Morality without god

--One could also point out that he not only satisfied his sense of fairness, but also his sense of himself as an honest and honorable man--at no cost to his pre-purchase purse and, one assumes, at little post-purchase cost, since the transaction does not sound large.Note that many classic cons start with a display of honesty involving small amounts--an example of the disarming power of such displays and not a suggestion that Dr A has since escalated to fast-changing large bills with the same hapless storekeep.In addition, he was able to enjoy the rush of startled admiration from the shopkeeper, a not insignificant benefit to us social critters, and one that could be reliably anticipated. In a small community, he would have also enhanced his reputation generally.A more interesting test of conscience would be discovering that the checked luggage handed over by the hotelier is packed, not with Dr A's superbly tailored bespoke suits, but millions in clandestine funds, unfortunately (for whoever temporarily stored it in the late checkout luggage room) in a suitcase identical to Dr A's.It's only fair to point out that Dr A was analyzing the response of a close-minded religious person to a demonstration of conscience by an atheist and not the precise qualities or sources of that conscience.

By "those...emotions" I take it you mean those of revulsion or aversion that attach themselves to the idea of thieving, murdering or raping, and/or the guilt or self-disgust experienced after those acts.Terming all thieves, murderers and rapists psychopaths seems clearly wrong, given the numbers of humans capable of them; under the right circumstances, I think any human is capable of committing theft, murder and rape with equanimity.Side note: given the numbers of people living at the edge of starvation, and the proclivity of both people and animals to steal when necessary for survival, theft probably doesn't belong in that triad.Perhaps we could call the state of mind that permits those acts a transient psychopathic state, but that state appears universally accessible.I don't mean to be intentionally thick--I recognize you were addressing the ability to commit these acts and feel okay about it as psychopathic. But even here, one has only to look at history (and current events) to find examples of entire nations or populations feeling pretty much okay about stealing from, killing and raping a subset of their own numbers or entire other populations. If psychopathy must be stretched to encompass an entire nation, rather than clinically ill individuals, it seems neither useful nor accurate.So I would say that normal human beings are capable of committing theft, murder and rape and feeling okay about it. That is the human condition, and it is the human condition of both the believer and the atheist. In one sense, the religious are correct in their horror at the "freedom from absolute rule" that permits individuals to act in this fashion--they are merely (and obviously) wrong about their notion that their religious beliefs somehow protect them.An atheist who believes that all "normal" persons, religious and atheist alike, are incapable of these actions and feeling okay about it afterwards are equally wrong, and both are made more vulnerable to the commission of these horrors by their illusions.

Hi Tangle, and thanks for the reply.I too am fascinated by the plasticity of our moral sense in the face of organic disruption--tumors, drugs, injuries, other illnesses; I've previously encountered the Case of Fred, and other, similar cases. I agree that morality is a brain function and can be manipulated.But that brain function is socially mediated. Consider how little time and effort were required to obtain the unsettling Milgram results. And I would reserve the term psychopath for that latter group; I would expect to find organic bases for their condition, whether derived from the brain insults described above or severe, sustained emotional and psychological trauma that result in organic brain defects. In our present state, I believe that it is true--but only transiently. Milgram showed how readily that present state can be disturbed, and events show us how readily large populations can move beyond reservations and reluctance.As to the lie detector...consider how readily and proficiently we indulge in "social" or white lies; also, how common deceptive practices are among our own kind as well as our primate kin. I am skeptical that it is friction from a moral brake that generates the physiological disturbances detected by the polygraph; more likely, it seems to me, it is the anxiety caused by the notion of being confronted with "objective" evidence of our falsehoods. Human beings, in my experience, lie to each other quite blithely and often about all sorts of things.The human moral sense, I believe, is as plastic in the face of social, personal and cultural contexts as it is in the grip of organic brain changes. My reading of history, and my life experiences, suggest to me that the normal human being, subjected to the appropriate social, personal and cultural contexts, can become an enthusiastic thief, murderer and rapist as readily as Fred became a pedophile in the context of his brain tumor.

Free will is a precious illusion.To be good, to act selflessly out of an innate goodness--who wants to give that up?

You are mistaken.

And we have special terms (and predicted outcomes) for some people who kill animals without remorse.

Points taken--though I thought I had those covered (I see now too sketchily) with the "some" qualification.My point re Dawn's claim of indifference is that society does proscribe the killing of some animals--especially pets, but also creatures of great beauty and no food value (how would people commonly respond to someone who enjoys crushing butterflies?)--and those who are indifferent to those proscriptions carry a predictive flag for sociopathy.If we look back to our common heritage among hunter gatherers, we frequently find chants and prayers of thanks to prey and petitions for forgiveness and understanding, by successful hunters.I think our notions of kin and caring, at their evolutionary roots, can and sometimes do extend not just beyond our own tribe but also our own species. Culture can take a long time to catch up.

Molecules don't exist?I think I see where you went wrong.

Hi, GrimSqueaker.The fastest way to learn the quote codes is to use the peek button at the lower right corner of a post that displays quote boxes.You'll then see the framing codes in plain text.You can also click the dbCodes On (help) link to the left side of your post draft to see all the available codes.