Morality

[Austavion]

This questions has been plaguing me for a while: How do atheists determine and defend a moral framework, both personally and socially?

I would assume most atheists would point to evolution as the cause of morality as we know it, with the intent to expand and protect the species. This would also mean that actions or lifestyles that didn't promote this expansion could arguably be wrong with this philosophy (abortion, homosexuality, contraception, etc). One could say the earth is already overpopulated, but wouldn't that void the whole framework? If not, who gets to chose what is applicable and irrelevant?

If morality is something that is personally chosen (subjective from person to person), how could someone tell anyone they are doing wrong? If this was determined through a democratic process by country, how could one country have the authority to tell another country they are doing something wrong, let alone act on it?

Lastly, Sam Harris believes there may be moral truth that can be determined through neuroscience. But for one, that day isn't here and how do you determine right and wrong until then? And two, science is about measured, repeatable results. Simply measuring neuro chemicals or responses in a brain to determine some sort of well being or happiness would seem like an over simplification. You could fix all of the moral wrongs with a pill. Also, if the science showed undesirable results that disagreed with our personal opinions, we be ok submissing to them? His approach seems to require a philosophical start point or end point removed from empirical facts.

[houseofcantor]

Surprise! Buttsecks!

Which is to say, GTFO, troll.

[Austavion]

Sorry, double post. Please delete.

[morondog]

We don't have to define some kind of absolute morality. Forget evolution for the moment. Let's just say I have no God to hand me morals on stone tablets.

I just look at morals as... what I'm comfortable with doing. Like, I don't wanna kill people, so I don't. I don't need an invisible God as a reason not to kill people, I just don't do it.

If you want to widen the discussion from personal morals to societal rules, then we can say that we make laws for the benefit of society.

But personal morals still trump law, for me, assuming I can get away with it For example, in apartheid South Africa, racism was written into the legal system. I didn't live in such times, but I'd like to think that if I had, I would have stood against such a ridiculous idea.

In all this, still no need for an invisible God.

I'd like to throw the question back at you. How does having this God guy give you a basis for morals ?

[houseofcantor]

Fucking morondog, how the fuck is this shit gonna get deleted, people start responding to it...

Now lookit what you made me do!

As for you, Austavion, the answer is real simple: accounting.

Try it. How do accountants determine and defend... yada, yada... well, on account of one thing having nothing to do with the other. Atheism is just "lack of belief in deity," it ain't a complete moral philosophy. When it comes to that, ya got all kinds here. Secular humanists, hedonists, satanists, nihilists, and a Gwynnite in a pear tree...

[namiloveyou]

Morality is anything one makes it.

Why does it need to be anything else?

[Free]

(29-12-2012 12:42 PM)Austavion Wrote:  This questions has been plaguing me for a while: How do atheists determine and defend a moral framework, both personally and socially?

I would assume most atheists would point to evolution as the cause of morality as we know it, with the intent to expand and protect the species. This would also mean that actions or lifestyles that didn't promote this expansion could arguably be wrong with this philosophy (abortion, homosexuality, contraception, etc). One could say the earth is already overpopulated, but wouldn't that void the whole framework? If not, who gets to chose what is applicable and irrelevant?

If morality is something that is personally chosen (subjective from person to person), how could someone tell anyone they are doing wrong? If this was determined through a democratic process by country, how could one country have the authority to tell another country they are doing something wrong, let alone act on it?

Lastly, Sam Harris believes there may be moral truth that can be determined through neuroscience. But for one, that day isn't here and how do you determine right and wrong until then? And two, science is about measured, repeatable results. Simply measuring neuro chemicals or responses in a brain to determine some sort of well being or happiness would seem like an over simplification. You could fix all of the moral wrongs with a pill. Also, if the science showed undesirable results that disagreed with our personal opinions, we be ok submissing to them? His approach seems to require a philosophical start point or end point removed from empirical facts.

Morality all stems from the innate human selfish gene, which compels us to respect the Ethic of Reciprocity, which is also commonly known as The Golden Rule.

Because it is impossible for any sentient being to commit a self-less act, everything we do is done in the interests of our own selves. Due to this, the Ethic of Reciprocity along with our reasoning compels us to do no type of harm to anyone that we would not want done to ourselves.

It is from the Ethic of Reciprocity that our moral fabric is shaped, and from there- depending on our environmental & social situation- that any other morals are adopted.

[FSM_scot]

since this is a double post. this is now the official derailment thread. derail as everyone sees fit.

[cheapthrillseaker]

COOKIES!!!

[morondog]

Can this be merged with the other thread of same title plz oh glorious mods which art in interwebs?