Atheist Morality

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Wow – go out of town for a few days and look what happens. So much to catch up on . . .

Lib:

(re: Ayn Rand)
There, I thought the item, “Ethic: self-interest,” was sufficient evidence that the ethic of her philosophy is self-interest. You are entitled to disagree.

Indeed. Stating a thing does not make it true. The quote Glitch referenced (“neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” to refresh your memory) clearly indicates that something beyond self-interest is at work. Repeating the bumper sticer phrase “Ethic: Self-interest” does not make it so.

Do you mean when I listed objective reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism? I suppose you are entitled to opine that those do not resemble the Objectivist tenets of objective reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism.

I mean that sticking the same labels upon different ideas and pretending they are the same is dishonest. I find it entirely consistent with your past behavior.

Atheism is an unnecessary entity with respect to Objectivism, particularly since God is the only objective reality there is.

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the behavior I mention above. Perhpas you can reconcile this statement with the following quote, also from you: “objectivism. It is, after all, defined by [Ayn Rand’s] writings.”

Of course there is no other basis than what God wants. Why would there be?

Thank you for admiting that your morality reduces absolutely to “whatever God wants”. Shall I assume that you are going to revise the “tenets of Libertarian’s Objectivism” to remove any misleading references to values which might be interpreted as independent of God’s wishes?

Perhaps you interpreted my statement “It is in my self-interest to be alive,” to mean, “I do not value my life.” I assure you that is not the correct interpretation.

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement “It seems you value the stranger’s pain above your word and your word above your life. Is this correct?” to mean “You do not value your life.” More likely, you simply had no easy answers to the ramifications of your hypothetical “choice”. I do thank you for your condecension, though, it pleases me that you continue to fail so utterly to live up to the ideals you espouse.

There is no life in the cells.

You are incorrect. Or perhaps you are merely again using a generally accepted term, life, to mean something more convenient to your bias.

Evidently, you are confusing electro-chemical entropy with life.

No. Evidently you are confused about the meanings of both “life” and “entropy”.

Have someone you know and trust, with a faithful heart, to read my post to Glitch and explain its context to you.

“I kill his body, and then I kill mine.” Seems clear enough. I simply asked you to clarify some aspects of your decision. You chose to dodge those questions and accuse me of failing to understand your post. I do not need anybody to explain that to me. Though, again, I thank you for demonstrating the quality of your character.

Have them also explain how I view the amoral universe with my brain, which interprets it through my God-given senses, while at the same time I act out a morality within its context, using the spirit He breathed into my heart.

How much easier to dodge than to face your own contradictions, eh? Your words were, “Reason is indeed the epistemology by which we study Him.” Now, perhaps you meant “the amoral universe” when you wrote “Him”. If so, then please have someone you know and trust explain to you the importance of defining terms when you use them unconventionally. Either you study God with your intellect, as you have claimed, or it would be mere speculation to apply intellect to discerning God’s wishes, as you have claimed.

The computer programming analogy, of course, is absurdly flawed. The particular formulation favored by most programmers is structured to take advantage of the miniscule performance gain in structuring the query in a manner which requires one less logical action (negation). It has nothing to do with “necessary” or “unnecessary” conditions. It is simply a factor of the digital logic formulated in classical computer architecture. In fact, there is no guarantee that once the high level instruction is compiled it will take the same logical form, since the compilation will be architecture dependent and may, indeed, reverse the logic for efficiency.

For that matter, the more reasonable translation to psuedocode would be:

if not (exist(god))
then
   find_morality()
else
   for god[mine] in god[all]
   do
       if exist(god[mine])
       then
          find_morality(god[mine])
       endif
   done
endif

Glitch
I find your analogy, and the responses to it, interesting. To me, the question is indistinguishable from the general case in which a person asks you to assist them in dying. The specific characteristics seem to be:

1. a person wishes to die.
2. that person will die anyway, after a time.
3. that person will feel more pain the longer he lives.
4. that person lacks the ability to end their own life.
5. you have the ability to end that peson’s life.

It seems to me that the same factors apply to any person you meet with suicidal intentions but not the capacity for suicide.

sdimbert

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.

Okay, we will start there. There is nothing unnatural or significantly disadvantageous about moral behavior. If here were, then morality would have been eliminated from human behavior before now.

In your Godless World, why is it wrong to steal?

In my morality, it is not universally wrong to steal. It is, however, wrong to deny empathy to another being without cause. If I can empathize with the owner of the property, understand his concerns and the value he placess on the property and on the security of his ownership, and still fairly and honestly evaluate my need above his loss and if I honestly have no other means or hopes of obtaining the property without theft, then I may morally steal the property.

Please note, I mean each of those stipulations in the most restrictive sense possible. In fact, I have a difficult time imagining a hypothetical model in which theft would be justified. But my morality does not contain a blanket, “thou shalt not steal”.

When I say “unnatural,” I refer to the fact that nature seems to demonstrate that self-preservation is the most effective motivation an organism can have.

Not true. I recommend you read some of the work of E.O. Wilson in the field of sociobiology. It is not necesary to agree with all of his interpretations, but he has clearly demonstrated the potential genetic advantage in altruistic behavior.

I understand that, in the above excerpt, you’ve extended the human organism to the level of community, but surely you can’t argue that the idea of putting another’s needs before your own runs contrary to human nature?

Humans DO put other’s needs before their own in some circumstances. Are you arguing for some idea of “human nature” that conflicts with how humans actually behave?

Harkenbane
Others have addressed this, but to add my voice to theirs:

Morality for the typical person arises from two sources- egoism and the justification of greed.

Nice straw man. By skillfully denying any motivation for morality which might conflict with your intended conclusion you have rendered your argument irrelevant. You have simply demonstrated that two particular types of flawed morality are flawed.

Beeto
Your hypothetical does not address many issues which I would need to have defined before I would justify theft. Certainly there is nothing in it which would lead me to justify murder. Please see my response to sdimbert for an idea of what other factors I would need to address before justifying theft.

[Nen]

Glitch and Gaudere:

Glitch stated:

This is the fault of the English language and the people who use it (i.e. that human language has connotation and implied meaning).

Too true. Between the two of you I have become edified. I concede. I am moral. Thank you for your assistance.

Gaudere stated:

I would say that gray is not “neither” black nor white, it is a combination of both. Don’t mess with me about colors or hues or shades, I’m an artist!

Well let’s talk about light then, I’m a physicist!

Gaudere stated:

Like a blind person who knows “orange” is red and yellow mixed, but although if you asked him what red and yellow make he would respond correctly “orange”, he would still have no idea what orange is. He knows the intellectual definition, but not the meaning.

I see (or maybe I don’t ;))

Gaudere stated:

I would consider ants amoral becuase I don’t think they have the brain power to comprehend morality, but I’d reserve judgement on many of the smarter animals.

Perhaps true, but perhaps moral code does exist in their rigid social structure.

[Gaudere]

I am moral. Thank you for your assistance.

Glad to help.

Perhaps true, but perhaps moral code does exist in their rigid social structure.

I am thinking that moral behavior must include free will. If the ants simply respond mindlessly to stimuli, they are functioning properly, but I would not call them moral. Now, chimps apparently carry on affairs, commit murders, etc. If one chooses not to do something that harms another chimp out of empathy for that chimp, I would consider him/her moral. Now, some commit murders, some do not, but we don’t know their motivation for making either choice. My personal feelings are that while we generally regard animals as only responding to stimuli and therefore as amoral, I don’t think the differences between us and the animals are so great that we can say we have free will and self-awareness and they do not. But I still have my doubts about moral ants.

[Beeto]

Obviously I didn’t explain the Heinz dilemma as well as I would have liked.

1. Your wife/husband has come down with a rare and fatal condition.
2. She/he will die in 1 week.
3. There is a cure.
4. The man who owns this cure keeps it at his house and will only sell it for $100,000 no less.
5. You beg him to sell it for cheaper but he will not. He says he worked hard on this cure and deserves to be paid.
6. You do not have this kind of money. You go to everyone you know and ask for them to loan/give you money so that you can buy the cure. But poor you, noone will help you.

Supposing you knew where he kept the cure, would you break into his house and steal it in order to save your wife/husband?

What if you knew that the cure inventor would have a heart attack and die upon discovering that his cure was stolen? So in effect your can trade one life(the cure inventor) for another(you wife/husband that you love).

[David_B]

Actually, I think you explained it fine – the problem is, as I indicated, one inherent in all such hypotheticals. There is always a way around it.

1. Your wife/husband has come down with a rare and fatal condition.
2. She/he will die in 1 week.
3. There is a cure.
4. The man who owns this cure keeps it at his house and will only sell it for $100,000 no less.

As I said, I could respond that I could get the $100,000. End of dilemma.

Plus, as I also said, the situation is totally unrealistic. It simply wouldn’t happen. So what’s the point of discussing it?

[Harkenbane]

Someone mentioned that I was setting up a straw man to knock down with my essay. I would be more careful–you are calling this man a scarecrow:

**
How am I insane? I think you are arguing that people who are moral do things that do not please them, which is insane to you.
**

I do not think that when a person does things which do not please him, that it is necessarily insane. People with “divinely inspired” morality can easily do so without suffering this label from me as you have.

**
However, if you were to analyze a person’s motives, you would see that what they chose is always the thing that they perceive to be having the greatest benefit to them.
**

When your typical Bible thumping “I am saved” Christian does a good deed, he does it with no thought of reward. He already assumes that he will go to Heaven; he has no doubt of this. He feels that according to the grace of God, all of his sins will be forgiven after his death. So put yourself in the shoes of such a person. Why go out of your way? You go to Church on Sunday, you tithe, you indoctrinate–or rather, “teach” your children about the way, the truth and the light. You derive no benefit from going the extra mile–indeed, if you did, there would be no such “extra mile.” Yet, out of the simple, plain desire to do as your God asks and as your God did, you still do.

People do not always do what will benefit them most. Some forgo their own happiness with logical reasons; others do not.

**
Even you mention motivators for why people should obey God and therefore be moral; they can “transcend [their] mortal bounds”. But if they have a motivation, they must desire to do so, and therefore by your definition they would not be moral, right?
**

Motivation is different from benefit. I assert that true morality has no ultimate benefit, which is why I draw such a strong distinction between those who do what is right for the sheer sake of what is right, and those who do what is right in order to feel good about themselves or to avoid feeling bad about themselves.

Now, I have answered your question, answer mine. I still defy you to come up with a single reason the objective viewer should value anyone’s life unless there be a God.
**
Please explain to me how God existing gives people objective value.
**

God’s mere existence grants value to nothing, but God assigning value to things gives them value. God allows for the great loophole in the idea that all morality is madness, although he does not necessarily provide it–only if he exists, and only if he declares what right and wrong are. Stretching this loophole to its bursting point, a person can indeed carry false belief in a false God and behave according to the moral tenets of this false God without being insane. Instead, he would simply be wrong. I leave you to decide whether it is better to be wrong or to be mad.

**
Actually, I think that “objective value” is a misnomer because of the very nature of value itself; in order for a thing to have value, it must be valuable to someone. Therefore how can anything have objective value if it is dependent on another person’s perceptions? How can humans have objective value if they have value only if God values them?
**

At last you are beginning to understand my ideas. The simple truth to the matter is that value is an assigned attribute, not an inherent one. An infinite God who created the universe and represents that universe and may assign such attributes with absolute, ultimate, infinite finality. If he can create life from nothing, then he can create (inherent) value from nothing. You, as a small part of this (created or random) universe may assign such attributes of “value” for yourself, but as soon as you, being finite, disappear, the value likewise disappears. And moreover, this value of yours only has meaning from your own perspective, since others, such as myself, do not share your values.

You humans have all collectively decided that you have value because you yourselves want to have value, and speaking objectively, this is sheer nonsense. I have the courage to accept the possibility that I have no value. I challenge you to do the same.

[Czarcasm]

Why should I have the “courage” to believe that humans have no value(certainly a depressing thought!), when it is so much easier to believe that an illogical and unprovable “god” has no value. Succoming to a repressive religious mindset that takes all rights and responsibility away from the real people that have accomplished so much throughout our history, assigning such credit to a vague “god”, doesn’t take courage.

[Harkenbane]

**
Why should I have the “courage” to believe that humans have no value(certainly a depressing thought!)
**

Hence the genuine requirement for courage. Perhaps a more depressing thought is that you did not understand my post.

**
when it is so much easier to believe that an illogical and unprovable “god” has no value. Succoming to a repressive religious mindset that takes all rights and responsibility away from the real people that have accomplished so much throughout our history, assigning such credit to a vague “god”, doesn’t take courage.
**

No, it doesn’t, and yes, it is much easier to believe that an illogical and unprovable God has no value, since that belief tends to foster an unbelief in this God. I never asserted that you should succumb to a repressive religious mindset, nor did I suggest that there is any courage involved in believing in any sort of religion. Mankind throughout history has shown a great need for God and religion, so much so that in the absense of such a God, he has created one for himself with a religion to match.

I assert that one who wishes to be atheistic should divest himself of these religious trappings and stand up for himself as an unbeliever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. If there is no morality, there is morality. If there is no God, there is no God. If there is no meaning to the universe, there is no meaning in the universe. If you can accept this then you may walk with true pride, knowing that unlike your weaker peers who require faith to stand, you have the courage to stand on your own.

Libertarian may sound crazy, but at least his ideas, like those of many other believers, have internal consistency. Atheists, by contrast, are forever recreating religion in the time honored tradition of their forefathers by declaring that human beings have value and that morality exists and, thus, recreating the same repressive religious mindset which they went to such great lengths to renounce.

Am I the only one who laughs at this?

[Glitch]

I assert that one who wishes to be atheistic should divest himself of these religious trappings and stand up for himself as an unbeliever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

What religious trappings would that be? Is all belief inherently a “religious trapping”? You logic seems cyclical. All morality comes from religion/God, therefore those who claim to morality must have “religion”/God.

Of course, you have failed to demonstrate how all morality comes from God, except from your point of view which begins with the subjective truth that God exists and is absolute. But there is a great difference between something being true from your point of view, and being logically proven.

If there is no morality, there is morality. If there is no God, there is no God. If there is no meaning to the universe, there is no meaning in the universe. If you can accept this then you may walk with true pride, knowing that unlike your weaker peers who require faith to stand, you have the courage to stand on your own.

Again, only true IF AND ONLY IF, you start with your subjective truth that God exists and is absolute. It is equally true that morality exists without God. Personally, I believe that my ethics are derived from a basic fundamental nature of the universe. My mindset doesn’t require any kind of god, and my ethic has an equally “objective” core. Just because you don’t understand it, or can accept it doesn’t make it untrue. Your truth is only true to you.

Am I the only one who laughs at this?

Perhaps so, but then again maybe the joke is on you.

[Czarcasm]

Are you trying to say that it’s easier to be an atheist in society? Where?
Your statement says basically that, because “God” created everything he created morality, and thus all morality stems from a believe in “God”. Two tiny little problems with that:

1. You have to prove that “God” exists for your statement to be valid.
2. Which “God”?

You might want to start seperate threads on those two subjects, of course.

[matt_mcl]

You humans have all collectively decided that you have value because you yourselves want to have value, and speaking objectively, this is sheer nonsense. I have the courage to accept the possibility that I have no value.

Oh, you poor misguided Sartrean, you. As Kierkegaard quite amply demonstrated, it is possible to be existential without being a nihilist, such as yourself.

Your problem is rationalism: you believe that because human value does not objectively exist, then it can’t exist at all.

It is perfectly true that humans have no particular objective value. That is true of everything. Nothing has any value unless there’s a sentience around to give it value. And humans, who are sentient, can then value themselves. Existentially.

Ethically speaking, our sentience is the only game in town, and so trying to argue against ethics by saying that they’re subjective is kind of pointless. They’re supposed to be subjective.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Harkenbane:
I was the one who labeled your argument a straw man, and I have seen no reason to change that assessment. You apparently believe that asserting a thing is the same as demonstrating a thing. You are incorrect.

You believe that the lack of objective value implis the lack of any value. This is also incorrect. Value is and has always been defined by subjective need, desire and experience. The same is true of any number of abstract and perceptual ideas. Nevertheless, numbers exist, as do art, pleasure, pain, friendship, love, apathy, etc.

As to courage and atheism: you apparently feel that declaring the uniiverse meaningless and puffing your chest out in pride at your “self-sufficiency” is the most courageous path to walk. I knew many sophmore philosophy majors who went through similar moments. For myself, I have always found that it takes more courage to create than to destroy. Fear is the curse of the artist in a subjective world. Any coward can hide behind a shield of nihilism. You risk nothing if nothing has value.

I do not think that when a person does things which do not please him, that it is necessarily insane. People with “divinely inspired” morality can easily do so without suffering this label from me as you have.

This is another example of your proclivity for straw men. Any altruistic act not “divinely inspired” is necessarily insane. Mybe. In the Harkenbane Zone. For the rest of the world insanity and altruism are not synonymous. Perhaps it would help if you actually developed your arguments instead of simply making unsupported declarative statements. If you decide to tackle this one, please be sure to address ideas of genetic survivability, societal success, prestige, group competition, etc. Modeling human evolution as a single organism, zero-sum game might lead to nice bumper stickers, but it is poor reasoning.

When your typical Bible thumping “I am saved” Christian does a good deed, he does it with no thought of reward.

Your grasp of psychology seems rather naive. There are numberous motivational forces which can conceivably be applid to a “saved” Christian doing good deeds. Among these is the positive feeling of self-worth often associated with helping another human being, the drive for prestige within a social group, the drive for approbal by figures of authority, the pride that can accompany an action in an area of expertise or accomplishment, etc. Interestingly enough, all of these same factors can also influence non-thumpers in their behavior.

People do not always do what will benefit them most. Some forgo their own happiness with logical reasons; others do not.

Do you presume to some preternatural ability to judge all proximate and ultimate consequences? Have you the ability to unerringly determine what course of action will bring the most benefit to a person? To a genome? To a family? What formula do you use to balance competing benefits? How do you weigh associative costs?

I assert that true morality has no ultimate benefit.

Yes, you do. What you do not do is offer any support for that pronouncement.

God allows for the great loophole in the idea that all morality is madness.

One does not require a loophole to escape from an idea that is so flimsily constructed. It is quite possible to simply walk throug one of the numerous gaps in the structure you have (almost) created.

You humans have all collectively decided that you have value because you yourselves want to have value, and speaking objectively, this is sheer nonsense.

You do not speak objectively. You speak subjectively. Objective value is nonsensical. It does not follow that value is nonsensical.

I have the courage to accept the possibility that I have no value. I challenge you to do the same.

I have the courage to find value and to thus risk losing things which are important to me. I challenge you to do the same.

I assert that one who wishes to be atheistic should divest himself of these religious trappings and stand up for himself as an unbeliever.

I am quite open about my atheism. However, your assertion that all atheists should behave in a manner that you find appropriate is laughable. Indeed, it reminds me greatly of one of my least favorite of religious trappings: orthodoxy.

If there is no morality, there is [no] morality. If there is no God, there is no God.

Morality is not dependent upon God. Your inability to accept a morality that is not reliant upon an absolute guiding princial means neither that such moralites do not exist nor that they are invalid.

Atheists, by contrast, are forever recreating religion in the time honored tradition of their forefathers by declaring that human beings have value and that morality exists and, thus, recreating the same repressive religious mindset which they went to such great lengths to renounce.

Accepting the truth, that value is subjective, is not “recreating religion in the time honored tradition of their forefathers”. Declaring that you have the “final truth”, that life is devoid of meaning and that all who believe differently are cowards or madmen, actually strikes me as a closer echo of “the same repressive religious mindset”.

[Harkenbane]

I admit that my argument is inherently offensive (certainly to an atheist who is trying to be moral) but I do not feel this an adequate excuse for any unwillingness to understand my posts. I am not arguing from a theistic stance but rather an atheistic one. Please refrain from assuming that anything I have to say depends on the existence of a God, since for the most part my posts were written from the standpoint that there is no necessary God.

Glitch

**
What religious trappings would that be? Is all belief inherently a “religious trapping”? You logic seems cyclical. All morality comes from religion/God, therefore those who claim to morality must have “religion”/God.
**

Anyone may claim to have morality without religion or God, but that morality is not sane. I refuse to argue with any more of your posts here until you demonstrate that you have read my essay and possess a basic grasp of my viewpoint.

Slythe

**
Are you trying to say that it’s easier to be an atheist in society? Where?
**

I have no idea how you could read this into my posts. Easier to be an atheist than to be what? If anything, I pointed out that life is more difficult as an atheist, since atheists must face a much harsher reality than most theists (who have their world sugar coated for them by a God who happily provides them with all the value they so crave), but still I don’t recall making any mention of society except to say that I didn’t care about it.

**

Your statement says basically that, because “God” created everything he created morality, and thus all morality stems from a believe in “God”.
**

“If.” Not “because.” And if there be a God, morality would not stem from belief in that God but rather from the assignment of morality by that God.

**

Two tiny little problems with that:

1. You have to prove that “God” exists for your statement to be valid.
   **

For the purposes of discussing the necessary relationship between insanity and morality, I argue from the viewpoint that there is no God. My point is made valid strictly because there may not be a God. If there were a God, then the question would no longer be “Is there (sane) morality?” but rather, “What does God say?” I really wish you were understanding me better.

**

2. Which “God”?
   **

Pick your favorite one (regardless of whether or not you believe in him) as long as he is omnipotent, and therefore infinite and absolute, and created the Earth. The God of the Jews, the God of the Christians, the God of the Mormons, or the God of the Muslims would work out fine for the sake of this discussion, just as would H.P. Lovecraft’s Azathoth (although Azathoth would provide a much simpler scenario, considering the idea that anyone who follows the tenets of an insane God is not particularly sane himself).
matt_mcl

**
Oh, you poor misguided Sartrean, you. As Kierkegaard quite amply demonstrated, it is possible to be existential without being a nihilist, such as yourself.
**

I am unfamiliar with the meanings of the words “Sartrean” and “Kierkegaard,” and would be happy if you would elaborate on your point for me. However, I am not a Nihilist. Does this disturb so many of you, to remain ignorant of my actual beliefs? It would be extremely difficult to explain concisely, since I am the only (known) follower of my particular religion. I am usually content to call myself a “Heretic,” but that explains very little and if anything comes off as being more offensive and combative than I already am. Please content yourselves with the idea that you are simply arguing with a mind, an internet persona, which reasons, listens, and requires refutation to be converted.

**
Your problem is rationalism: you believe that because human value does not objectively exist, then it can’t exist at all.
**

Of everyone so far, you’ve come closest to realizing what I am actually saying. Change the word “because” to “if” and you will have the heart of my argument.

**
It is perfectly true that humans have no particular objective value. That is true of everything. Nothing has any value unless there’s a sentience around to give it value. And humans, who are sentient, can then value themselves. Existentially.
Ethically speaking, our sentience is the only game in town, and so trying to argue against ethics by saying that they’re subjective is kind of pointless. They’re supposed to be subjective.
**

Very good; this reminds me of many arguments presented to me by some Pagan friends of mine a long time ago. I had never heard it applied to this particular arena; it is certainly not an idea I imagined would come up.

But as I stated before, one person’s view cannot be applied to anyone else, nor can this view survive after he is dead. The problem is that I believe in objective reality, for a variety of reasons, and hold that each person’s (including my own) subjective world is real only inasmuch as it coincides with the objective reality. This is actually an important conflict of ideas, which I believe you and I have, that is worth being discussed in much greater length elsewhere. For now I am arguing from the standpoint that there is an objective reality, and thus I can turn the equation around finally and say that “Assuming that there is a God who assigns value to his creation, there must be objective morality.”
Spiritus Mundi (Before you reply to this post, you should probably read the end of it.)

**
Harkenbane:
You apparently believe that asserting a thing is the same as demonstrating a thing. You are incorrect.
**

1. Although assertions are of little importance (unless they be true), they are, in this case, vastly more important than demonstration. Demonstrate to me that there is or is not a God, if you wish to show that demonstration is of any point whatsoever in this argument of logic.

2. Your assertion that I believe than assertion and demonstration are equatable is just that, and your assertion that I am incorrect to believe this (which I do not) is undemonstrated. You are simply irritating me.

**
As to courage and atheism: you apparently feel that declaring the uniiverse meaningless and puffing your chest out in pride at your “self-sufficiency” is the most courageous path to walk. I knew many sophmore philosophy majors who went through similar moments. For myself, I have always found that it takes more courage to create than to destroy. Fear is the curse of the artist in a subjective world. Any coward can hide behind a shield of nihilism. You risk nothing if nothing has value.
**

Human beings naturally desire affirmation. They need value. It is a part of their psychological makeup as mammals. If you do not agree on this point then I assume you must not have ever owned a pet or raised a child. If you feel that it is cowardly to devalue the criticism of others when you create art and are ridiculed, you are entitled to your position and I see no reason you are incorrect. Personally I was attempting with that little idea about courage to give these atheists some pride in their beliefs, as they seem to be unable to relinquish this basic need for value, but it is ultimately unimportant to me whether such a person feels good about himself or not.

**
Perhaps it would help if you actually developed your arguments instead of simply making unsupported declarative statements. If you decide to tackle this one, please be sure to address ideas of genetic survivability, societal success, prestige, group competition, etc.
**

I struggle to remain civil. You are displaying an unthinking, pedantic habit which you probably developed on the Straight Dope Message Boards, where it usually makes sense. However this is a logical, abstract debate on the nature of the universe, not one which can ultimately be won by evidence of any kind. My ideas of Egoism and Justification of Greed are hypotheses which are superfluous to the actual argument. There are beings, and they all live in a society, which may, or may not, have been created by an absolute God. That is all that needs to be demonstrated, and I will not demonstrate it. Everything else is peripheral.

**
Your grasp of psychology seems rather naive. There are numberous motivational forces which can conceivably be applid to a “saved” Christian doing good deeds. Among these is the positive feeling of self-worth often associated with helping another human being, the drive for prestige within a social group, the drive for approbal by figures of authority, the pride that can accompany an action in an area of expertise or accomplishment, etc. Interestingly enough, all of these same factors can also influence non-thumpers in their behavior.
**

1. Egoism. Yes, exactly as I said. I recall that I did not provide any evidence to demonstrate these ideas, and although you crave this evidence so strongly, you have failed to provide it yourself when you claimed these ideas as your own.

2. Did I ever say that Christians did not have to answer to psychological weaknesses along with their unbelieving brethren?

3. Nevertheless, as to your perception that my grasp on psychology is naive, the few “I am saved” Christians (a group which is, in my experience, distinct from the “Sunday” Christians) which I ever knew most certainly did behave in a truly moral manner, and while I was ultimately disgusted with them, and am not friends with any Christians at the moment, they were not self serving Egoists, so far as I could determine.

**

I assert that true morality has no ultimate benefit.

Yes, you do. What you do not do is offer any support for that pronouncement.
**

No, I do not. And you do not offer any support for your pronouncement that I do. I grow disinterested in your style of argument which I find hypocritical.

**
One does not require a loophole to escape from an idea that is so flimsily constructed. It is quite possible to simply walk through one of the numerous gaps in the structure you have (almost) created.
**

You have failed to do so. And I doubt that you will. By all means, Spiritus, continue to post as you wish, since I’m sure that many people in this thread are interested in your ideas. But I have no intention of responding to, or indeed reading from, anything else you have to say.

[Glitch]

Harkenbane, I understand your essay. It is, however, flawed because the base assumptions are not shown to have a logical basis. In particular, you have failed to show that an atheist cannot have a basis for morality that is equally as objective/absolute as that claimed by the theist. Hence, you have also failed to show that an atheist cannot have a valid, sane basis for valuing his fellow man.

[Glitch]

Hit submit reply to quickly.

Let’s work with the logical conclusions of your base assmuption.

If we assume that the humans are not capable of generating an objective value, which implies then that the atheistic value for his fellow man is subjective. We assume further since their is nothing intrinsic (like God) or a logical reason to give human beings value, that an atheist is not sane to value a human being subjectively.

Assuming this, we must conclude that the theist is not sane either. If we assume God and that God places an objective value of humans, then the theist inherits this objective value but only by applying a positive value to God. Is this value subjective or objective? If we assume that man is not capable of generating objective value (above), then we must conclude that either the value is subjective, and therefore equally “not sane”, or that the objective value is place there by something that is capable of generating objective value. This would be God. But if we assume that the objective value is placed by God, then we have a violation of free will i.e. God is placing objective positive values in some men towards himself.

Of course, your essay doesn’t say anything about free will, so can we conclude that it is okay as long as we assume no free will? Not remotely. Because in a universe lacking free will, the atheist’s value of his fellow man must have also been place by God, making it objective and therefore sane.

So, the conclusion is that either we are all sane because all our values are hard-coded by God. Or we are all insane because we have no reason for objectively valuing anything, either God or our fellow man.

Of course, there is another conclusion. That the lack of the ability to place objective value has nothing to do with the sanity of morality, and that human beings as naturally subjective beings are capable of generating or adopting subjective cores for their morality based on values that they do perceive in other things for logical & sound (i.e not insane) reasons.

[matt_mcl]

I am unfamiliar with the meanings of the words “Sartrean” and “Kierkegaard,” and would be happy if you would elaborate on your point for me. However, I am not a Nihilist.

I’m sorry. I assumed that since you were arguing their philosophies that you knew who they were. My mistake. (no sarcasm)

Kierkegaard advanced the existentialist philosophy, which states among other things that since there is no external, objective moral gold standard of any worth, people are free to come up with their own based on the dictates of their soul/psychology (this is my philosophy.)

Sartre advanced nihilism, which, if it really isn’t your philosophy, is awfully darn close. It said that, there being no external gold standard of any worth, no standard that human beings can follow is of any worth either. This is unfortunately a denial of human sentience and a forgetting of the fact that it is humans who give value to things anyway.

Of everyone so far, you’ve come closest to realizing what I am actually saying. Change the word “because” to “if” and you will have the heart of my argument.

Same difference.

Ethical values do not exist by any means other than being created by humans, in the same way that metres, kilograms, and dollars do not exist by any means other than being created by humans.

That being the case, the ‘if’ in your philosophy is already ‘because’.

But as I stated before, one person’s view cannot be applied to anyone else, nor can this view survive after he is dead.

Why is this a problem? My ethics exist, and they are of value because I, as a sentient (that is to say value-giving) human being, give them value as my ethics. They are the light of my path and the conscience of my character. Whether anybody else believes them or whether they will continue to exist after my death is irrelevant. I like to think that other people believe some of them, and that they will continue to exist in some form - my writings and the minds of my friends - after my death, but that’s irrelevant to the debate at hand.

The problem is that I believe in objective reality, for a variety of reasons, and hold that each person’s (including my own) subjective world is real only inasmuch as it coincides with the objective reality.

I haven’t fully developed my philosophy of the objective yet (give me a break - at my age, most people haven’t fully developed their philosophy of Britney Spears yet) but I know this much: the existence of objective reality is irrelevant to the debate over ethics. If an objective reality exists, it involves only facts. It can never involve worth because worth is perforce a creation of the human mind. So: an objective view of nature can’t forcibly give us ethics (pace Chomsky), nor can an objective God.

The existence of an objective world is irrelevant one way or another to ethics. It neither supports ethics nor tears them down. The trick is not to fear the human mind. This is existentialism.

Nihilism believes all of the preceding, but fears the human mind and the creative use of the subjective of which we are capable. The problem with this is that facts cannot tell us anything about the world. They are innocent brainless things that just sit there until we analyze them with a subjective philosophy.

Nihilism is part of rationalism. Rationalism believes that you can derive everything you need to know about the world from facts. Nihilism is aware that in the case of values, this is drawing blood from a stone.

Existentialism, which is that part of nihilism which is not rationalist, also is aware that it is drawing blood from a stone. Therefore, it looks for blood in the human heart, where it is more likely to find it. Pardon the extended metaphor.

I like you.

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

An impressive and very lucid post. If your posts in the Socialism thread were like this, it would make the discussion that much more interesting.

-VM

[matt_mcl]

Thank you, I think.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Harkenbane:

I have no intention of responding to, or indeed reading from, anything else you have to say.

Since you have stated that you believe having ethics would make you insane, I can hardly accuse you of hypocrisy in demonstrating such a lack of intellectual honesty. Instead I will simply observe that your profession of personal courage apparently does not extend to the realm of intellecual debate. This is, perhaps, not surprising since people are often afraid of that which they do not understand.

[matt_mcl]

It is, however, flawed because the base assumptions are not shown to have a logical basis.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a logical basis. Logic is a process for deriving conclusions from a basis. Reason is the use of logic upon a factual basis, but facts are not the only thing you can use logic on.