Well, IIRC Kant wiggled out of this one by differentiating between “negative moral imperatives” and “positive moral imperatives”. Ex.: You can’t murder. You should give money to the poor. You are absolutely forbidden from the negative moral imperatives, but you are allowed more leeway with the expression of the positive imperatives. One moralist (that I recall, and I can’t remember his name offhand) did indeed recommend giving all your money to the poor, and decried the half-measures of other moralists. I see the dichotomy primarily as an expression of our concerns; first make sure people don’t do bad stuff, then you worry about getting them to do good things. And some people do indeed become missionaries, or give all their money to the poor. Still, even then we get into some fuzzy areas; if a person could be a businessman, employ millions of people, produce many valuable goods, etc, would it be better for him to have been a poor missionary? What of all the people who would have been employed by this man, had he gone into business? Producing goods and services honestly is also a moral thing; who would pick up our garbage, build our buildings, create new jobs if all of us spent all our time helping the poor? 
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Lib said:
We haven’t lost them, nor did you do anything wrong. Because of the length (and some other problems), the archives have not yet made it to the new format. As such, they are currently unavailable. The irony is, of course, that we moved a lot of good stuff to the archives before deciding to switch formats. I’ll check with the techies and see what the situation is.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Gaudere
[Before I begin my response, would you happen to know how to access the Atheist Religion threads?]
Actually, that’s not my point. See what follows, please.
Perhaps it is because you are not used to thinking God-centrically that you miss the point I’m making. A thing is in your self-interest when, and only when, it coincides with God’s own self-interest. It is God Who has deemed that love is good. It is God Who has deemed that mercy is good. He has deemed that these things are good, because these things are attributes of Him.
Without the absolute reference frame of God, it is possible to assign self-interest to any arbitrary action that benefits a solitary, Godless you. It is not in your self-interest to steal, for example, simply because God does not steal. Without that reference, why ought you not to steal when it will benefit you?
Yes, it is in your self-interest to be merciful because you will receive mercy, but only because God has deemed that receiving mercy is good. It is equally good for the person who received it from you and for you who gave it.
The highest morality is that which coincides with God’s own morality, i.e., love among free moral agents.
In computer programming, it is generally considered good practice to construct your conditions this way…
If Recordset.EOF Then
'Report that there are no records
Else
'Do something with the records
End If
…as opposed to this way…
If **Not**(Recordset.EOF) Then
'Do something with the records
Else
'Report that there are no records
End If
With atheism, you (and Ayn Rand) have added a NOT operator.
David
Okay, thanks very much.
Gaudere
Please disregard my question about the Atheist Religion threads, thanks.
I too am staggered by Libertarian’s espousal of both Objectivism and Christianity. It is a combination I never though I’d see. As for dropping one of the core parts of Rand’s philosophy, remember that she purported to own Objectivism.
How (and this really is meant as a question Lib) do you reconcile the New Testament bit that says [paraphrase - sorry, won’t have it in the house]:
“whosoever does this for the least of my brothers does it for me”
with the veneration of self-interest above all?
picmr
Well, the coding example is amusing, but I’m afraid it hasn’t explained anything to me. You have introduced the unnecessary entity of God; I have not introduced the unnecessary entity of NoGod, I have simply not intoduced any entities at all. That’s like saying your world-view is introducing unnecessary entities of NoEasterBunny, NoSanta, NoInvisiblePinkUnicorns, etc.
I admit I find your morality rather cold. Love is good only because God says it is? Stealing is bad only because God does not steal (::cough:: Gadarene pigs ::cough:: ) I do not steal because stealing hurts people, and I care about people. I don’t care what God says is good or bad or whether He is going to reward me for it, I’m going to try to do what helps people.
It seems that being good because heaven is offered is less moral than being good because you wish to help your fellow man. Everything humans do is egocentric. That’s how we survived in an environment that never showed any interest in us. Yet religion is a carrot at the end of a stick, the stick also being used to whip and prod the animal back in line. If heaven is believed in, the priest caste can make all sorts of rules and expect them to be followed. Atheists don’t have to believe in a special place to do good. We do good because it benefits us. How good would a theist be if the promise of heaven was revoked (got on some religious official’s bad side)? Would said theist still be moral if he believed if hell was all that awaited him?
picmr
My worldview is neatly defined by the blend of Libertarianism, Objectivism, and Christianity. Libertarianly speaking, God is the owner of all that exists, and therefore has all rights with respect to it, just as any bona fide owner has sole legitimate rights with respect to his property. Jesus, as God, offers, as is His right, His grace to us. It is in our self-interest to accept it. The reason it is in our self-interest to accept it is that accepting it coincides with His will that we do so. “It is the will of the Father that you believe in the One Whom He sent.” — Jesus
I’m not dropping anthing that is necessary. Entities that are unnecessary ought to be dropped. There is no reason to introduce — as axiomatic no less! — the notion that God does not exist. And particularly, for those of us who have experienced Him and know that He is real (the only thing, incidentally, that is real), it is downright ridiculous!
Your paraphrase is close enough, but your inference with respect to “the veneration of self-interest above all” is, at best, misleading. Self-interest is not above all. It is merely a compatible ethic to the Christian ethic of love. It is in your self-interest to love, because in doing so, you will be like God. To be perfect is to love perfectly.
Gaudere
No one has said that you have introduced the entity of NoGod. What you have introduced, as I said, is the NOT operator. If it is known that A is true, then NOT A is false. God is Love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists. Only were it not true that God exists, would the NOT operator be necessary.
But neither the Easter Bunny, nor Santa, nor Invisible Pink Unicorns exist. The NOT operator, therefore, is a necessary entity with respect to those.
Only? ONLY because God says it is?
If you loved God as I do, and as He loves you, and as I love you, you would not ever say “only because God says it is”. You view God as a pest, Whose whims and pesky will, are an imposition.
He is instead the very essence of Love, the source of Love, the only entity Who loves perfectly. Why would you bemoan what Perfect Love says is Good?
This isn’t the mayor declaring Gaudere Day; this is the Living God, the Spirit of Love, that has chosen to dwell in your heart. You do not love because you rationalize in this way or that way. You love because God lives in you. If God did not live in you, you would not — and could not — love.
Derleth
Religion has nothing to do with God.
If god == love, and only love, then we have very few atheists. I can’t think anyone offhand who would deny that there exists an emotion that we call “love”. However, there is a significant difference between thinking love exists and thinking God exists. You think of God as love, yes, but also as a consciousness that created the entire universe. I believe love exists; I do not believe that love exists as an all-encompassing consciousness that created the universe. Atheism does not introduce any unnecessary entities, unless you redefine it in such a bizarre manner that “atheism” means “lacking belief in love”. If you do that, you have redefined it into something no atheist means when they refer to themselves as an atheist.
The IPU does not exist? Prove it.
I don’t view God as a pest; I don’t think He exists at all. Even if I did believe God existed, I think my ultimate view of Good would still be what is best for all mankind, not what God wants. It would be simply coincidental that that happens to jive with what most people’s God wants. I believe many theists feel the same as I do. In thought-experiments (what if God had drowned all the world just to punish some evil men) some theists have stated that they would fight against that God to protect mankind. I realize that you would deny the thought-experiment because you would say that if God did evil, God is not God.
Tell me, would you say all things that God does are Good, or does God only do Good things?
Altruism comes to people and animals naturally, religious morals often reflect what comes naturally and has been approved by that specific society’s power-holders, add in local prejudice and some insane cosmologies and you’ve got every major religion. On the more intellectual end you’ve also been socialized to accept laws and their logic. Laws also stem from natural altruism.
There’s really little difference between people’s actions and the actions of social mammals. Sure there’s exceptions but generaly we try to get along…etc.
In the end, just because you can’t imagine morality without religious figures and eternal laws and somesuch doesn’t mean others can’t.
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
I’m not quite sure why morality has gotten so tangled up with religion in this discussion. Cannont one exist without the other? This calls to mind an interesting dilema presented by Socrates, who asks, “is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Either answer to this question poses problems. If the first is right, and things are good because God says so, then what meaning does good have anyways? This way, God’s decisions are totally arbitrary, and he might as well have said that it is good to murder and evil not to. You might argue that God never would do such a thing, but why not, if there is no moral basis for his decisions? To believe in this answer is to deem all of God’s (or whomever you worship) teachings completely arbitrary, and to render meaningless any sort of statement like, “God is good.” The mathematician Leibniz commented on this:
“So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me tha tone destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?”
On the other hand, to believe in a morality upon which God bases his decisions causes problems of its own. If, for example, we say that God commands us to be truthful because being truthful is right, and God realizes this, then we admit to a right and wrong that is independant of God’s will.
I ascribe to this second view; that there is a moral right and wrong, but it exists independantly of God’s will. I’m curious how those of you who believe in God reconcile this ethical/theological paradox.
I’m curious:
DavidB,
Is it valid to say that an atheist behaving morally is really just an agnostic hedging his bets?
If I may answer… You are assuming that the only basis for morality is a desire for reward/fear of punishment from some God. Some of us think it is worthwhile to be good even if there is no God to notice. If I knew for absolute certain there was no God, my behavior would not change for the worse. Also, certain Gods seem to care not a whit for moral behavior; you only make it to heaven if you believe they died for your sins, not by being good. So I do not think there is a great deal of bet-hedging among atheists.
Gaudere,
Of course you may answer. Thank you for your thoughtful response, which was:
**
Some questions, purely for my own enlightenment. The board seems dead now, so if you don’t mind, I have some queries…
What, if not God, do athesist think is a “basis for morality?” I realize that my question is predicated on the assumption that moral behavior is unnatural - it could not have “evolved.” If I am incorrect in that assumption, feel free to start there.
**
This is curious - I am sure there is a God. So, if there in fact was not, I believe that my behavior would change for the worse.
Hypothetical:
In your Godless World, why is it wrong to steal? Let’s assume that you can commit the perfect crime and never fear of suffering punishment - why not take advantage of others?
I know that this is the subject of most of the previous posts in this thread, but Lib’s tangential discussion of Objectivism left me scratching my head. I’m hoping that we, in this late hour, can get to “Atheism For Dummies.” 
In the Atheist Religion I and II threads we went into this in depth. I will try to summarize to say that genes that make an effort to protect related genes are more likely to survive to be procreated. In small tribes people were all related to each other, so caring for others protected your genes. Empathy is most certainly useful for promoting a healthy, successful human society; there is no evidence that it actually is “unnatural”, given its great benefits to the gene pool as a whole.
I think that’s a shame, honestly. I try to be good even if no one is watching. I often boggle my theist friends by refusing to do immoral actions that I will never be caught for. When I deleted my illegally-gotten MP3s, one friend asked if I was “afraid Jesus was watching” me. I was not–but I know my actions were harming the artists who made the songs, so I refused to let myself take advantage of the song’s easy anonymous availability.
I will die someday. Other people will live on. If I have only one chance to send something on beyond me, I think I should make it a good thing, something that makes mankind better and greater thas it was before I came along. What greater immortality can you ask for than to have been a part of making the world better? Of course, I do not think this every time I make a moral choice; generally my question is, “Does this hurt someone? Does this help someone?” But the root of my decision is there.
As another comment, many theists do not act out of desire for heaven/fear of hell, and would be quite offended if you suggested their motivation was such. They act morally becuase they believe it pleases God, and they love God. And I act morally because I love my fellow humans.
After reading this (most entertaining) thread, I felt moved to post an essay which I had written a year or so back, which I feel answers the initial question perfectly:
Where morality is defined as the exertion of will over the desire for self aggrandizement, and religion the belief in the non physical, non scientific, and spiritual:
It is impossible to have sane morality without religion.
First of all let me restate the definition of morality by saying that it is possible to behave in a way which is considered good without being moral. Societal conditioning and inborn desire often result in positive thought and deed. A moral person differs from someone who simply behaves in a “good” manner however, in that a moral person is good irrespective of his own desire. Someone can be called “good” who will resort to theft, murder, rape, or other depraved acts in certain circumstances (which he often reminds himself of later to justify his actions) because he lacks morality.
Morality for the typical person arises from two sources- egoism and the justification of greed.
Egoism, or the need to feel good about one’s self, spawns a certain morality (this is the origin of the phrase “self-righteous”). An egoist will refrain from taking certain actions or force himself to do good so that he can then say of himself, “I am good,” and, often, “I am better than others.” An example would be someone who donates to a lifesaving charity- often without doing any research on the organization which is receiving his funds- in order to feel good about himself rather than in an effort to improve society. “I am a generous person, and the donation to this charity proves that.” The morals of an Egoist often follow current ethical standards as he is unlikely to receive acclaim from others for upholding odd or unpopular morals. On the other hand, some egoists derive more self esteem from anomalous morals because they can claim to themselves that they are better than everyone else because “everyone else is without morals entirely” (simply because they follow different standards).
Justification of Greed is the creation of “rights” which justify selfishness. By saying “I have a Right to do something, you can’t stop me,” it becomes immediately obvious that other people have the same rights and that you likewise shouldn’t stop them. Justification of Greed essentially serves to ennoble the more base and simple aspects of life; I have heard terms such as “sanctity of property” used in reference to such rights: “I want to own things. I therefore declare ownership and property sacred.” To continue the example of the generous egoist, he may claim that he has done a good thing with his donation because “I have preserved life and life is sacred; and life is sacred because I want to keep mine.” Anyone who has ever killed a fly out of annoyance is a hypocrite to espouse the doctrine of sanctity of life. The claim that life is sacred is the most common and most disgusting justification of all, as the very essence of selfishness lies in the preservation of one’s own life.
Essentially both of these forms of morality (Egoism and Justification of Greed) are immature and self-deceiving, as a person with such morals isn’t truly moral but is simply seeking to cover up psychological weaknesses. In the case of egoists, morality becomes a crutch to fall back on when insulted or when life goes badly; whereas for the greedy morality becomes a vehicle whereby their own selfishness is venerated.
The only final answer to the question “What is good?” come from religion. Only religion possesses absolute and final answers to questions such as this. Saying that something is “God’s Will” sounds empty to unbelievers but actually holds more meaning than any other statement, because of the fact that no religion I know of propagates the worship of a god who is not clearly stated to be absolutely good. Granted that there can be religion without God or a god, for the most part religion centers around a creator who is The Absolute.
If God is absolutely good, then God’s Will is absolutely good, and if God’s Will is absolutely good, then to do God’s Will is to do good. In the absense of God to provide this, there cannot be true morality. Therefore, the only sane morality arises from the question, “What is God’s Will?” Everyone answers this question differently; this leads to a fragmented and dysfunctional society. But then again, I don’t give a damn about society, I concern myself only with the truth.
(PS, good job Libertarian; at first I thought you were a total nutball but you actually have things worked out very well. When writing this I was arguing from the secular standpoint; I hadn’t thought things through from the religious perspective so thoroughly as you.)
Lib said:
Yes, “only.”
Would you do something only because somebody you love/respect/admire said so? Isn’t that kind of against the libertarian principle? Shouldn’t you do something because it’s the right thing to do, not just because somebody said to do it? Even if that somebody happens to be your god, shouldn’t there be reasons for doing it, rather than just a proclamation from on high?
Sdimbert asked:
Gaudere has already done an admirable job of answering (as she always does), but I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you.
No, it is not valid. For all the reasons Gaudere already gave, and more. As she noted, you assume that morality can come only from God, and that, frankly, is baloney. Atheists behave morally because it is the right thing to do. Your message indicating you would behave less morally if you realized there was no God brings us back to what I was discussing with Lib, above. It is much better to be moral because it is right than it is to do so just because somebody says to do it. By that standard, I would say that atheists who believe morally are actually more moral than you are, because they are doing it without fear of punishment or promise of reward, while you have to be enticed to do it.
I am your garden variety agnostic–I don’t know
if a supreme being exists, and I really don’t
see a need for one. Isn’t life as we know it enough?
I am very anti-religion–Specifically, the Judeo/
Christian anti-women beliefs. Anyone who would deny
the church has repressed women for centuries is
ignoring the facts.
I am the most moral person you’ll meet–I just believe
in living the best you can. Life is tough enough, most
morals are to keep it from getting any tougher.