I’m not sure that’s true. A lot of people are weak willed and cowardly. You could fuck them over at will without any fear of retribution.
No. Not the rules. In fact, the rules are sometimes so counter-intuitive that people commit logical fallacies. The rules are analytic. They are, in fact, arbitrary. Two systems of logic might even have different sets of rules.
It depends what your objective is. Just because you don’t believe in God or an afterlife doesn’t mean that the only thing left is hedonistic accumulation by any means. If that is you’re aim, then I suppose morals are indeed impractical and illogical. However, most people find their happiness in some other way.
See above. Also, some materialists might not be so sure about the nature of this “self” that is supposed to be served. A strict “me and them” delianation is, in some sense, arbitrary. In other words, a person might reasonably consider his “self” to include more than just the stuff encased by his physical body, while still not really believing in what we’d call a spiritual plane of existence.
Evidently. I’m not talking about anything that drastic. Commiting crimes could have pretty adverse effects.
That means you don’t want to be too obvious. I’m talking about something more subtle.
Now we’re getting close. If this body is all there is then why care about straving children in some other country. It just isn’t practical. Certainly protecting our self image can be self serving but I’m wondering , why give a shit about certain things.
A lot of companies now will do things we think are immoral, selfish, or unjust, for profit. Then they sponser something to put on their nice guy face. Seems totally smart and realistic if this is all there is.
Helping the poor. Hey, those lazy shits are responsible for their own lot in life. All I need to do is give them just enough so they don’t revolt. The sick, thats natural selection. As long as I have good insurance then who cares. Civil rights, hey, go with the majority, why waste time, energy, and money defending some group that has little to do with me.
According to atheists there is no long term. I need only do whats best for me and my immediate group for one single lifetime.
Maybe atheists have a just in case mechanism. I also have to wonder about legacy. “I want to leave something behind for future generations” Why? Maybe my own kids or grandkids, but after that who cares.
I didn’t say by any means. You’re right of course. Material wealth doesn’t motivate everybody. It would also be logical and reasonable to say. I’ve got enough. I don’t need enough money for ten lifetimes, only this one. I’m speaking of the more altuistic pursuits. Under atheism those seem illogocal and impractical.
Ahhhh, now we need to question the parameters of athesim. What fun.
Obviously there is reason for me to protect my immediate family, unless of course I have too many kids. In that case selling a couple for experiments might be the logical step.
Well, I think inane posts that take seriously the Healing Touch, aka Laying On Of Hands, and feeling the “life force” deserve no more than an inane response.
Congratulations. You succeeded.
Humans are social animals. In evolving our social structure, we have gained a sense of empathy. We feel bad when we see starving people, and we feel good when we do something to help them. Atheists have the same empathy module as everyone else.
You’ve stated before that you don’t believe in Christian heaven and hell. Do you believe in any differentiated afterlife (in punishment for the bad and reward for the good, for example)? If not, why do you do “altruistic” things?
- You are thinking of specific companies that you don’t like when you say this, right? Is it, then, necessarily really a smart strategy in the long term? I’m not talking about the this-life-plus-afterlife long term, I mean the life-of-the-company-rather-than-just-the-immediate-future long term.
- I’m not a company. I’m an individual. Individuals at a company have empathy, but the company as a whole does not.
Mostly empathy. Without religion, I have no reason to see other human beings as different enough from me to be denied rights. In addition to the empathy I feel toward them, if they can be denied rights for the color of their skin or their sexual orientation or whatever, I could logically be denied those same rights for something as arbitrary as, say, not believing in god, or not feeling a mystical connection to the rest of humanity. Even if it’s unlikely to happen to me, I can feel empathy toward future people in my situation.
I believe Miller was talking about the real-world long term. If I screw people over, it might not hurt me tomorrow, but it will likely hurt me in the long term–meaning before the end of my life.
Empathy, empathy, empathy. I’m programmed by evolution to care about other human beings, and that’s fine with me. I’m not going to fight against that programming, because it feels good to help other people… and because that programming makes people want to help me. I have no need of an invisible being hinting at what’s right, or a mystical connection that somehow makes me not want to screw people over.
Another explanation of all of this that just came to mind, but it’s more about why we have empathy and should just go with it than anything I ever think about when deciding to do or not do something: the Beautiful Mind bar-scene explanation of the Nash equilibrium. If we all do what we think is best for just us as individuals, we’ll end up worse than if we all do what’s best for us and each other. In the game of life, we score higher if we work with the other players than if we work against the other players.
Do you think that morals and honor are always logical and practical or are the reasons for these values a little more intangible?
Cite? (snort!)
You’re still assuming that serving one’s own needs must be the primary goal under atheism. That’s simply not the case. Deciding to focus on your own pleasure is no less arbitrary than deciding to focus on the betterment of all mankind. If the latter, or something approaching it, is one’s aim, then morals and altruism are perfectly reasonable.
-
There isn’t that much more reason to protect the interests of your family than to protect the interests everybody else. There’s an evolutionary imperative, but, as has been pointed out, the same imperative exists in regards to humanity in general (even if to a lesser extent).
-
More importantly, I wasn’t referring to one’s family when I talked about the boundaries of the “self.” I was referring humanity, or the world, or the universe in general.
Beggars in Spain. It is impossible to know, right now, the ultimate potential of any single human in dire circumstances. Why should I care about ending famine and building schools in Africa? Because that starving kid being pestered by Sally Struthers today might grow up to be the guy who cures cancer in twenty years. Or he might be a famous musician. Or he might just be a regular, middle class schmoe, who goes to work in a factory and makes affordable DVD players for me to buy. Global prosperity helps everyone. That’s why it’s, y’know… global.
Or I could just let him starve and be illiterate. His country will be over-run by bandits and terrorists, who at worst may use it as a basis for attacking my country, and who at the very least will make their country too dangerous and disease-ridden to be safely visited, and I won’t ever be able to go there on vacation and see the giraffes. Which would suck, because giraffes are neat.
Because none of us has any sort of a guarantee that we, personally, will never be the guy under the boot. No matter how much we have going for us right now, we could lose it all tomorrow. Therefore, it behooves us all to make sure that society is designed in such a way as to help everyone, everywhere, who is less fortunate than ourselves, if for no other reason than as security for ourselves in case our lives ever goes tits up.
Pick any Pope.
That seems logical and believeable. The problem is if empathy is a part of evolution then why don’t we see more of it.
I don’t believe in a reward and punishment kind of spirituality. It’s more a matter of the who we truly are. We are spiritual beings and part of the same spiritual body. Like the cells in our own bodies of the drops of water that make up the ocean. Being good to others is being good to a part of myself. Taking responsibility for myself and being good to myself is doing whats best for others
[QUOTE]
As I said, that only means you have to be smart and subtle. You don’t want them to know you’re screwing them over. In fact looking out for number one is not considered screwing people over at all is it?
I don’t agree. We may indeed be programed with some empathy but looking at the condition of the world I’d say not much. There could be other influences. People who used to be believers and have lingering guilt. Just plain programing from our culture. My question is are those feelings logical, and reasonable if we really believe this short physical life is it.
I’d have to see that again. I can’t remember all of it. It certainly is logical to work together on certain things. According to my own beliefs it is perfectly logical to do what is the most positive for others.
Good question. It seems to me that our decision making comes from what we believe. We have concious beliefs and subconscious beliefs. Some religions teach that we seek to make all our decisions conscious ones. To see life clearly for what it is.
I would say that if we make our choices based largely on our subconscious beliefs then that might be considered intangible. Others believe the Holy Spirit calls to all of us from within.
I’m not assuming anything as fact. I’m just questioning. So morals are arbitrary? Do we draw them at random out an evolutionary hat?
- There isn’t that much more reason to protect the interests of your family than to protect the interests everybody else. There’s an evolutionary imperative, but, as has been pointed out, the same imperative exists in regards to humanity in general (even if to a lesser extent). There is. I thought evolution would tell us to leave the sick behind and not waste resources on them. I thought evolution would tell us to not value those who don’t contribute much?
Thats a stretch. Self might be reffering to humanity? What kind of spiritual mumbo jumbo is that?
He probably has an equal chance of being the guy who breaks into your house and steals your DVD player.
I thought you were full of crap up until this point. This however is a compelling arguement. Giraffes are neat. Not to mention the monkees. I likes the monkees 
It’s a great thought but pretty impractical. We have no gaurentee that anyone we help will in turn help us. It’a vague hope at best.
I’ve heard a number of people define “spiritual” in this way. The problem I find here is that for those who don’t believe in a higher power, the connotation the word has is that of a spirit being, i.e., a consciousness that exists in a disembodied form. In this way, the word “spiritual” simply doesn’t work for me.
I do believe that we are, in one way or another, connected to every person and every thing on the planet. It is more of a “we’re all in this together” approach. It is a sense of responsibility and humanity-based equality that I have chosen to adopt.
I believe that we all share in a need for love and beauty. I believe that artistic expression is the way that we connect emotionally with one another to communicate our bond with other human beings. I believe that through art, we can find a common bond that connects our minds and hearts, and gives us a deeper understanding of the world and its inhabitants. I also believe that this is a direct communication – from one mind to another – and has no need for a spirit conduit to make the connection.
I use the term God but I have no problem with your description here. I certainly don’t see God as some external being out there that we have to appease and obey. I tell my christian friends that that kind of language that permeates christian literature and conversation is only holding them back.
I try not to let semantics seperate me from others so if someone says pray and someone says meditate I see them as the same purpose. God for me is whatever that connection between us is. I only have ideas about it. I don’t pretend to know.
We use words to express things that are hard to describe. I call the Holy Spirit the voice of God within us all. It is merely the words I choose to express our connection. We can and do communicate on a much deeper level than mere words. I’m a muscian and I love those moments when music breaks down the barriers between people. Nature can help us feel that connection. I’ve seen other moments, even moments of sorrow or crisis where the inner self rises above the fear of the moment. Moments of incredible kindness and unselfish giving where the sense of that connection you speak of is almost tangible. It’s a beautiful thing.
They’re not random. They are based, among other things, however, on certain arbitrary assumptions.
Maybe you’re not assuming, but your statement that altruism seemed to make no sense under atheism was based on the assumption that self-interest had to be the main good under atheism. That assumption is faulty. Do you see why?
You’d be wrong, apparently. Instances of human societies in history leaving the infirm to fend for themselves are the exception, not the rule.
Mystical mumbo-jumbo, actually, not necessarily spiritual, though at that point it’s really a matter of how you want to use the words (see the posts by Kalhoun and yourself above mine, e.g.).
Regarding your response to Miller, a couple of points.
First, did you really think that his argument that global prosperity helps everyone was “full of crap”?
Second, are you familiar with the Prisoner’s Dilemna? From the link:
Another way of looking at it is that, by cooperative action, we bring more total value into society, hence everyone’s expected value goes up.
You asked where morals come from for an aitheist, and are they as irrational for him as they seem? You’ve been given several good answers. An atheist may value the welfare of others as much as or more than his own welfare – this is in no way less rational than valuing his own self-interest most. He may (particularly if he follows certain Eastern modes of thought) have a very different conception of the “self” than others. He could believe that rational cooperative action is better for him in the long run than rationally self-interested action. Any or all of these things could be true.
Are you unsatisfied with these explanations?