This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
And how do you tell the difference between feeling that something is what you ought to do because it’s your duty as a human and feeling like doing something?
That’s what makes these people quite scary. They think what they want to do is also what god wants them to do.
I would invite phoodoo (or any other theist) to offer for consideration a moral issue upon which they have a view, but no personal feeling, on its rightness or wrongness. Meat on Friday, abortion, gay sex, lasagne, something else – take your pick.
Elizabeth,
I know the difference between what I feel like doing and what I know is right.
And so do you. The only difference is you believe that knowledge comes from an accident of DNA, whose usefulness could well be expired.
It is interesting the extent to which culture feeds into the moral sense. It is not simply a case of feeling one way ‘just cos’. In the case of such matters as profanity, gay relationships, promiscuity, masturbation, etc, one’s sense of moral outrage is clearly conditioned to a significant extent. Yet people clearly deny this. The sense they have is deemed externally real, perhaps some kind of channel to God.
One of my favorite quotes, an observation made by Susan B. Anthony over 100 years ago:
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” -Susan B. Anthony
phoodoo,
I don’t think anyone thinks that a given moral stricture is wired into DNA. There are some apparent universals, but even they aren’t really. The capacity to develop a moral sense is in the DNA, not any given proscription which is (as I noted above) substantially conditioned by culture.
So you say. I’m asking how.
So, no practical difference, then, in your view?
Exactly. This equivocation between “knowing which action is right and which is wrong” and “knowing that there is a right and wrong action” is getting tiresome.
Allan Miller,
if its not in your DNA, then for the atheists its just the luck of what each individuals environment taught them. So if the environment ended up teaching a guy to be a serial rapist, he is really not wrong, now is he?
Laws are from man, not from god. The “environment” now includes a system of laws and punishments. So yes, he is wrong and demonstrably so in the context of the system of law.
And that’s the difference between systems like legal constructs and what passes for theist “objective” morality. Rape is fine if it’s condoned by your deity. The “wrongness” can be lifted in certain situations. Don’t believe me? Crack open that bible.
And if a religion taught a guy to be a serial rapist, he wouldn’t be?
Some religious people, not all, seem to be very insecure and need constant reassurance they’ve made the right decision on which God to worship. This is especially true among “born again” types. That’s why we get these never ending streams of “you can’t have morals unless you believe MY religion!” idiotic claims.
What you gonna do, push 1 person to save 5 or not?
You have it completely backwards I am afraid. Under your belief, stoning a woman for infidelity or for driving a car, can be just as moral as imprisoning a rapist . Especially if one lives where they decided (by power, which is how all laws are decide) the power wants Sharia law.
OMagain,
There is no meaning in that question to me.
Adapa,
Only no one is saying that. They are saying, you do have morals, they are just telling you why.
Elizabeth,
Right, even if a religion taught a guy to be a serial rapist, he still wouldn’t be, because there is no person whose brain is not damaged, who believes that is actually moral. That is the belief of the theist.
Elizabeth,
Who is making that equivocation?
I’ve seen lots of Fundies say atheists can’t have morals.
No, they’re only asserting their own personal beliefs. Everyone else knows the difference even if you don’t.
Well, you seem to be, for one.
If you aren’t, which one are you talking about?
phoodoo,
Sigh. Subjective morality does not entail moral relativism. Paste that in your hat for easy reference in future.
A bunch of objective moralists decides that Sharia Law is the embodiment of that morality, and you reckon that’s a problem for subjectivity?
So why have religious leaders often serially sexually abused their followers?
Elizabeth,
I never said there is a practical difference! Try to finally get that. I said there is a difference for the person who wants to think more deeply about where their beliefs come from. For you, you don’t have a good explanation of where yours come from. You don’t even know if they are necessary.
And furthermore, as OMagain just pointed out, you have no basis for saying that stoning woman to death is wrong. If its the law, its the law.
There have been plenty of cultures, very religious ones, where it was considered moral and acceptable for conquering soldiers to rape the women of the soldiers they had defeated. Read your own Bible for examples.
Elizabeth,
Maybe they felt like it Lizzie. According to you, that is good enough to be called morality.
Adapa,
And by what basis can you say it was immoral! For crying out loud.
Ah, Sharia law, a set of laws in a religion that worships the same god as you no doubt do.
From my perspective such things cannot be moral. And yet on those countries they are presumably seen as moral actions. And that’s why they do them! They don’t think it’s wrong you know, they think it’s right! Hey, morals are relative!
And that’s of more relevance to you then it is to me. Rational people can look at the way society is and attempt to adjust it for the greater good. Drink driving is now, dare I say it, an immoral act. Not too long ago it was just a bit of fun. Yet in societies where such things like stonings happen we find that religion is driving it. And if there’s one thing religion does not do it’s examine itself and attempt to make changes in accord with the modern world and our modern understandings. That you point at another religion that does not do things you like does not cancel the fact your religion does similar things for similar reasons.
And I’ll repeat for your benefit once more my opinion that if the last person on the planet thought stoning a woman for driving a car was moral, then it would be the only morality that existed in the known universe, as far as I know and as such that would be a true statement. It is simultaneously true that it is both right and wrong to stone a woman to death for driving a car. And one day, when those awful people have grown up, it’ll just be a wrong statement.
Morality has changed over the years, and laws have changed in tandem.
Nothing is immoral. Nothing is moral. Yet you still have to live with your neighbours. You can do what you like, but then that means so can they. Over time we’ve established a balance. And when that balance cannot be maintained law steps in and establishes it.
You offer what as an alternative? A morality you can’t articulate but which always seems to place you on the right side of events? Laughable.
You’re the one who claims rape was/is always immoral by “God’s law”, not me.
phoodoo,
You seem unable to step outside your programming. No, I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘really wrong’. That is not a problem either for a functioning society or for a functioning individual.
These stupid ‘what-if’s that theists come up with! What if your religion taught you that rape was good? “Ah, but it wouldn’t because … because I’d know it wasn’t!”. It is not universally censured in the Bible, btw.
Adapa,
Right!!
So how is it immoral to you??
And from your perspective they can not be immoral. They can only be legal or illegal!
Laws can be wrong. Over time people vote for politicians whose job it is to change laws. Many blasphemy laws are now gone.
If large numbers of people think that something immoral is law, then the law changes. E.G. the ban on gay marriage. It might take time, but it happens. Look at how many old laws relating to moral behavior are no longer on the books.
So, clearly, something can both be wrong and the law. The law typically follows peoples opinions on how people should behave, that’s kind of it’s sole purpose.
That’s for telling me what can and can’t be for me. From my perspective their behavior is immoral, for I have a moral code, just as they do.
I just don’t have to pretend I obtained it from some deity.
Some priest felt like it so pretended it was revelation, and that’s good enough for you.
OMagain,
Where did you get your moral code then? You were taught it?
OMagain,
How can something be both wrong and the law. That makes no sense according to your definition of morality.
It can only be wrong after the law has been changed. Until then its right.
Therefore you would do nothing, and 5 people would die rather than the one.
Well, actually the interesting thing is that both you and fmm have given non answers to the question. Which is odd, as I would have thought that if you were both sharing the same objective morality you’d both be able to give the answer to that question and justify it.
fmm cops out by saying that he could not decide without perfect knowledge and as that’s not available he declines to answer. you cop out by saying it’s meaningless.
Are there any moral questions you feel you can actually answer?
Morality != law. It’s quite simple really.
From the perspective of someone who is anti gay marriage the law against it is correct and the act is immoral.
From the perspective of someone who is pro equality the law against marriage is wrong and the marriage itself is moral.
I know it’s complex stuff, seeing things from other people’s perspective.
Same place you got yours, except I don’t have to pretend to myself it’s objective or came from god.
OMagain,
Nope.
That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t decide what is moral. I believe a God does though. I am pretty sure a military dictator doesn’t. You do though.
Then why do laws ever change?
OMagain,
Then where did it come from? At least I answered you where my belief comes from. Aren’t you going to post in good faith?
phoodoo,
???
Moved comment to guano
No, that isn’t my view. But you are missing my point: if an apparently non-brain-damaged religious person thinks that having serial sex with his followers is right, how do you know that they are wrong?
Or, for that matter, if an apparently non-brain damaged religious person thinks that hanging is a suitable punishment for having gay sex, how do you know they are wrong?
Or if an apparently non-brain damaged person shoots an abortion doctor, claiming to be preventing thousands of murders, because his religion tells him that that’s what abortion is, how do you know they are wrong?
Morality = Law
I think that says all you need to know about the foolishness of the atheist beliefs about morality.
Your lifestyle is VERY immoral in a lot of places.
Elizabeth,
Because I am not the one deciding what is moral Lizzie! I am claiming the individual already knows it themselves.
NOW, by what logic DO YOU say any of these acts are immoral?
There are many more differences than that, believe me.
Well, I find it hard to believe. For example, if my first sexual experience was being abused by a priest is it moral that you would use that as a way to get to me in a conversation? On second thoughts, from what I’ve read about your god in it’s manual perhaps I can believe exactly that. Carry on!
You can make all the laws you want but you cannot legislate what people feel or think. Laws follow morality, remember.
It’s fairly clear I don’t think laws define what is right and wrong. But you’d have to have been following along to know that, so I forgive you.
Who has said that?