Atheist morality

one could also see him as an enlightened individual.ever see the Jefferson Bible?
The Jefferson Bible

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

mentioning this point to a YEC is either meaningless or viewed as evidence of atheists as being less reasonable.

Let me point out that being bound by {rational behavior and the ethics and morality that can be logically derived from first principles and the rule of universality} is not limited to atheists, but also includes agnostics and deists and some theists, before getting into dictatorial religions that claim to have a code.Man is a social animal, and morality is the basis for his interaction with other people.Anything a person does off by himself that has absolutely no effect on any other person is neither moral nor immoral but amoral."Treat others as you would like to be treated" is derived from first principles, it is a pact (a "Social Contract" as Rousseau said), that I won't hurt you because I don't want to be hurt, and we can agree to mutual co-existence. Different forms of this principle are found in all cultures, as it is universally applicable to the social condition. See Variations on the familiar "Golden Rule" (click)This brings us to universality -- whatever is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly similar situation -- from last link: For example, any (every?) judgment that claims it is okay and proper for {A} to live with {B} and get a document that gives them cultural preferential status -- on such things as tax breaks, health benefits, choosing how one's mate is treated in a hospital, etc -- but that it is not okay and proper for {C} to live with {D} and get such a document, fails the universalizability test, and thus it actually is not a moral judgement but an immoral one.Atheists, agnostics, deists and many theists will understand this as part of their core beliefs, and thus they are more likely to think and actually behave in a moral and ethical manner than someone looking for a cookbook recipe to morality and that doesn't understand the basis of true moral behavior. This "cookbook" type of thinking has lead to the belief in some that it is morally okay to kill homosexuals and blacks and Indians and .... the list is extensive and unforgiving in its morally justified indictment of this kind of thinking."Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife" is another example of a cookbook rule that is not universalizable.Let's see if this kicks your topic into high gear eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the golden rule is just an example, specifically one that shows that such values can be derived from first principles (as Rouseau did).it is the condition of universality is the key to understanding what is truly moral and to distinguishing {"cookbook" morals and opinions} from {universal morality}. it follows from logic.for instance, on the gay marriage issue: consider a judgment that it is okay for gay couples and only gay couples to get officially married and derive the extensive legal and cultural benefits, but it is illegal for heterosexual couples to do this. this is just taking the usual "cookbook" view and interchanging what should be universal equivalents, taking {A} and {B} and substituting {C} and {D}k?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you've never carried fruit? (be careful of gleeks bearing glyphs)

ps -- see Morality & Politics
and http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/HumanistCode.shtml
for some further thoughts on this matter of universality (and morality)
and http://www.deism.org/freethought.htm
for some discussion about the relationship of deism, agnosticism, atheism, and other kinds of "free thought" philosophies.and if you are interested in the native american influence mentioned, another source for information on that is
Complete Book: "FORGOTTEN FOUNDERS, Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution," By Bruce E. Johansen
perhaps we owe our native brothers more than regrets over poor treatment in the past eh?(note to admin -- sorry about the preponderance of links, but this is an addendum to the previous post, the reference material if you will. I felt it was better as a second post than an edit because it is slightly different topic material)

If behavior by {A} is considered moral, then it should also be moral for {B} -- it must be universally applicableA "cookbook" moral code will claim to apply to everyone but usually will fail the test of universality in practiceLet us consider the effect of non-universality:Murder (wanton killing of another human) is immoral in virtually all codes of behavior, from "cookbook" to rational.We remove universality by restricting this prohibition to a select in-group: murdering {blond white supremacist christians germans} is immoral, but it is okay to kill anyone else.This of course leads to {holocaust\genocide} most foul and heinous. This is not the only example from history where universality was denied and the result was immoral behavior, but it is one people are familiar with. Even the US has had to repeal laws that restricted inclusion in the group: suffragettes voting and civil rights to name the major ones.This is akin to saying that everyone else must behave according to {rule 39} except me: if it is moral there are no exceptions to the rule.Now it is okay for a {group\club\association} to say that in joining this {group\club\association} we agree to behave according to the rules of the {group\club\association} (and that failure to do so is grounds for dismissal). This applies (among many examples) to Boy Scouts, nudist colonies, the "dead poet society" and any of the major religious denominations.That doesn't make those rules moral, even though inside that group there may be no exclusion clauses -- everyone will be expected to comply equally or face the consequences (dismissal).It also doesn't mean that those rules can apply to anyone outside the club (that would of course be ridiculous because they couldn't be dismissed).Ergo to apply to everyone, everyone must belong to the club. We call that club {humanity}.Now consider that to join the club each member must agree to the rules, thus each member must consider the rules valid and accept that the rules apply to them just as much as they apply to all the other members.To join the club of {humanity} each person has to {know\understand\believe} that the rules are just as fair to them as they are to everyone else.The only way that happens is if the rules are universal to begin with.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

good questions. there is also no one to be good or bad unto. the null solution. yes, it is dependant on the {social\cultural} framework. unless you think morals extend into how we treat the environment ... (I think that is a different issue (but similar): morals are generally only applied to human relations. Perhaps that comes under ethics, and is certainly dependant on understanding ecological relationships.)Rouseau derives it (the "golden" rule). First principles are the foundations of philosophy and logic and are as old as Aristotle. They are generally considered to be self evident truths, although this is debatable (in a debate that turns into an endless regression of how do you know what you know you know). You can google on {aristotle first principle logic} and find a hoard of articles discussing pro and con issues.Also see First principle - Wikipedia Morals (supposedly) apply to all people with equal force -- they claim to be universal. Thus if when {Person A} does {X} to {Person B} it is moral, then if {Person B} does {X} to {Person A} it too is moral.This gets back to the {self evident first principle} aspects. Good. That certainly eliminates the sexist bias in the original. Still does not rule out some coveting, though. How about "Thou shalt not covet another's {A}" or just "don't covet what is not yours" ...excerpted from the buddhist 8 fold path: I hope this helps and humbly await your further questions (but not without some trepidation at my ability to answer).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

cricky, now we'll have to bear the onslaught of NRAist propoganda on the right to bear tank busting mortars and multifire canons that would make an iraqii insurgent weep to own.don't you know guns never kill people????This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*26*2005 07:43 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

All morality is derived in it's ultimate source, whether it comes from a {supposedly} final authority or not or the "when in rome do as the romans do" (and the question of whether that only applies to {rome\romans\non-romans}) -- and is to some extent culturally dependant (rather than absolute truth).I take your distinction to be between say "seek to do no harm to others" versus "thou shalt not murder" (as thunder rolls across the sky) .... or do you mean it the other way around? I do think the meanings are very similar but to me the connotations are slightly different, with moral behavior concerned with behavior involving {effects on other people} and ethics involving the broad reach of behavior {affecting life, the universe and everything}. The line does blur: is it immoral to kill a chimpanzee? Or unethical? Does that depend on whether you accept the classification of chimps as hominids? Is it immoral to breed a virus that kills bole-weevils? Or unethical?I do think this comes from the history of {moral codes} being historically derived from religious authoritarian declarations, while ethics is a more intellectual late-comer, based more on philosophy (and logic). But then you also have the issue of {archaic traditional moral} versus {modern derived moral} codes. Muddy indeed. Let me get back to you. I may have overstated this, as the Social Contract is about reciprocity, and thus it may be implicit but not explicitly stated. On a quick google search ("golden rule derived" and the "I'm feeling lucky" button) I got this:http://www.vexen.co.uk/notes/golden.html Rouseau would certainly have been familiar with such a derivation. Or is it that every group makes this claim? You see this mostly in intolerant religious groups that want to impose their religious code on non-believers (the Taliban, Focus on the Family, Tom Delay, etc).I think {archaic traditional moral} fails to be universalized, but that {modern derived morality} has to {be\become} universalized in order to measure up to it's own implied standard of being able to judge good and bad. I think in its ultimate form that it has to be logical. The alternative is that it is subject to the political whims of the moment.Has it been {in\come from} the domain of deductive logic? I'd have to say no, but I would also have to say that a lot of the {issues} that were considered moral issue based on {archaic traditional moral} and which are now seen to be {anachronistic\misogynistic\xenophobic\etc} if not downright wrong are the ones that do not measure up. This gets back to the issue of {culturally dependant} versus {absolute truth} morality. And the social contract (and reciprocity). Each person makes their own determination of what is moral and what is not, their view is based in large part on the culture they {live in\grew up in} and the education they have {received\sought out} regarding {ethics\philosophy\religions\etc}. Each persons moral code is dependant on who they are and what culture they live in.In this sense I agree with you that morals are not in the domain of deductive logic (implying that the same conclusions would always be reached from the same principles) because of the diversity of experience, knowledge and beliefs.As a side issue consider the effect of species on "moral" behavior. Would morals be the same if we had evolved from a herd species like elk or a relatively isolationist species like the orangutang? Would ethics?enough for now, I'm getting too tired to be coherant (if I've not already passed that point), but one final point: I think of it more as a (new?) way of looking at morality rather than a system in itself.and thank you.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sorry that doesn't provide enough information to be useful.by this argument anyone is moral in everything they do, because they do it.morals are a way to compare behavior (another reason it is culturally bound and irrelevant for hermits), for it is the judgement on behavior being good or bad Actions are good or bad in the context of the culture.For the {cultural judgment} to have equal appeal to all people it must be based on principles that all feel they are covered by equally -- they need to be universalizable to withstand the scrutiny of time.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I wondered what was keeping you ... I'll let Ben decide where he is.Then we can get into the whole {everyone's thoughts are all subjective} issue ... I use the homosexual issue because it is convenient and topical, and easily demonstrates the fallibility of the absolute code. My examples also dealt with the cultural interface between a gay couple and society independant of sexual behavior.But since you raise it, think of this as {Man + "Z" do "V"} where "Z" can be either male or female and "V" is any of a number of variations on sex: as far as I know there is no act that homosexual males can undertake that cannot be (and isn't) done by heterosexual couples.What's harmful about that when "Z" is male but not when "Z" is female?...It seems to me that you are saying morals are {your feelings somehow (mysteriously?) derived}, (which is not much different on the surface from DHA's morals are {your actions}), and I think this also waters {the concept of morals} down too much to be useful. The rules have to be bigger than the person, or the person can just keeps changing {his\her} mind depending on how they (feel?) that day. I think we can agree that morals are culturally dependant. Note that this creates a dichotomy with the {morals is pure logic} position, and let me back up and review what has transpired (and perhaps correct some {mistake\misapprehensions} encountered) along the way.I laid out my take on morality in my first post on this thread Message 60It involves not just a person's {actions\feelings} but how they fit into the culture in which that person is residing. In one sense each person has a different moral code ... the problem comes in when you try to decide who has the better system: is it an {archaic, anachronistic belief}, some {helter-skelter behavior based system}, or some {(perhaps) rational based system}?This is where the pitch for logic and universalizability comes in: judging which system of judgement makes better judgements of which {actions\behaviors} are better.And the fact remains that some form of golden rule has been derived in virtually every human culture (and this in turn reflects on the importance of logic and universalizability in morals even if it is not recognized as such). It may be that the derivation is clouded by informal thought systems or it may just be {evolution\politics\history} acting as a "computer" by trying out and eliminating {bad\ineffective} systems so that what you have left is the same result.But it's more than just feeling good about what you do: "boy I sure showed that {expletive deleted}-{ethnic slur of choice} a thing or two" -- bigotry is not moral by my standards.I'm bagged, and if I don't stop tweaking this I'll never get to bed: enough for tonight. s'okay, I know your style, and know that you did not mean any ill, and none taken.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

fyiI have to be away for a couple days and will not be able to answer for a while.

ok. I copied your post so I can work on it off line.

okay, I'm back. never found time to work on this so I'll just have to wing it (again). The failure of absolute codes is not in the codes but in the adoption of them. Thus when a code starts out by saying "you shall have no other gods but me" anyone who doesn't believe in the particular faith (and some that do, but don't like the attitude ) will turn to some other source.I don't argue for a specific code per se so much as a way to {view\understand} what works, what doesn't work and why. This misses the point that supposed "moral" prohibitions against homosexual marriage are based on actions that heterosexual couples engage in with equal indulgence and pleasure. having a family home is not just about getting pregnant and having kids, nor should government {programs\benefits\restrictions} make any distinction between people based on what and who they do in the privacy of their own bed. Being universalizable alone is not enough, imho. It is the lack of universalizability that renders views immoral. This is begining to diverge off topic into other issues, but is the harm from the sex or the other aspects of the relationships, particularly where exploitation is involved? Sure post the links to the other threads and perhaps I can catch up to where you are on this issue. Now if you want to say poorly articulated and ill-thought out partial concepts accepted without question are innaccurate and of little use, I'd have to agree... but I don't think you can get away with it. When you take it that far you're left with personal opinions and no {system\rational\methodology} to pick what works from what doesn't. The problems with this are1) {humanity} is a social species dependent on normative intersocial behavior to reduce individual stress and tensions. laws are inappropriate for this2) people do have values (whether they are red or blue state folks) and just won't accept it not being of any importance to the way they live.3) there are relative differences and order of magnitude differences between some values and otherscertainly the fact there is a whole branch of philosophy that deals with the concepts and methodology of morals would indicate that it is a system of relative importance to people. Really? Have you ever tried to do something that is really against your {code\morals\ethic} of behavior as an experiment? fluctuation about a norm, but not wholesale abrogation of their way of life. I've often pondered how different morality would be for different species, especially non-social ones. Then the {social context} becomes more a relation of {self} to {ecosystem} by default. Funny, for some reason that to me says universalizability ... the consistency of application to all similar situations. an admitted immoral heathen? :shock: actually methinks you protest with much ado, as I cannot say (at this point) what the difference is. we also have the issue of altruistic behavior, and the fact that game theory in general and John Nash in particular demonstrate that it is ultimately more productive than selfish behavior in social groups. We also see altruistic behavior in animals (beyond your observation of golden rule behavior). I think you underestimate the ability of evolution to act as a sorting mechanism on behavioral patterns, which makes it a (possibly crude but effective over long periods of time) computer looking for the most efficient pattern. So it's moral to beat up people that just offend you by the way they look? If that is the reason for doing it, no. Feeling great and feeling moral are not the same, and "feeling moral" doesn't make it so either. and equality and the great American way. But that is because those universalized moral values would have been validated.enough for now. pax

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}