About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Atheist Ethics (Part 9)

By Julian Baggini

Conclusion

It should now be obvious that the idea that the atheist must be an amoralist is groundless. The religious believer and the atheist share an important common ground. For both it cannot be that what is right and wrong, good or bad, is defined in terms of God or simply follows from divine command. For both, moral choices ultimately have to be made by individuals, and we cannot get others to make our moral choices for us. So whether we have religious faith or not, we have to make up our own minds about what is right and wrong.

To provide a source for morality we need to do no more than sign up to the belief that certain things have a value and that the existence of this value provides us with reasons to behave in certain ways. This very broad commitment does not entail any specific philosophical or even religious position. It is arguably no more than the basic commitment of someone who has human feeling. Once we have undertaken this basic commitment we have several resources to help us think about what the right thing to do is. We can think about what is required to help our own lives and the lives of others flourish. We can think about what the consequences of our actions are and avoid those that harm things we think are of value and try to do those things which benefit them. And we can recognize that to say something is good or bad in one circumstance is to say it is good or bad in any other relevantly similar circumstance, and so can strive to be consistent in our actions, or to put it another way, strive to avoid hypocrisy.

Of course, it can still be said that we can provide no logical proof that atheists ought to behave morally, but neither can we provide such a proof for theists. The mistake that is often made is to suppose that if one has religious belief, moral principles just come along with the package and there is no need to think about or justify them. Once we see through that myth, we can see why being good is a challenge for everyone, atheist or non-atheist.

[I think that saying (or believing) that all morality originates in/with God is nonsensical. Beyond this the idea that morality originates in or is encapsulated in a single religious book is both absurd and nonsensical. It has even been said that those who do not subscribe to any of the countless religious beliefs we have created around us cannot by definition be moral creatures. This to me moves beyond the bizarre into the territory of the ridiculous.

I am not alone in thinking that personal morality is an amalgam of the culture we are each accidentally born into (and also of course when exactly we are born into that culture), our upbringing, our education, our peers and our life experiences – along with a possible sprinkling of genetics. This mixture of influences explains how ideas of morality change over time, from place to place and within an individual’s life time. These obvious facts are difficult to explain from a theistic point of view that baldly states that we all know the (same) difference between right and wrong because God (presumably the Christian God) encapsulated that knowledge within each of us.

Morality is clearly a predominantly cultural phenomenon passed down from generation to generation in the same fashion as all other culture – and modified in exactly the same way. In that sense morality is simple, the complexity arises when we try to explain how a particular moral view point arises and why it is taken up (or not) by members of any particular population group. But for that we have the moral philosophers.]

12 comments:

wstachour said...

This has been an interesting series of posts. In this one, I especially like his last paragraph.

I'd love to look at a summary of each religion's lists of morals (though of course there's a huge arbitrary element to it, with, for example, one Pope pursuing quite different things from another, even though they're supposed to be following the same god's infallible rules) and see how many of those rules would be thought to properly be of a moral nature to followers of OTHER religions. This might be a way to get to some core things which are really bedrock morality for humanity, as distinct from power-structure things.

The so-called Ten Commandments (the actual number is more like 15, I think) contain a number of non-moral items. The reason, it would seem, is to attach moral weight to things which sustain the power structure of the church.

Lastly, I still wonder if the core-most moral sensibilities aren't genetic--survival things and social-cooperation things--while the other, more peripheral things are cultural hand-me-downs (and are thus more arbitrary and dispensable--at least to the cultures who eschew them).

CyberKitten said...

wunelle said: This has been an interesting series of posts. In this one, I especially like his last paragraph.

Thanks. The bits inside the square brackets are by me.

wunelle said: Lastly, I still wonder if the core-most moral sensibilities aren't genetic--survival things and social-cooperation things--while the other, more peripheral things are cultural hand-me-downs (and are thus more arbitrary and dispensable--at least to the cultures who eschew them).

I think that it's likely that a genetic component of morality exists. What effect that has on the general morality of all humans... I think is open to debate. I've picked up a few books on that very subject because I thought it would be interesting to follow up the idea. When I finally get around to reading them - I have three strongly competing interests battling it out in my head ATM - I shall post the reviews and my comments here.

This was the last in this series of posts but there's going to be a lot more on morality in the future.

dbackdad said...

"I think that saying (or believing) that all morality originates in/with God is nonsensical." - That's it in-a-nutshell. It's a non-starter if a Christian comes at me with their first argument stating that morality starts with God, or "a" god.

Laughing Boy said...

dbackdad said... It's a non-starter...

Is that because of your a priori philosophical committments?

A presumption of atheistic naturalism is required for Baggini's reasoning to make sense. Even then, the bottom-line of Baggini's opus is that the Christian is correct in saying that without God there is no grounding for an objective morality.

So we are all in agreement. This is nice.

dbackdad said...

a priori - "...not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic"

"A priori" would seem to describe Christianity more than atheism. You take belief as the default state from which one has to make a "presumption" to change from. I no more have to make a presumption to not believe in God than I do to not believe in the Easter Bunny. And morality based on God is no more valid than that morality that would come from the Easter Bunny as they have the same basis in fact.

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: A presumption of atheistic naturalism is required for Baggini's reasoning to make sense.

Of course. It's a pretty good presumption.

laughing boy said: Even then, the bottom-line of Baggini's opus is that the Christian is correct in saying that without God there is no grounding for an objective morality.

You know - that's almost funny.

What Baggini says (and I agree with him) is that there is no *objective* foundation to morality - no matter if you are a theist or an atheist. Theists just give up their responsibilty (or at least attempt to) by putting the onus on God to justify their moral stance. If objective morality actually existed then how is it that even people within the same religion can't agree on things!

dbackdad said: And morality based on God is no more valid than that morality that would come from the Easter Bunny as they have the same basis in fact.

At least morality based on the Easter Bunny would have a *much* healthier attitude towards sex!

Laughing Boy said...

dbackdad said..."A priori" would seem to describe Christianity more than atheism.

I think it applies equally to atheism and Christianity. The difference is that atheists rarely acknolwedge their presuppositions, believing, incorrectly, that theirs is a bias-free position.

ck said...What Baggini says (and I agree with him) is that there is no *objective* foundation to morality - no matter if you are a theist or an atheist.

Correct! If there is no objective foundation for morality, that's true for everyone regardless of their beliefs—it's objectively true, you could say. Of course, the opposite would also be true that, if there is objective morality, it likewise holds for all regardless of their beliefs.

My personal opinion is that people who are repulsed by the idea of objective moral values, which implies a greater authority than man, have a keen interest in shifting morality to a lower level over which they can pretend they have control and therefore can adjust the moral code to their liking, i.e., we ought to have sex like bunnies. Hence we are treated to flimsy philosophical contrivances like we've just read from Baggini.

If objective morality actually existed then how is it that even people within the same religion can't agree on things!

For the same reason that people who live under a known set of laws sometimes 'bend' (re-interpret to suit their desires) or break those laws. Because a law or moral imperative does not guarantee adherence or even agreement regarding proper behavior on an individual level. Isn't this common knowledge borne out for each of us in daily experience? Being a Christian (or an atheist) does not make that person an automaton who perfectly adheres to all that system's precepts. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, is it?

At least morality based on the Easter Bunny would have a *much* healthier attitude towards sex!

To a bunny, sex is no more meaningful than defication. Is that a healthy attitude for a man?

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: The difference is that atheists rarely acknolwedge their presuppositions, believing, incorrectly, that theirs is a bias-free position.

I think that its a given that we all have our foundation beliefs that we build our world picture on. Theists build it on the existence of God whilst atheists build it on the non-existence of God. I think that its obvious what our presuppistions are...

laughing boy said: If there is no objective foundation for morality, that's true for everyone regardless of their beliefs—it's objectively true, you could say.

No you couldn't.

laughing boy said: Of course, the opposite would also be true that, if there is objective morality, it likewise holds for all regardless of their beliefs.

Except that such objective morality doesn't exist [grin].

laughing boy said: My personal opinion is that people who are repulsed by the idea of objective moral values, which implies a greater authority than man, have a keen interest in shifting morality to a lower level over which they can pretend they have control and therefore can adjust the moral code to their liking.

I am not 'repulsed' by the idea of objective moral values. Are you using that word because you are repulsed by a morality that is subjective? I think that 'objective morality' is unreasonable and nonsensical and is actually separate from my lack of belief in God.

laughing boy said: Hence we are treated to flimsy philosophical contrivances like we've just read from Baggini.

Maybe some future 'contrivances' will be more to your liking?

laughing boy said: For the same reason that people who live under a known set of laws sometimes 'bend' (re-interpret to suit their desires) or break those laws.

But if the laws are God-given, absolute & objective how is this possible? How can you possibly *interpret* the Word of God?

laughing boy said: Because a law or moral imperative does not guarantee adherence or even agreement regarding proper behavior on an individual level.

...and where does this disagreement come from? What moral principles are various theists using to go against Gods teachings? How *can* theists justify contradicting Gods Will? Surely they should simply obey & follow their religions teachings? Isn't that the whole point? I didn't think that cherry-picking was an option?

laughing boy said: Being a Christian (or an atheist) does not make that person an automaton who perfectly adheres to all that system's precepts.

But isn't that the *aim*? To eventually perfectly adhere to the teachings of the belief system you have joined? Isn't that the whole point?

laughing boy said: To a bunny, sex is no more meaningful than defication. Is that a healthy attitude for a man?

How stereotypically Christian of you to compare sex to defication. Personally I would have compared it to eating. Food is a necessity & is often a pleasurable experience so why can't sex be seen on the same level? What's wrong with two consenting adults having sex whenever they feel like it? I don't really see it as that big a deal.

Laughing Boy said...

From atheism.about.com:

"The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false."

What Baggini says (and I agree with him) is that there is no *objective* foundation to morality - no matter if you are a theist or an atheist.

So regardless of what a person believes there is no objective morality. How is that not an assertion of an objective truth?

Except that such objective morality doesn't exist [grin]

[groan]

But if the laws are God-given, absolute & objective how is this possible? How can you possibly *interpret* the Word of God?

What difference does it make if they are God-given or Man-given in the context of my ability interpret (or mis-interpret) it? Or my desire or ability to adhere to it nor not? It's a moral law, not a physical law like gravity. A person's will has no bearing on physical laws but moral laws are another matter, don't you think?

Surely they should simply obey & follow their religions teachings?

Surely, but that's easier said than done and, unless you have never failed to live up to even your own self-selected principles, you should already know that. Disagreements, misinterpretations, and downright rejection of God's laws are a result of sin which is pervasive throughout humanity, making perfect obedience impossible. Still, you are right, those who claim to follow a set of principles should do so. Whe they do they are showing their integrity. When they don't they are showing their hypocrisy.

How stereotypically Christian of you to compare sex to defication.

The comparison comes from Mark Twain actually: "One of life's most over-valued pleasures is sexual intercourse; of one of life's least appreciated pleasures in defecation." He was no Christian. Eating, pooping, f***ing what's the difference? An amoral biological urge is an amoral biological urge is an amoral biological urge. You don't see anything wrong with sex between consenting adults because you think you can decide for yourself what's right and wrong. But I doubt even you would agree with your statement. What if the other consenting adult in your bed was your best friend's wife? Assuming you best friend would not be happy about this, would there be anything wrong with you two consenting adults havve sex whenever you feel like it? I think(?) you'd agree that adultery is immoral. Why? Because someone else got hurt? Maybe. Whit if he never found out, would it be ok then? But I think a more fundemental thing to consider than another's 'pain' and that is that there is 'someone else' at all. There is 'someone else' that has some stake in what's going on under your covers.

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: So regardless of what a person believes there is no objective morality. How is that not an assertion of an objective truth?

It's my opinion that there is no evidence for an objective morality - from God or from anywhere else. You are correct that the statement is an assertion but not that it is objective.

laughing boy said: A person's will has no bearing on physical laws but moral laws are another matter, don't you think?

As I have repeatedly asked: If the knowledge of right & wrong was hardwired into us by God then how is it possible for there to be any divergence of opinion on the subject. I singularly fail to understand how it is possible to assert that objective moral values exist if no one can agree on what they are or actually adhere to those that individual groups consider to be objective. How do you *know* an objective value when you meet one?

laughing boy said: The comparison comes from Mark Twain actually: "One of life's most over-valued pleasures is sexual intercourse; of one of life's least appreciated pleasures in defecation." He was no Christian.

Sounds like he had a *really* bad sex life!

laughing boy said: You don't see anything wrong with sex between consenting adults because you think you can decide for yourself what's right and wrong.

To a large extent yes... within the usual contexts. I don't make up my moral views on the spare of the moment. They are the result of decades of inculcation of culture, parental upbringing, education, peer relationships and life experiences. If I don't see anything wrong with an action - by my definition - then I don't see any issue with doing it. Of course other people may have different ideas about morality and be shocked and apalled by my actions. I'm sure that it could happen. However, if I am living by *my* moral code as far as I am concerned they can go whistle.

As to sleeping with a friends wife - I would hope that my friendship with him and my own moral standards would prevent me from breaking a trust with him.

Laughing Boy said...

You are correct that the statement is an assertion but not that it is objective.

If it's not objective what is it? Subjective? Meaningless?

As I have repeatedly asked:...

I'll answer later. No time now for a considered response. Now back to the un-considered responses...

As to sleeping with a friends wife - I would hope that my friendship with him and my own moral standards would prevent me from breaking a trust with him.

So there is a limit to what two consenting adults ought to do and it has to do, in part, with 'breaking trust' or going against the desires of another? Hmmm.

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy asked: If it's not objective what is it? Subjective? Meaningless?

Erm... that would be *subjective* would it not?

laughing boy said: I'll answer later. No time now for a considered response. Now back to the un-considered responses...

Interesting that your responses are considered whilst mine are apparently un-considered..... Good to see that you respect my views.

laughing boy said: So there is a limit to what two consenting adults ought to do and it has to do, in part, with 'breaking trust' or going against the desires of another? Hmmm.

Well, I don't know about other people but *I* have limits to my actions - some of which have been tested, some of which haven't.