Also, there’s the fact that we are all the same species. Morality may not be objective, but we can treat a great deal of it as if it was objective because it is based on our shared biological and instinctive nature.
To use an example tied into your own argument; we as a species of individuals (as opposed to some hive species) value our own lives. Therefore, we can safely treat the life of everyone we meet as being valuable to them with little chance of them disagreeing with us; we can *act *as it was an objective rule, even though it isn’t. Some hypothetical hive aliens might disagree - but they aren’t here.
I have considered the idea that humans have hard-wired moral instincts, and I’ve found it wanting, for the reasons I have above. First of all, human societies have had vastly different moralities in different times and places. Secondly, even within one particular society such as modern American society, different individuals practice vastly different moralities.
I would have to disagree. I think that some basic notions of morality are so widespread as to be instinctive. The taboo against incest, or a certain degree of respect for property, or a reluctance to engage in violence against those within the tribe/clan/family.
Sure, there are exceptions to all of these…but they are pretty rare. And it has been suggested that significant exceptions can usually be ascribed to straitened circumstances. Respect for property diminishes in a time of severe famine, for instance.
And even then! David Quammen has an interesting essay, “The Desert is a Mnemonic Device,” where he notes that desert cultures often evolve a tradition of hospitality for strangers – the famous Bedouin ethic of hospitality is a powerful example – that promotes survival.
The fact that dogs and rats exhibit “good” behaviors suggests, to many of us, that such values may well come from instinctive levels of the brain. The fact that other animals – reptiles, most fish, most birds – don’t exhibit the same behaviors is also indicative.
Anyway, shrug: disagreement is at the heart of free will!
Agreed. What’s more meaningful? I volunteer in a soup kitchen because I want to suck up to a deity / get into heaven, or because I want to help people who would otherwise go hungry?
As for who defines good, I don’t see why society “can’t.”
If you’re only good because your god told you to be – and not because you want to be – I can’t say that I’d think you were genuinely very good.
I mentioned “enlightened self-interest”. That would be the “self-interest” part. If we have to break it down to the level of deciding whether or not I’m in favor of being murdered, I think we’ve lost sight of the bigger picture.
I could see how the word of God could serve to define what ‘good’ is, and to make clear which among the competing definitions (if any now extant) is the true one.
The problem is that we don’t have any comprehensive, universally-agreed upon account of what God thinks is good. (I’m an atheist who’s willing to respect your religion, but I’m not willing to concede that you speak for God. Just like you probably feel about religions that conflict with yours).
So us folks are reduced to arguing with each other about what God thinks, which to this atheist doesn’t look a whole lot different than arguing what ‘good’ is.
Until we can all agree on what God thinks is good, we’re reduced to dealing with other human beings to solve the matter.
Most societies agree on many things (murder and robbery are bad, etc.) This is a sign of progress. The fact that some religions regard alcohol as an important sacrament while others regard it as sinful shows that religion is also still working on this good/bad thing.
This. If I “do good,” it’s because I recognize that someone’s in need and I have the means to help . . . not because of some “commandment” or threat of retribution if I don’t. And in general, I don’t need the subjectivity of religion to guide my thoughts or actions.
But either is is or it is not an absolute statement. Either we can totally derive our definition of what is “good” from purely deductive logic without referencing an axiom or two (which was Shodan’s point, that it comes down to axioms) or we are in fact referencing an axiom. Deciding that surviving longer, or not dying via murder as opposed to dying by something else, is good, is axiomatic in your formulation.
This was my initial thought. My conflict is that while I’m agnostic, I was raised in a very fundamental Baptist sect. I grew up in a country (USA) where most of the social values reflect some aspects of Christian values. My concepts of what is right and what is wrong is certainly influenced by that. I don’t “need” God to ensure I make the right choices but I can’t deny that God (even if he only exists in my father’s mind) isn’t part of what makes me “good”. Of course, it is possible to have a society imprint those values independent of Christianity but that wasn’t my experience.
Atheists can have a moral code, but they can have no theoretical/philosophical justification for absolute morality nor can they have their moral failings redeemed.
Enemies shorten your life expectancy, and reduce your quality of life.
Friends lengthen your life expectancy, and improve your quality of life.
It is in your interest to make friends, and avoid making enemies.
Therefore, it is in your interest to be nice to people.
The choices you make have consequences, and the universe is not interested in your excuses. If you choose to play with fire, then don’t whine when you get burned.
If you think before you act, and you give “need” priority over “desire”, and you give “long-term” priority over “short-term”, then you end up with a behavior pattern that most bible-thumpers can get along with.
Atheists have no more or less problem declaring an “absolute morality” than theists, since anyone who claims such a thing exists is just making a baseless assertion anyway. And God is irrelevant to the question, since if morality is absolute it’s by definition true regardless of what your god’s opinion is on the matter. Nor do atheists have any more or less ability to “redeem their moral failings”.