Atheists are NOT just another religion

The BBQ Pit
361

A while back, a poster named TVAA argued that there is an objective morality of sorts, on the basis that morality is subject to evolution along with the other little built-in rewards and punishments that guide our behaviour. By his logic, the raping murderous society will eventually be out-competed by the more empathic, less selfish society (probably because the raping murderers can’t work together effectively.)

Games with cellular automata show that mindless entities operating in very simple universes can develop “morality” of a kind. When the automata interact, they can choose to “co-operate” or “welch”. Welching on a co-operator gets the most reward, mutual co-operation gets the second highest reward, mutual welching gets both automata screwed, and co-operating with a welcher (being played for a sucker) gets the co-operator royally screwed.

Under these rules, the most successful strategy is to co-operate on the first interaction with an automaton, and every encounter afterwards to do what it did last time. This is the famous “tit-for-tat”. Although “tit for tat” is hardly what we would normally think of as “moral”, it works better than simple “always welch”. “Tit-for-tat” automata accumulate more rewards than “always welch” or “always co-operate”. If you start with an assortment of automata and let them reproduce when they reach a certain score, “tit-for-tat” will simply outbreed the other strategies.

No on-line cite, but I’ve read it gets more interesting when we allow misunderstanding in the model universe that cause accidental bad interactions between the cellular automata. This is closer to the type of universe we know - you can be getting on fine with your neighbour until you accidentally scrape their car!

In this error-prone universe, “tit-for-tat-plus-random-forgiveness” works better than simple “tit for tat”. This is because simple “tit-for-tat” populations tend to get locked into unbreakable cycles of retribution due to misunderstandings. And both still work better than “always screw everyone”.

“Tit-for-tat-plus-random-forgiveness” isn’t too far from simple human moral codes. Work with people who worked with you before, punish transgressors, sometimes let bygones be bygones and try and re-establish good relations. Note that this doesn’t involve emotion or even sentience - it’s simply that some moral codes promote survival and reproduction more than others.

362

If I, an atheist, didn’t think that Negative Rule Utilitarianism (or whatever) was a superior morality to theistic biblical traditionalism (or whatever), why, I would be a theist! The axioms on which one bases one’s position are themselves subject to disagreement. Theists might disagree with my axioms (suffering ought to be minimised), I disagree with theirs (God exists). Axioms, by definition, cannot be proven.

363

He says so.

To judge others is to express a preference as to how they act, is it not?

Broadly, yes; and by the way, I believe he does.

364

Diogenes the Cynic may correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that he most certainly did not say that he wants you to follow his moral code. How is he even to communicate to you, with perfect fidelity, what his moral code is? With all due respect, I believe that you have misrepresented his position.

Well, I would hope that, if we are to be members of the same society, that our moral codes should be similar. But I’ve never even met you (to my knowdedge) - how do I know, broadly, what your moral code is?

365

But I do like ham (full disclosure: I actually don’t like ham). I can show that statement to be true, I just said it. Unless there’s some other definition of “true” that I should be aware of, or unless you are calling me a liar.

Are you even reading the posts?

[QUOTE=Schuyler]
I’ll ask again:
[ol]
[li]Do theists consider the only righteous form of authority to establish a moral code to be external and supernatural?[/li][li]If someone’s behavior is substantially in agreement with what you consider to be your moral code, does it matter [to you] from where they perceive the authority deriving that code? Would you consider that person to be a moral person?[/li][li]If someone’s behavior is substantially different from what you consider to be actions consistent with your moral code, would you consider that person to be an immoral person? In your consideration, does it mitigate the morality of their actions if they perceive the same authority as do you in deriving the moral code under which they act?[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]

366

Preference does not equal either expectation or obligation to anybody else. I can hope that your moral aesthetic is the same as mine but I can’t dictate it.

I don’t expect you to view things morally the same as I do but I can deal with you reactively if I believe my own moral system obliges me to do so, and you can do the same with me.

What other standard are you suggesting we should both adhere to other than our own subjective moral aesthetics. What alternative is there?

367

None and none. What I am saying is that to judge others is to hold your standard to be more than an aesthetic preference. We say and mean “this is right” and “this is wrong”.

368

Right and wrong ARE aesthetic preferences. They mean nothing beyond the subjective. The ability to subjectively “judge” the actions of others according to my own moral aesthetic is completely within my purview. So is (in some circumstance) reacting to the behavior of others in a way I feel is morally imperative.

I think you have to draw a distinction between feeling morally free to judge or respond to behavior and the ability to affect or change someone else’s personal moral aesthetic. Under my moral system, they are allowed to THINK whatever they want. What they feel subjectively is not in my purview. What they DO sometimes IS.

369

In some situations you would say “Do the right thing or I’ll make you do it”. How is this diferent from saying it is obligatory?

370

That does make sense - but however, you’ve missed something. Your approach assumes that it is moral to continue the species, for humanity to survive. It isn’t. It’s practical for the species to survive, but not moral. A person could think it was moral that their society dies, or that they are out-competed - thus the statement that “There is an objective morality, and it is based around the species surviving” is also useless - who’s to say that a person might think it moral for their society to die out? TVAA’s logic is sound, but based upon the incorrect assumption that the survival of the species is moral. It is - but only to us - and so is as subjective as everything else.

371

No. I would never say “do the right thing” as such. The most I’m saying is that, in some extreme circumstances, I might feel morally compelled to prevent somebody from doing a wrong thing.

Nothing is obligatory to anyone else. I’m only talking about what is obligatory to me. I am morally obliged to prevent harm to others if I have the ability. If another person is acting in a manner which is harmful to someone else (or myself, for that matter) then (with some qualifications) I have a moral imperative to prevent that harm if I am able. It’s about stopping the harm, not controlling another person’s moral aesthetic.

372

And I would add that it’s impossible to COMPEL someone to accept a particular moral aesthetic anyway. You can compel their behavior, but not their belief. If you want to change someone’s morals you have to do it through argument and persuation.

A lot of the discourse in Great Debates and the BBQ Pit is exactly this: Arguments between competing moral aesthetics as to which is superior.

373

Untrue. I did not say, suggest, nor do I beleive that. I am asking about the derivation or foundation of moral decisions for atheists, which is an entirely different thing.

Nonsense. I am fully aware that the basis of morality is not objective for theists.

374

I’ve quoted this in it’s entirety because you’ve put your finger on the crux of the problem… as I see it.

Your system, an atheistic system derives morality by popular consensus. According to your system if everybody decides that eating baby’s is moral… than it is.

The gist of it is that morality is decided by consensus.
This may in fact be true. It does however lead to some interesting consequences. Not long ago discrimination and even slavery were considered acceptable and moral by majorities in many societies. As you’ve outlined the system you’re describing as long as those majorities existed, it was moral.
This ummmm, may in fact be an accurate assesment of the foundations of moral systems no matter how distasteful it looks.
I however think differently. I dismiss moral relativism, and beleive that there are moral absolutes, and these rules exist and are correct independant of one’s personal beliefs or the consensus beliefs of a given population.

For example, I beleive that breeding and raising human children so that they may be slaughtered and eaten as a gourmet food is inherently evil, and that no amount of rationalization or popular support can make it moral.

(I chose something so out there that I think we can all agree on it.)

I think that right and wrong exist independant or our personal opinions, and that to be moral people we must act in respect to this.

To build my moral code, I start with the premise that there is a creator and the moral code derives from that creator, and that it is knowable and discernable to me and all others who seek it. More importantly, I believe that all others who seek it are working on solving the same equation and that there is or are right answers to be found and wrong answers.

I do not beleive the rightness and wrongness is completely relative or subjective.

I would be curious if your concept of moral relativism or morality by popular vote is the consensus among atheists, or, if atheists too believe that morality is absolute.
(I’m glad you read the article)

375

No, it derives morality in exactly the same way as theists, by pure intuition and personal aesthetic. It also derives cultural mores and standards of behavior from popular consensus (just like theists) but cultural standards are a completely different animal than personal morality. I’ve never derived a single moral thought from any fucking consensus.

376

Sort of. It’s certainly moral to them. It’s not moral to us. The difference in this case would be, as it’s the majority morality, they would be fine legislating as a society to allow baby eating.

No. Morality is decided by the individual. Consensus determines the majority morality - in which most people are forced to comprimise and give up some things they’d be able to do normally in exchange for protection or aid.

No. It was moral to those people. It is not moral to us. There is no “At that time, it was moral”, only “at that time, the marjority morality agreed it was moral”. And the majority morality today disagrees.

Definetly distasteful - i’d much prefer a deity that sets a moral standard. However, i’d want that deity to have a moral standard close to mine - as, I imagine, would everyone else.

Very well. I disagree - I do not think there are moral absolutes.

Again, I disagree. It is only evil from our viewpoint - from other’s, it may be moral.

Sorry. It can be as out there as you like, and it’d still not be evil objectively - only from our viewpoints.

I do not think that right and wrong exist independant of our personal opinions. I believe they are a part of ourselves - and that to be moral people we must follow our own moral code.

Actually, you make an additional assumption; that the moral code provided by that deity is the “correct” and “valid” one. Cthulhu could exist, but any moral code set out by him I would imagine you’d call “incorrect”.

Acceptable.

I do.

I, personally, am an agnostic, and this is personally what I believe. I cannot speak for other athiests. I can’t myself say how one could reconcile both athiesm and a concept of moral objectivism, because it would entail believing in a “cosmis moral standard”, which seems to me as though it would have to be spiritual in nature - although i’m sure it could be argued that athiests can believe in the spiritual but not deities.

Sure. It was definetly interesting, even if I didn’t agree with it. Feel free to suggest anything else you find informative.

377

You can’t even compel your own belief, even if you would prefer to believe something you don’t believe.

Diogenes seems to be saying he never wants to do this, which I find rather strange.

It may not be a consensus view, but an absolute morality is conceivable without a theistic worldview.

378

I agree that that is evil. I wish I could go along with the adjective “inherent.” But because you can I feel compelled to ask if the following actions also are “inherently” evil, and if not, can you explain the difference?

Is it inherently evil to firebomb a city, knowing with absolute certainly that it will cause many human children to die in anguish?

Is it inherently evil to attack a city and kill all the occupants, including the children, because you believe your god wants you to do so?

Is it inherently evil to be willing to ritually sacrifice your only child, because you believe it to be the will of Yahweh?

~Baal~

379

Diogenes:

I think that would make you unique.

Where does this moral aesthetic come from? How do you derive it?

It’s not unsupportable. There are only several possibilities:

  1. The universe was created by a creator.
  2. It created itself or just happened
  3. The idea that it needs a creator is flawed and it simply always existed
  4. It does not exist.

If we take scientific thought back to the Big Bang, we still have an unknowable incident. What created the Big Bang? By definition, there was nothing before it. It’s an event without causation. What precipitates such an event is as good a definition of God as you’ll likely find.

So, there’s some support. However, choosing any other possiblity from the list is equally supported or unsupported as the case may be, maybe less so unless you care to speculate on what caused the uncausable.

Yes. I said as much. I simply beleive it, as an article of faith. I’ve selected the possibility that a God exists, a moral code exists and that it is discernible from a group of equally nonobjective nonsupportable suppositions, simply because that seems to make the most sense and be the most useful explanation. Provide me with an explanation that another explanation is more supportable and useful than the one that I’ve chosen and I’d likely change my mind. I have before.

I don’t understand why you’re being an asshole. I did not claim my beliefs were provable and beleive I’ve already said or implied they weren’t. It is in a tenant of most brands of theism that faith is necessary. With proof there is no need for faith. I can’t know it’s true. I can simply beleive.

You seem stuck on this issue. I believe that it is not.

That’s semantics bullshit. You can call it “subjective morality” or “moral relativism,” for all I care. Unless you provide me with a useful distinction or grounds for your objection to the term, you’re just handwaving.

So you say. Revenant doesn’t appear to agree. Belittling my theism does nothing to improve your arguments, you know.

I don’t know. My guess, not all, all the time.

380

Revenant:

We seem to be getting to the point where we understand each other and where our beliefs diverge and are not reconcilable. Cool.

Cthulu is not God. He’s not even a God. Having read much of the Cthulu mythos it seems that Cthulu is just an alien and possibly a transdimensial one. He doesn’t fit the definition of God.

To not ignore your point, let’s look at Mumbo Jumbo, the Creator/Supreme God of a hypothetical headhunter tribe. Is headhunting then moral?

If Mumbo Jumbo is real, and is the creator, and headhunting is moral, than he would create a universe in which the positive morality of hunting would be evident or discernable.

To flesh out my argument a little further. I beleive that morality is discernable just as the laws of physics are discernable. In Mumbo Jumbo’s universe, a group of morally committed non-headhunters would be able to discern that morality of headhunting.

I agree. Nor do I think it’s a weakness in atheism. It’s just a choice of what you beleive.