good?

I also like the point that Dawkins makes that most theists don't really get their morality from religion either, they tend to pick and choose from what their religious texts state, so there must be some independent means by which we decide what is right or wrong.

(Admittedly this doesn't answer the question of how an atheist can decide what is right or wrong, but I think it worth stating.)

Actually, as someone who's always been an atheist[*], I'm curious about people who have switched from being a Christian to atheist, or vice versa, in terms of how, if at all, it affects their views on morality...? Do they suddenly believe, or stop believing, a whole load of moral viewpoints that Christianity teaches, or do they just believe the same thing, I wonder.

[*] - Discounting when I was very little, when I believed in all sorts of things, and had no sense of morality that I am aware of.

Re: atheism and morality

[devilgate.livejournal.com]

I think what started my journey away from Catholicism to Atheism was that I realised I didn't agree with the church's teachings on sex and sexuality.

So I made my moral choice, if you like, and realised that the church I'd grown up with didn't match it.

Re: atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

Me too!

Re: atheism and morality

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Rational moral discourse is still possible as long as both parties agree on the same basic moral values. There's still a lot to discuss about how those values are best put into practice.

A discussion about whether lying is immoral can happen rationally between two people who believe that morality is all about protecting other people's happiness but perhaps not between one person that believes such and a person who believes lying is immoral in itself.

Re: atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

Agreed :)

Re: atheism and morality

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

Out of sheer curiosity, what's your religious position?

To suggest that 'moral statements have no meaning' to an atheist isn't quite the same as the usual assertion that atheists have no moral sense but the difference isn't obvious without careful reading and at least an undergraduate's knowledge of philosophy.

Very few people knowingly act in their own interests alone and consider this moral: to act in the interests of others - altruistically or with some acknowledged or unacknowledged degree of self-interest - is the minimum definition of 'good' in it's moral sense. All stable societies teach a functional morality in which a good act is that which benefits the community as a whole; and it follows that a moral man who is neither a solipsist nor a psychopath would aspire to a state of grace in which his thoughts and actions are motivated by this 'greater good' first, and his self-interest second.

There is, of course, a rather barbed criticism of your comment in there. But your question is certainly relevant, as I read all too many corporate statements proclaiming some or other shocking and immoral act to be a virtuous deed with the phrase 'Our first duty to is to the shareholders' - it is clear that many corporate bodies believe self-interest to be their definition of morality. But I doubt that many individuals do, and I would question the motives of those who assert that many - or any - members of an 'out-group' such as atheists view self-interest as their moral compass.

Re: atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

Atheist (only for about a year though). I'm not exactly playing devil's advocate by asking Paul these questions, just trying to figure out where I stand.

I do have an undergraduate's knowledge of philosophy - I did a philosophy degree, so when I said "moral statements have no meaning" I was referring to the positivist position that asserts that since moral statements are not empirical facts of logical truths they can have no meaning.

I quite agree with your second paragraph, though I am not talking about what happens on a political level. I am talking about how to convince an individual who is acting like a selfish bastard to behave differently.

I would question the motives of those who assert that many - or any - members of an 'out-group' such as atheists view self-interest as their moral compass.

There is certainly a sort of Thatcherite Atheism, that I have encountered. A sort of "God doesn't exist, morality isn't real. Selfishness is good!". However, I do agree that even these people realise that they live in a society so that it is to some extent in their interests to treat other people well.

Re: atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

it is clear that many corporate bodies believe self-interest to be their definition of morality.

Yes, that's true, but you can't really argue with a corporate body, so you would need to regulate it.