There are a number of professed atheists in this forum. I was curious as to what sort of moral imperative atheists are beholden to when presumably no one is looking. Speaking as a theist, I am constantly cognizant that there is a God who considers what I do and is aware of what I do, even though that awareness on my part may not always result in the moral behavior which I aspire to. But let’s take a fairly mundane example — say theft. We’re talking about blatant theft in a context where one could plausibly or even likely get away with it. I affirm to you that as a Christian, or more relevantly possibly, as a theist, I would never do that. Possibly it has just as much to do with my consideration for the feelings and rights of some other individual, who has “legal” possession of said items, as it has to do with my awareness of an omniscient creator who is aware of what I’m doing and who would presumably not bless me if I violated his laws. I mean, I care about the rights of other people. And, considering other moral tableaus, those of a sexual nature for example — I would personally never consider going to a prostitute for example, in that I feel empathy for that person, and how they are degrading themselves in the sight of God, and how I would not want to contribute to their degradation, so that my own human lust would never result in me victimizing another human being in that way. So in summary, there are all sorts of constraints on my personal behavior that stem directly from my belief in God, and I am honestly curious about the inner life of professed atheists in such matters. In other words, do atheists for example, in such junctures of moral decision, only consider whether they can get away with it, i.e escape the detection of human authorities? I am just honestly curious about the inner life of atheists in such matters.
692 thoughts on “What is the moral calculus of atheists”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please detail that logic in a deductive argument. Or a statistical syllogism if you will.
I would like to see the premises that lead you to that conclusion *logically*, clearly and unambigously stated.
Of course. I am sure that my moral reasoning isn’t solely utilitarian either. To let someone drown when I could save them, for example, would be unacceptably negligent.
Such rules can be framed as a negative “don’t” or a positive “do”. It doesn’t make much difference.
Then it is no surprise that you were not satisfied with atheism.
I don’t think moral systems are particularly useful.
We have laws because people (both atheists and theists) sometimes hurt each other. I haven’t seen any evidence that ordinary people are influenced by moral philosophy. Most people operate by rules of thumb handed down by their mothers.
Slight sideways diversion: most laws are designed to enable contracts and regulate ordinary activity, not to punish bad behavior.
“Only” feelings huh?
1) For atheists, conscience and empathy are not set in stone
2) Therefore, there’s no reason not to desensitize aspects of them if they become disabling in your life.
Apart from the fact you missed a few steps in your argument, the premise is bizarre. Similar to saying love isn’t made of steel. I guess you mean morality isn’t written in stone.
In this case at least, Keith does, since most people, atheist or not, are not sociopaths. Most atheists really do regard empathy and conscience as valuable, which is one reason people like stories so much.
So, Blas, atheistic moral systems are irrational whether god exists or not. Why? No answer given.
William J. Murray says that “if you follow the logic through”, then atheism gives “a rational justification for desensitizing my conscience and empathy and to open up my behavioral options.” – but William has yet to provide any logical argument to that effect.
So we have two blind assertions with no rational or logical justification.
From this, I read you to think consequentialism is doing what has best consequences for you. It is not.
Instead, to do the right thing, you need to look at best consequence overall. So we have to look at the overall utility of saving a child’s life and getting wet versus letting the child die and staying dry. Furthermore, most would say you have to to give the same answer regardless of whether you are in the position of the child or of the saver.
Do you think empathy is a human trait or a theistic trait? Why would you expect non-believers to be sociopaths?
The interesting question here is whether the “morals of society” are really “morals of humanity”. The Aztecs thought human sacrifice was moral, the Nazi’s thought slaughtering jews and homosexuals and gypsies and slavs was moral. And lots of people throughout history have defended the morality of slavery.
Are one society’s moral standards really as good as any other society’s? If not, how do you differentiate between them? The idea that there can be “immoral moralities” in certain societies requires the concept of some kind of objective, over-arching ‘human’ morality that applies to all humans in all societies, not just the population of a specific group.
Some argue that religion provides that transcendent “uber-morality”, but history shows that it does not. There are as diverse moral standards in self-identified Christian societies as there are in any other.
That’s why I look to the basics of human empathy as the foundation for morality in general, and distinguish that as “human ethics” as opposed to “social morality”. If we want to compare moralities on some kind of independent standard, I would argue that a social morality which upholds and defends human ethics is superior to one that undermines empathetic behaviors.
So to answer that question, if I disagree with my society’s morals, I will behave according to what appear to be the ethics of human empathy.
William,
It’s interesting that for all your talk about logic, you rarely (if ever) notice the gaping holes in your own arguments.
You wrote:
Let’s apply your logic. Consider the question “Why should I prey on others?” Answering that question with “It will help me get what I want” begs the question “Why should I care about getting what I want?”
Again, applying your logic: Under atheism, greed and callousness are just personal, subjective feelings — nothing more.
Applying your logic: A person can desensitize and/or control their greed and callousness if they so choose.
What difference does it make what how “most atheists” regard empathy and conscience? As I said to start with, it’s not about how atheists actually act or how they actually feel, it’s how atheism justifies any claim about how one “should” act. That “most atheists” value empathy and conscience is a given – I’ve already said that. That most atheists behave morally and have a good moral sense is a given. That’s not the point.
For example, under atheism, if I feel like my empathy and conscience are ruining my life, why **shouldn’t** I desensitize myself to whatever degree I think is appropriate or helpful? Keiths says it is “sad” that I do so – but why is that? Just his personal emotional reaction devoid of logic and disconnected from the atheistic premise? There’s no reason for me not to. It’s like him saying how sad it is that I have decided not to eat dairy any more when I’m lactose intolerant. Sad for whom?
Under atheism, there is no reason why I personally should not desensitize my empathy and conscience if I feel like doing so. There’s no reason why I shouldn’t use people for my own ends if I feel like doing so. There’s no reason why I shouldn’t consider them prey. It’s not an argument about how most atheists actually feel, but rather what is and is not rationally justified under atheism.
There might be other social philosophies that an atheist can have in addition to atheism that would argue against my choices, but so what? I’m not morally bound to agree to any such social philosophy.
William,
It’s the topic of the thread, William. This isn’t all about you.
Plenty of influential theists behave in exactly the same sociopathic way, using their religion as a shield against detection first, and then consequences. So there’s no evidence that either your potential behavior or your actual behavior will be any different whether or not you profess theism.
It’s also interesting that while you professed atheism you preyed on others, it seems most atheists do not. Are you really that different from most people that it requires an outside watcher to keep you from becoming a predator?
No, it’s not. The topic of the thread was about morality. How most atheists regard empathy and conscience doesn’t answer the question: even if most atheists regard empathy and conscience as important and valuable, why they should in the first place? Why should anyone? What are atheists beholden to wrt a moral principle?
IOW, if an atheist (like I was) decides to prey on other people because he can and wants to, is there a atheistic moral principle that dictates otherwise? That I shouldn’t do such a thing? That other atheists should intervene or try to convince me otherwise? If an atheist feels like stealing and murdering, what atheistic moral principle is there that overrules “because I feel like it, because I can”?
William J. Murray,
It seems more as if you were lactose intolerant and yet you consumed vast amounts of dairy against inclination and experience. Most people (yes, I presume to speak for most people), don’t ‘desensitise’ themselves against their moral sense, because
a) It’s unpleasant.
b) What’s the point?
You presumably thought you could gain, but it made you miserable. Quelle frigging surprise! Many people can visualise that outcome in the first place, without having to conduct the whole sorry experiment.
You turned to theism in order to stop poking yourself in the eye. There are other solutions to this self-imposed dilemma.
Still waiting for that logical argument William. What are the premises?
William J. Murray,
Here you go again: Morality = How To Control Others?
William:
keiths:
William:
Fercrissakes, William, did you even read the OP?
I don’t accept your assumptions about what “most people” or other atheists are like. Studies show that people behave less ethically when they think they can get away with it. They are more prone to harming others when they feel it is acceptable (shock treatment studies). They are more prone to ethical and moral behavior when they have the sense they are being watched – even if it is just eyes on a poster nearby.
We know what people are capable of in groups and crowds. If you grow up in certain situations/cultures, you are much more likely to be capable of harming others without much remorse. Whole cultures and nations are susceptible to engage in horrors like ethnic cleansing and cultural revolutions where people sell out their friends and neighbors just to survive and run with the alpha pack. People harm their children, parents, neighbors, friends, co-workers every day, steal from the job when nobody is looking, fudge or outright lie on their taxes, fake application forms, screw clients out of money, make back-door deals and lie to get elected and pass legislation that lines the pockets of their friends and contributors.
In many colleges there is systemic corruption and coercion to keep crime quiet so that it doesn’t harm recruitment or the local economy. Fraud is rampant in medicine and other areas of science. People con countless other people in organizations that skirt laws and move around.
Are all these people sociopaths? Of course not – these are all within the regular areas of common human behavior. One need not be a sociopath to close a deal on a boat or house or car that you know good and well that person cannot afford, or to raise money from old folks by implying that their social security is at risk.
The way I see it, and the reason I consider evangelical atheism so dangerous, is because atheists like you are and Petrushka and others are so polyanna-ish about human nature that you have no idea what kind of beast you are trying to unleash. I don’t consider myself different from most other people on the planet in regards to what we’re capable of doing, and what we’re willing to do, and what keeps us from doing those things. I consider myself different, to some degree, that I have accepted and come to terms with that part of my nature.
I think it’s people with your polyanna, high-empathy concept of what humans are like that is the outlier – which is where I used to be before I desensitized myself, and I think you’re making a big fat mistake thinking they’re like you and will act like you when you take the ideological chains off them.
llanitedave, to William:
I actually think he’s sincere about that. To decide that it’s a good idea to “desensitize” your conscience and empathy, your moral sense has to be pretty stunted to begin with.
No, it didn’t make me miserable. I was already miserable. It made me less miserable, although it didn’t solve some other issues. Try reading comprehension.
No, I turned to theism because it is the only thing that can offer me what it takes for me to be deeply satisfied and joyful.
Again, note that while several atheists here attempt to either make me feel bad about my choices, or make it seem like I’m a sociopath or morally stunted or just some kind of bad guy for my choices, none of them have stepped up explain why, under atheism, my choices are in principle any different from their own.
They prefer to have whatever degree of empathy they have. I happen to either have less to begin with, or happen to want to decrease mine .. so what? Why is that such an issue for them? Why call it “sad”? Why call it “stunted”? It’s just different from their own personal, subjective feelings and choices, right?
But, here they are, acting as if they have some kind of moral high ground. If morality is subjective and personal, how can they possibly have any moral high ground?
William J. Murray,
Try writing more clearly.
A question occurred to me I’d like an atheist to answer:
1. Should atheists consider homosexuality immoral?
William J. Murray,
I don’t think people are trying to make you feel bad. People are offering an account of their ‘inner experience’, as requested by the OP, and you roll up and tell everyone, as-per-bleeding-usual, what is actually entailed ‘under atheism’. You reckon.
Good point. I think the challenge is respond in a way that justifies action against evil societies but still tries to address the concerns WJM raises about having a rational (though not necessarily deductive) basis for your actions.
I found KN’s thoughts very helpful.
How would one argue with an Aztec priest?
KNs Thoughts
There are many interesting points starting with this reply which are germane to the discussion on this thread.
Empathy is important, but relying on empathy alone has drawbacks. For some other thoughts, see
The case against empathy
Excerpt from half way down or so:
Another thought behind my asking this question: Support you believed strongly that abortion was immoral because it was taking the life of a human being. Further, suppose you lived somewhere where abortion was legal. Would you commit an act that risked you being jailed for years if you knew that would impoverish your family? Does empathy for your family’s override the life of a human being?
William J. Murray,
No. Should anyone?
Why not?
William J. Murray,
Why?
I have asked the question if an atheist should consider homosexuality immoral.
Allan Miller has answered “no”.
I asked him: Why not?
If you are an atheist and you agree with Miller, please tell me why atheists should not consider homosexuality immoral.
More broadly: what is it about homosexuality that makes it a moral question at all?
Theists (of a certain stripe) may point to passages in a holy text, though one wonders what it was that led the writers to include it. It is certainly something I find somewhat distasteful, as a heterosexual man, which is why I don’t do it. But I know how strongly sexuality grips, and between consenting adults, if it makes them happy … Why in heck not?
Allan Miller,
You’re shifting the burden. You said that atheists shouldn’t consider homosexuality immoral. I’m asking you why they shouldn’t. Asking me why they should is not an answer as to why they shouldn’t.
However, I’ll play along. Under atheism, let’s say I am physically and emotionally repulsed by homosexual behavior. So I consider it immoral. Do you have an argument as to why I shouldn’t consider it immoral?
Rampant? I’d ask for a citation, but given your dubious history of cherry-picking studies that you don’t understand (e.g. placebo effect in knee surgery) whilst simultaneously claiming that you are not qualified to “arbit” primary research, I believe that this would be yet another fruitless exercise.
To address your main point, if one can call it such:
I think everybody here is aware that some people sometimes do bad things, just as there are examples of heroism and supreme altruism. Your “poly-anna” accusation – claiming that only theism can protect society from our own sociopathic tendencies – does not appear to be borne out by the data. It just makes you appear rather bitter, and sad.
No, William. The shock treatment studies show that people are more prone to harm others when they have been told by an authority figure to do so.
I’ll let that one sink in.
William, that logical argument of yours. Anytime you’re ready…
I’m pegging you as a “glass-is-half-empty” kind of guy there William, amiright? 😀
I’d ask why you consider it physically and emotionally repulsive? Surely that would only imply that YOU don’t have to engage in homosexual acts, it says nothing about whether other people should or should not.
William J. Murray,
I answered ‘No’. Meaning I do not think they should consider it immoral. That is not the same as thinking they should not. I’m not telling other people what they should and shouldn’t do or think. This seems to be a fundamental sticking point. It seems to be the essence of morality to you – THOU shalt not.
Don’t do it then. (Incidentally I don’t think being repulsed by it and finding it immoral are quite the same …)
None that would persuade you. If you were religiously motivated, I can’t change your religion’s attitude, though I might point to other aspects of your religion such as tolerance and goodwill. But you would say I wasn’t entitled to those arguments. So I would just say “People just want to be happy. Why do you want to stand in their way? What ill are you trying to avert by your interference?”
Absolutely not.
To make sure I understand you here, then, you don’t think they should or should not consider homosexuality immoral. Do you think an atheist should or should not consider murder immoral? Rape? Pedophilia? Is there anything an atheist should consider moral or immoral?
*facepalm* Here we go again.
I’m not asking to be persuaded. I’m asking for your argument.
I didn’t mean me as a theist, I meant the hypothetical me as an atheist who held that homosexuality is immoral. Atheist to atheist, what would be your argument to persuade me otherwise.
Interestingly, though, after apparently claiming that you don’t believe they should or should not, you here offer an argument in the form of questioning the atheist’s view that homosexuality is immoral.
If you really don’t believe he should or should not, why the questions?
As the other atheist, I respond: “What does the happiness of other people have to do with whether or not I consider their behavior immoral and choose to attempt to bring and end to it?”
WJM:
Something like this guy:
William that logical argument of yours, it won’t be coming it seems.
So you should probably retract your statement about “following the logic through” to it’s conclusion.
It’s not any different under theism.
If god exists, your conscience and empathy are still just personal, subjective feelings – nothing more. Under theism, a person can still desensitize and/or control their conscience and/or empathy if they so choose.
What difference does it make? For me, as a hypothetical atheist, I find it emotionally and physically repulsive. I define “immoral” as that which emotionally and physically repulses me. What argument do you have (atheist to atheist) that I shouldn’t find it repulsive, or that I shouldn’t define morality the way I do?
So, are you saying that an atheist is never justified in interfering in the actions of others on moral grounds?
Yes, exactly, except under theism conscience is not just a personal feeling and there are necessary consequences for moral/immoral behavior. IOW, if atheism is true, there’s no significant reason not to desensitize your conscience; if theism is true, desensitizing your conscience is a dangerous thing to do.
Yes, it is. Conscience, at least, is considered to be sensory capacity that recognizes objective moral values. Empathy, under some theisms, is the actual capacity to feel what others are feeling via spiritual connection.
Well, that’s the problem right there.
[/car mechanic]
As Allan has already pointed out to you.
I find the show “Glee” repulsive. Because of the schmaltzy musical numbers, not the homosexuality. Do you find flocked wallpaper, or spiders, immoral?
Try sympathy as the metric. Thus inflicting “Glee” or flocked wallpaper on the defenseless might be immoral, rather than the repulsive act itself.
Surely it makes a difference to you if your emotional reactions have rational justifications? That’s why I’d ask your hypothetical atheist what his rational justifications for finding it emotionally and physically repulsive, is.
Your strawman atheist, has he any interest in logic or reason at all?
For starters, that it has nothing to do with you. I’m assuming people aren’t forcing you to engage in or look at homosexual acts you don’t want to. That’s an extremely powerful reason already.
Why would you find it repulsive anyway, and even if you find it repulsive, what has that got to do with morality? How does other people’s actions affect you? Why is your emotional reactions to other people’s sex-lives a moral issue to you? Why would other people’s sexuality, with which you do not interact, be important to, or in any way affect your morals?
Because you have given zero rational justification for it.
No, I’m saying your hypothetical situation lacks rational justification.
This is how I would deal with your hypothetical atheist, I’d expose the total lack of rational justification for their position. I would hope this would cause them to rethink their position.