Atheism and morality

[Edric O]

There's an argument that has been building in my head for quite some time, and it goes like this: Atheism leads to subjective morality, and subjective morality leads to immoral behaviour and the disintegration of society.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying atheists are immoral. I'm saying atheists have no ground on which to stop other people from being immoral.

In logical steps, my argument is as follows:

1. Society cannot exist without some laws or norms of conduct between people.

2. Laws and norms of conduct are only legitimate if backed by objective morality.

3. Objective morality can only exist if backed by some supernatural force (not necessarily the Christian God in particular; I am arguing against atheism, not for Christianity).

Without objective morality we have no reason to obey laws and norms. Your personal moral code may happen to be the same as society's moral code, but how can you legitimately stop other people with different moral codes from breaking society's laws and norms? Let's say there is someone who believes all Canadians are evil and must be killed. Without objective morality, what would you say to such a man? That killing is wrong? That is a moral judgement. It may be wrong to you, but he obviously disagrees. Will you say that killing is against the law? But why should he obey the law? In fact, why should we have any laws at all? Laws are always based on moral assumptions (for example, murder is illegal because it is believed to be bad). So if you give up all objective morality, you must give up social order. And as far as I know, atheism forces you to give up objective morality.

Thus, atheism leads to the conclusion that all social order is illegitimate. Any rational, consistent atheist must be an anarchist. If you do not wish to be an anarchist then you must give up atheism.

For the atheists who wish to debate this, I will even give you some pointers, though I doubt they will do you any good. There are two lines of defense that you could try to bring up:

First line of defense: You must successfully argue that objective morality can exist without being backed by a supernatural force. I have never seen any remotely good argument to support this. All attempts to build an atheist version of objective morality come down to "most people agree with some basic moral principles..." But, of course, "most people" is not good enough. It's an argument from common opinion, which is a fallacy.

Second line of defense: If you either lose the first argument or are willing to give up objective morality voluntarily, you must then explain why we should obey any social norms or laws. After all, if morality is subjective, then society has no grounds on which to impose a moral code on its members. And if society cannot impose a moral code on its members, then we have no moral reason to obey any laws. I have no moral reason to refrain from killing you if I can get away with it (and if killing you fits into my personal subjective moral code).

[Wolf]

Or, they could argue something else. The problem that we're trying to work out here is the process of getting atheists to intervene to halt the objectively (by whatever standard) immoral behavior of others, such as brought up in example, genocide. That is, if I understand the locus of Edric's argument correctly.

The tack I would take then, is to argue that obejctive morality is not necessarily needed to get atheists to intervene in correcting the behavior of others. We could argue that a form of enlightened self-interest is all that is necessary to motivate the atheist to act as needed. In the case of killing Canadians for their myriad flaws, both large and small, an athiest acting in self-interest would realize that any person or group of people capable of achieving an internally-rational justification for genocide is not simply a threat to their first, chosen target group. Rather, such people capable of such ideology are a threat to all members of the human race, as it would become obvious to the rational athiest that a relatively small and painless logical jump is required to move from killing Canadians to, say, Alaskans or New Englanders. And from there, why not all people from the Northern United States -- just to be sure? People acting in enlightened self-interest tend to promote a stable society where laws are practically-formed and consistently executed. This is why religious believers as well as athiests are able to work together in achieving many of the same laws and societal goals; it is because they are acting in their rational self-interest to promote a society of positive influences. This is because they are all rationally self-interested, and, let's be frank, peace is good for business.

[Edric O]

You assume that the objectively immoral behaviour would necessarily go against the atheist's enlightened self-interest. Essentially, you assume that the immoral behaviour is highly volatile, such that the atheist fears it might be directed against him some day and therefore wants to stop it. But that is not always true. Let me use a different example to demonstrate: slavery. Let's think of a situation where slavery is defined in strictly racial terms, such as in the old American South. There is absolutely no possibility that this slavery might "backfire". A white man cannot be a slave. So, is there any reason why a white atheist would want to stop the practice of slavery?

Self-interest of any kind, no matter how enlightened, will only prevent immoral behaviour if:

(a) People actually recognize the behaviour as harmful (note that some immoral behaviour may be pleasurable to the people involved, such as, say, orgies).

(b) The self-interested person we are looking at has a reasonable expectation that this behaviour might be directed against him in the future.

To put it another way, you are trying to use enlightened self-interest as the basis for "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". But this does not work, because self-interested people often do onto others things they would not like to be done onto them.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Taoists refer to higher effectiveness by acting in the ways that you would describe as being moral, and predominantly agnostic or atheist societies tend toward this as a matter of common sense. Societies function perfectly well without insisting on theist police, lawyers, judges, doctors politicians and businessmen.

Your so-called objective morality is an impossible concept as there is no measurable proof of god's existence. How can you measure one's actions against a code that for all intents and purposes could be completely made up? We are all necessarily subjective beings, especially as western patterns of thought-training have separated subject and object since Greek times. You can only be in one place at one time, and you can only inhabit your own mind and senses.

If anything, theism has proved time and time again to be the very cause of amorality through its promise of afterlife and reward and or forgiveness/absolution for the actions precribed by religious leaders. Ever hear of the "indulgences" sold by the Catholic church in pre-rennaisance times? Ever heard of "fatwa", "jihad", the IRA, Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing or the Spanish Inquisition? Do you think George Bush is a wiser and more just leader because of his religious convictions?

I'd love to hear Salman Rushdie's response to your propositions.

I think you are confusing atheism with anarchism or relativism within a deranged mind. An anarchist can only survive as a savage, except if indulged by society. Even animals in the wild behave according to a social order as it assists their survival, yet they have no laws, no religious instruction etc. Sure they fight, but over exactly the same stuff that we do: food, territory, women and ascendancy. They don't all carry on like orcs or reavers all of the time.

What stops me from acting like a criminal idiot is common sense and mutual respect, not love or fear of god.

[Darth Kwisatz]

I can see what you're up to. You're using us to craft more cunning arguments for the purpose of converting the stupid over to your belief system elsewhere, or imposing it. Go right ahead, because stupid people wear religious belief like fashionable clothes.

There are some pretty smart people who don't accept coincidence as being a sufficient building block for the origins life and I accept that. Theism is no indicator of absolute truth as the foundation of law for the simple reason that laws even within religious systems constantly evolve, and are as diverse as race or language. The whole contention is nonsense.

[Edric O]

Societies function perfectly well without insisting on theist police, lawyers, judges, doctors politicians and businessmen.

All human societies, past and present, have been composed mostly of theists. To my knowledge there is no country with a majority atheist population, and certainly not one that has had a large number of atheists for a significant length of time.

Mass atheism is a very recent phenomenon. I am arguing that it will lead to social collapse if it continues to grow, but this collapse will not come right away. An atheist society may still follow many of the moral rules of its religious ancestors for several generations, as a matter of tradition. But as that tradition fades, the atheist society will eventually collapse.

Your so-called objective morality is an impossible concept...

That is not the issue here. I am not arguing for objective morality and religion, I am arguing against moral relativism and atheism. If my argument is correct, then it proves that you must believe in some form of the supernatural in order to support society as we know it. That is all that this particular argument proves. No more, no less.

If anything, theism has proved time and time again to be the very cause of amorality through its promise of afterlife and reward and or forgiveness/absolution for the actions precribed by religious leaders. Ever hear of the "indulgences" sold by the Catholic church in pre-rennaisance times? Ever heard of "fatwa", "jihad", the IRA, Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing or the Spanish Inquisition? Do you think George Bush is a wiser and more just leader because of his religious convictions?

You cannot speak of amorality or immorality if you have no objective moral standard to go by. If there is no absolute morality, then who are you to say that indulgences, fatwas, jihads, the IRA, or Yugoslav ethnic cleansing are wrong? Wrong by what standard?

I think you are confusing atheism with anarchism or relativism within a deranged mind. An anarchist can only survive as a savage, except if indulged by society. Even animals in the wild behave according to a social order as it assists their survival, yet they have no laws, no religious instruction etc. Sure they fight, but over exactly the same stuff that we do: food, territory, women and ascendancy. They don't all carry on like orcs or reavers all of the time.

No, but I doubt you would want human society to be structured like a group of chimpanzees. Besides, we are talking about reason and logic here. Animals may act against reason. You do not have that luxury (at least not as long as reason is your justification for rejecting religion; if you are willing to give up the claim of being rational then my work here is done).

What stops me from acting like a criminal idiot is common sense and mutual respect, not love or fear of god.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

- Albert Einstein

You have not given an answer, you have only tried to hide behind a smokescreen to avoid the implications of moral relativism. What is "common sense" and why should people respect each other? I am not saying atheists necessarily act like savages; I am saying you have no ground on which to prevent other people from acting like savages if they so desire. You may not be a criminal idiot, but what right do you have to call other people "criminal idiots" if their moral code - which is no better or worse than yours, because there is no God - tells them to kill people?

If morality is relative, then you have no right to call the actions of others "good" or "bad". They are good by some standards and bad by other standards.

[Edric O]

I can see what you're up to. You're using us to craft more cunning arguments for the purpose of converting the stupid over to your belief system elsewhere, or imposing it. Go right ahead, because stupid people wear religious belief like fashionable clothes.

I am glad you are displaying your intellectual superiority by attacking my person rather than trying to refute my argument. I am especially pleased by your astute observation that I am trying to persuade people to stop being atheists. What gave it away?

There are some pretty smart people who don't accept coincidence as being a sufficient building block for the origins life and I accept that. Theism is no indicator of absolute truth as the foundation of law for the simple reason that laws even within religious systems constantly evolve, and are as diverse as race or language. The whole contention is nonsense.

Again, I am not arguing for objective morality and religion, I am arguing against moral relativism and atheism. If my argument is correct, then it proves that you must believe in some form of the supernatural in order to support society as we know it. That is all that this particular argument proves. No more, no less.

[Darth Kwisatz]

I was saying that you could only convert the stupid, not that you were. I'm pleased though that you were insulted as I gave a dollar to the Salvation Army, so god owes me a tilt at a christian.

I don't subscribe to notions of good or bad. Effectiveness is that which assists the harmonious, sustainable survival of the species, and that is a subjective biological imperative only. Too bad, so sad if it doesn't happen. My preference is for it to happen as a matter of comfort.

You are confusing reason with desire, which is the prime motivation after survival, even in animals. Competition keeps them on their toes, and us too. Morality is a language to restrain the worst effects of competition, but so is justice.

You cannot argue against one (atheism) without implicitly advancing the other where you allow only one alternative (theism). You cannot empty a glass without filling it with air.

I should have said "uncommon sense", but I was being generous in ascribing sense in this case. Quoting Einstein doesn't make you Einstein.

The inviolable link I'd really like to see you establish, and I think it impossible, is between morality, theism, and god if there is either and/or any such thing, except as a convenient construct for a specific social milieu.

I don't disagree with you that theism is a political tool that assists the preservation of some social, political and economic systems, and the Nazis borrowed heavily of it in constructing their "thousand year Reich". Fear of outside threats (Communism versus hell in the god-myth), intolerance of marginal insiders (Jews versus sinners in the god-myth), invocation of romantic, more ancient myths, a charismatic leader, and an extremely robust bureacracy to ensure succession of the leader. The thing that immunises the churches from collapse is that the threats are other-worldly and imagined. The collapse of communism in eastern Europe would have spelt the eventual end of Nazism even if Hitler had won WWII and assuming the Hitler Youth had produced sufficient quantities of babies to later enslave his conquered enemies. That is, unless Germany had become a global super power and maintained the fear factor by stirring up China.

Having the ingredients of a convenient and perhaps perfect political tool in theism is like having the perfect economic system in capitalism, and the perfect device for land transport in the wheel. Perfect like cockroaches or mosquitoes as indefatigable products of evolution, but without intrinsic value. It doesn't, however, prove the myth. It proves the utility of the myth. People fear disorder, and a religion of unquantifiable promise is the perfect vehicle to unite them behind a leader promising to restore order. Nothing more.   

Religion was also used to preserve the succession of monarchs otherwise faced with wars of conquest, by suggesting that the monarch was anaointed by god for waging holy war in god's name. Empires get around that by all invoking god's name. Religion is enjoying a resurgence now to apply, OR BE SEEN TO APPLY, political pressure to restrain both the competitive effects of capitalism, and the effects of escapist degeneracy in those who profit least from capitalism. It don't prove there's a god.

If morality is nothing more than a set of rules, as opposed to virtues and attributes of character, then this god of yours better get himself down here to prove himself firstly, and then to set us straight on what the rules actually are. Otherwise the whole argument is moot.

[MrFlibble]

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying atheists are immoral. I'm saying atheists have no ground on which to stop other people from being immoral.

<...>

Thus, atheism leads to the conclusion that all social order is illegitimate. Any rational, consistent atheist must be an anarchist. If you do not wish to be an anarchist then you must give up atheism.

These statements seem a bit too generalized to me. Grouping people into the "atheists" class is very relative and, besides, the term itself must be defined. Are "atheists" those who do not believe in God or those who do not belong to certain religion(s)? In any case, "atheists" will be such a diverse group that any generalizing will become simplification.

1. Society cannot exist without some laws or norms of conduct between people.

2. Laws and norms of conduct are only legitimate if backed by objective morality.

3. Objective morality can only exist if backed by some supernatural force (not necessarily the Christian God in particular; I am arguing against atheism, not for Christianity).

I totally agree with #1 and #3, but I believe #2 is oversimplifying the real situation. Any society imposes certain rules of conduct upon its members, otherwise it won't be able to function. Any child that grows up in a society comes to know the "do's" and "don't's" very early. The parents' authority (which often goes unquestioned), fear of punishment, or, conversely, encouragement from the parents - all these (and many other) factors that influence a child's behavior form models of conduct that a person will rely upon throughout their lives. This is where "common sense" comes from, and I can only agree with Einstein here; but you can only wonder how strongly this "collection of prejudices" affects one's social behavior.

Thus, I would rather talk about "social morality", rather than "objective morality". Although traditional societies tend to rely on religion in moral questions, societies of modern type have to deal with diverse groups of people, and therefore more and more ways (along with religion) to maintain social order are used. Also, I'd like to add that the notion of tradition is more important for social existence: both general rules of social behavior and religion are part of a tradition. Tradition acts as a unifying force, as it maintains social integrity both in time and space. An "atheist" may be excluded from the religious aspect of a tradition, but not from the tradition and culture in general.

On the other hand, an "atheist" may believe in some "supernatural force", as you put it, other than God, and it will define his/her approach to morality. Actually I think that the need to believe (faith) lies deep within human nature, so it is not justified to deprive "atheists" of any belief and faith.

Well, I understand that my arguments are a bit messy, sorry for that.

EDIT: I'd also like to comment on this:

Thus, atheism leads to the conclusion that all social order is illegitimate. Any rational, consistent atheist must be an anarchist.

Social order might be illegitimate, but human nature implies that a single specimen cannot survive if completely isolated from others. Survival requires cooperation, and cooperation requires order. If people neglect social order and its rules, they will soon find themselves in trouble, this way or other. I think most humans instinctively aspire to maintain order, and those who are trying to go against it might be neutralised up to physical destruction if the society finds them dangerous (I'm not talking only about the modern, Western type of society here).

[Dante]

Finally picked a topic that I couldn't ignore, hmm? Well, I suppose attacking two of my core 'beliefs' will do that.

The simple error is that objective morality does not depend on any religion, or divine command. Divine Command Theory has it that morality is dictated by some external, supernatural or divine force. But what makes this any different from any other form of objective morality?

First line of defense: You must successfully argue that objective morality can exist without being backed by a supernatural force. I have never seen any remotely good argument to support this. All attempts to build an atheist version of objective morality come down to "most people agree with some basic moral principles..." But, of course, "most people" is not good enough. It's an argument from common opinion, which is a fallacy.

But what is religion but a collective believe held by a group of people? There is nothing that makes collective belief A any more or less reasonable than collective belief B, especially reliance upon an invisible sky wizard.

Other forms of objective morality that do not depend upon Divine Command Theory include Utilitarianism, or 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people;' or Kant's Categorical Imperative whereby an action is morally right "if the maxim of your action were to secure through your will a universal law of nature."

Neither of these two theories depend on 'most people' believing in them, just as Divine Command Theory does not depend on 'most people' believing in it to assert its moral correctness. In fact, most objective moral theories do not depend at all on the number or relative number of people who believe in them, but claim to be Right because they are Right. It's a circular argument that is present in all objective moral theories, including Divine Command Theory. Utilitarianism and Divine Command Theory alike are both self-justifying, refuting rival theories at the same time.

If objective moral theories other than Divine Command Theory depend on 'most people believe' as their justification then Divine Command Theory is no better off because the only other justification it has is invisible and undetectable. Hardly a good basis for anything.

Objective morality therefore can exist without Divine Command, and without reference to 'most people.' The twin arguments run as:

DCT: This is Right because X says so and X is Right.

Other objective theories: This is Right because it is Right.

As you can see, no reference to people. All the other theories do is cut out the middleman.

Objective moral theories all self-justify, making their arguments circular and ultimately failures.

Society can therefore follow any theory of objective morality that it wants, it makes no difference. Say for example the British government decided to cull all visiting Canadians. The people cry out "Hey! Most of us don't believe that you're doing the right thing! Stop it!" To which the government replies "So? This is morally right, it just is." Because that's really what all objective moral theories do. All of them.

Not that I really care, mind you. I'm still a subjective moralist, believing in nothing really. Everything is relative, including morality. If it becomes relevent I'll expand on that, but for now it's not important.

Frankly, I'd be inclined to think that an atheist society would be more moral than a religious one. But then I would.

[Dude_Doc]

But what is religion but a collective believe held by a group of people?

But what if it is not just another religion? The thing is, if the creator of everything has created something and placed laws in this creation, then those laws are absolute. It may be condemnation to hell for breaking those laws, or the eradication of your soul (or existance). That is why there is a moral argument for following those rules and implementing them into society (or laws of each state etc).

Now, if these laws were created by "some religion", then they have no moral ground - i.e., the laws are not absolute, unless the religion itself has "supernatural" past/founding (the Commandements from God, or Mohammad's visions of God etc).

Of course, there are other arguments. What if mankind has some kind of "moral" gene? I mean, we clearly become emotionally sad when one of our relatives die - both atheists and theists, just as we both become emotionally sad and angry when one of our friends is murdered. We don't kill people because we don't want other people to kill us - why can this not be rational and not based on moral? Maybe the world isn't built on moral but on more emotional grounds, from where moral developed? Similarly to what Dante said, moral is a form of "contract" you "sign" with fellow humans over what to do and not do (at least when you look from the atheist point-of-view). 

[Darth Kwisatz]

The idea of a moral gene is interesting beacause natural selection could favour it. Determinism in and through personality, and the origins of personality is an idea I've never gotten to the bottom of.

I reject, however, the notion of a soul. You could also say that a city has a soul, and many poets and writers do, as each has a personality determined by its makeup, and has "organic" if not biological characteristics not disimilar to trees. The analogy is useful to understanding how the sum of an entity can be perceived to be greater than its parts. What is being described is another value akin to a pleasing harmony, rhythm and melody. Music is also said to have "soul", but the reality is that there are combinations of sound frequencies when played in combination. Play it differently, and the character changes. AC/DC is less without Bon Scott. An Idol contestant did a slow bossa nova version of the disco hit "Super Freak" and it was positively haunting. Joe Cocker was like a supernova with Lennon and McCartney's stuff.

Music is the stuff of applied mathematics and intuition derived from primal biological instinct, not some supernatural force. Remember the experiments where classical music and heavy metal were played to plants in the 1980's, and the plants withered under disharmonious loud metal? Mathematics, dear friends, mathematics and physics. Wave frequencies.

Trees and plants generally all grow differently, though farmers have experimented with cloning. Do trees thus have a personality and also a soul? I feel more grief at the loss of trees I am familiar with than people like Saddam Hussein or Michael Hutchence. Is land clearing a sin if each tree is unique and gives life? Does the lawful execution of a sinner constitute a sin, such as among the good god-fearin' folk in the great state of Texas? Was the lawful execution of Jesus of Nazareth for heresy just and accordant with the divine right with which leaders were supposedly anointed here on Earth? Or is there no place for judgement according to law among humans for moral infringements if only god has the call? What need for law and justice if we all face judgement in the afterlife, or can repent on our deathbed?

Theism would appear to be a far greater cover for amorality and immorality than atheism, becasue in an atheist world, all consequences and precedents affect the here and now. There is no cause for people to war over the correct morality of the life journey of the soul. There is only a construct within which to achieve hegemony, justice and prosperity. Its doesn't always work out that way, but the philosophical underpinnings allow it to be corrected when things go too far awry.

[Dragoon Knight]

Though it's been a while since I've given an opinion on philosophical matters, I feel that the opening post of this topic is wrong in quite a number of interesting ways.  I feel that some of the assumptions made in Edric's first post need to be picked apart.

Atheism leads to subjective morality, and subjective morality leads to immoral behaviour and the disintegration of society.

I love that sentence.  It's like saying "sex leads to children, and children will eventually wage war and destroy the world".  That aside, however, let's move on to the Three Logical Steps .

1. Society cannot exist without some laws or norms of conduct between people.

Firstly, let's assume that by "society", you mean the society that we live in today, with all these laws and (for the most part) some sense of order.  If this is the case, then we can accept this first point as being correct; while it is a sweeping generalisation, the small points here don't really matter.  What you're saying is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that people need rules, laws, boundaries of acceptable behaviour, etc. to operate in a relatively sane and organised manner.  No problem with this.

2. Laws and norms of conduct are only legitimate if backed by objective morality.

Huh?  No no, that seems to be Step 6.  You missed out the ones in-between where you explain exactly why the statement above is true... but let's break it down and see if we can't analyse your meaning.

Let's take your statements so far through some logical steps.  We live in a society bound by laws, rules and whatnot, but you claim that this society cannot exist without a morally objective standpoint; a fount of morality from which all laws are derived.  We've arrived at a bit of circular logic, here...

"The society we live in cannot exist without laws that are justified by objective morality; the fact that this society exists proves that this is true."

Scratch that... incomplete circular logic; there's still the why missing.  Why are laws only legitimate if backed by objective morality?  I can only assume that what you're trying to say is that the rules must apply to everybody, or they aren't rules.  This translates as saying that "only laws that apply to everyone are valid".

Or, you could be trying to say that objective laws are somehow superior to subjective ones; possibly even both.  Let's check Step 3 for clarification.

3. Objective morality can only exist if backed by some supernatural force (not necessarily the Christian God in particular; I am arguing against atheism, not for Christianity).

That's a mighty big jump you made there... let's examine how logical it was.

We've already accepted that society cannot exist without laws.  You say that these laws must be objectively moral to be valid, meaning that they are either superior to subjectively moral laws or that they simply must apply to everyone.

I can accept, on principle, that laws need to apply to everyone if they are to be valid.  If we're going for the "superior" route of argument, however,then we must ask the question: what makes laws created by a supernatural being superior to ones created by humans (subjective laws)?  Moreover, how is it that the society we live in today has rules and laws that are entirely subjective?

If objective laws are the only ones that are valid, and these laws are only valid because they are backed by a supernatural force, then how is it possible for laws to be made based on the decisions of human beings?  I'm pretty certain that a supernatural being is not responsible for the Data Protection Act, for example.  I don't remember seeing a commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not use thine neighbour's personal information for marketing purposes".  Your argument is becoming less and less robust, and can be summed up in the following points:

1. Society exists.

2. It cannot exist without laws.

3. These laws must be morally objective to be valid.

4. Morally objective laws are superior to subjective laws and must apply to everyone.

5. A supernatural being is the only one capable of creating objective laws.

6. Atheism denies the possibility of a supernatural being.

7. Ergo, a supernatural being must exist because society does.

It's at about this point I would expect you to hand me a Bible and say "Let me tell you about Jesus...".  There are so many ways that your argument is incorrect that I'm having trouble maintaining an organised train of thought, but I'll try to summarise my objections to your "logical steps".

- There is no logical proof for the existence of a supernatural being.

An obvious point, I know, but as Dante so eloquently put it, I have trouble believing in an invisible sky wizard.  Your arguments, along with every other one I've seen, have spectacularly failed to convince me of the existence of anything superior to us.

- The laws we live by today are majoritarily subjective, not objective.

By subjective, I mean created by humans.  By your own logic, objective laws can only be created by a supernatural being, meaning that all other laws (i.e. those created by police, governments, etc.) must all be subjective.  This ties in quite nicely with the differences in laws between countries.  This means - and again, this is by your own logic - that most laws are invalid, and I have trouble accepting that.

- Laws have changed throughout time.

Aside from a few basic rules, laws have changed throughout time to adapt to society.  By your logic, if the rules are absolute, then so, too, should society be.  The very idea of objective morality opposed any sort of changes to the law.  Yet we see them every day; the rules being changed, adapted or even revoked to suit today's society.  What is that if not subjective?

- Atheists obey the law.

You go on to say in your later arguments that atheism precludes obeying the rules of society.  You reach this conclusion through your Three Logical Steps by saying that if you don't believe in a supernatural being, you don't believe in having set rules.  Please tell me that you don't really believe that all atheists must be anarchists?  I've met people who will argue 'till they're blue in the face that God doesn't exist, but will debate just as fiercely for objective morality.  The two do not come as a pair; there is no link that can logically be made, especially not with this line of argument.

Without objective morality we have no reason to obey laws and norms. Your personal moral code may happen to be the same as society's moral code, but how can you legitimately stop other people with different moral codes from breaking society's laws and norms? Let's say there is someone who believes all Canadians are evil and must be killed. Without objective morality, what would you say to such a man? That killing is wrong? That is a moral judgement. It may be wrong to you, but he obviously disagrees. Will you say that killing is against the law? But why should he obey the law? In fact, why should we have any laws at all? Laws are always based on moral assumptions (for example, murder is illegal because it is believed to be bad). So if you give up all objective morality, you must give up social order. And as far as I know, atheism forces you to give up objective morality.

Again, loving the game of Logical Hopscotch you're playing here.  What would I say to the man who thinks that all Canadians are evil and must be killed?  I would say that he's wrong, because there is evidence to the contrary.  I don't need to resort to morals to say that he's incorrect; he's wrong because his statement is blatantly false.

But assuming that he just wanted to go around killing Canadians for the hell of it.  Maybe he gets a kick out of doing it or something.  In these circumstances, one would certainly resort to the laws of society.  You say that we cannot say that it's against the law, or that it's 'wrong'... but we can.  We do so every day, because most of our laws are subjective.  His subjective laws do not fit in with the subjective laws of society as a whole; but he is in this society, and therefore must adhere to the rules set out and agreed to by every law-abiding member.

You see?  We don't need a supernatural being to create our laws.  Humans make laws based on subjective moral decisions; ones that the vast, overwhelming majority agree to (not killing, etc.) and others that are debated upon (abortion, etc.).  By doing so, we create our own sort of "Subjective Objective Morality", in that the subjective moral beliefs of society as a whole become an objective reference for members to adhere to.  Most importantly, though, is that we can do this without having to resort to a big beard in the sky for guidance.

Laws have always been subjective, and will always be subjective.  Objective morality only exists when subjective morals happen to be popular with the masses, to put it crudely.  People debating the existence of a supernatural being really need to come up with some new arguments... Socrates could have done what I just did. ;)

[Darth Kwisatz]

Tribal laws have existed since the dawn of time, in both atheistic and theistic contexts, including ancient polytheistic contexts. Invariably they have drawn their authority from the power of conquest, and this is not far removed from the enforcement of law today by police armed with weapons to uphold the will of the state. The jury system offers ample evidence of prejudice overcoming evidence as a reason to convict, as does the conduct of corrupt or ill-educated judges in poorer countries.

There are nations in which killing or discriminating against people because of who they are or what they say, rather than what they do is legitimated by law, and upheld by the concept of national sovereignty. The nation-state (as opposed to empire) emerged purely as an evolutionary response to the need to better organise to protect groups of people from the overwhelming force of artillery as new means of achieving conquest from the late fifteenth century onward. From these developments, rulers increasingly relied on the co-operation (and consent) of the people in order to maintain order and authority within sovereign boundaries.

Creation of wealth is the way that nation states succed best at this, and richer nations are inherently safer than poorer ones. This leads to capitalism, and all the things that give certain capitalists a competitive advantage (such as education,  scientific research and cultural investment) over other nations, and ultimately immunity from conquest.

Individual societies do come and go depending on their adaptability. Laws and rules adapt accordingly also, even in religious organisations, and all in the name of survival.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Moreover, if this society did collapse it would simply be replaced by another. Terrorism is basically about this, and the ideals of terrorism and subversion generally are entirely relative, as are all human values. Ours is not the society of the Holy Roman Empire, nor the Rennaisance, nor the industrial revolution, despite belief in god being around at the time. Humans don't lose the ability to communicate, establish hierarchies and organise simply because an existing order disintegrates. Never have done.

There are always young people who think they will live forever without consequences and who tend toward anarchy. You don't see too many 40 or 60 year-old anarchists, and if anarchists survive, they tend to get regular jobs and conform to basic social norms eventually, or else they populate jails and lunatic asylums.

Methinks, Edric, that you are simply young, but nonetheless a nice person trying to make sense of it all as most do.

[Darth Kwisatz]

I'd like someone to explain the morality and/or ethics of speeding in a motor vehicle. I couldn't find a reference in the bible.

[The_Sadukar]

I am, as most of you old timers know, not known for my visits to this charred place known as the PRP board, but Edric's thread drew me in, and thus I make this post.

Going back to Edrics original post, I wonder, is it not possible that morality might have formed before religion, and then later, as the major religions of today came along, the excisting morality were later incorporated into religion, and thus reinforced by being made devine commandments.

This I base mostly on my knowlegede of Norse society which had it's own, to the Norse anyway, objective morals, and a system of laws based on those, yet to my (quite extensive knowlegde), there are no textual evidence of the Norse morality being based on devine commandtments. The closest we can come to such are H

[Anathema]

Slavery? As far as I know none of the major religions explicitly forbid it, wich is more or less a requirement for something to be objective morality (momentarily pushing aside the fact that the attributed source must also exist)

It's only been about 2-3 centuries that christians decided slavery was immoral and all christians who engaged in slavery are retroactively branded as "bad" christians by their (spiritual) descendents.

Or the "love thy neighbour" directive, wich on the surface seems fairly obvious. However at some point the Catholic church decreed that this only extended to thy christian neighbour to legalize violence against muslims.

Subjective morality isn't going to garantue that bad things won't happen, and neither will so-called "objective" moral codes.

Laws preserve society. Of course not everything that's considered immoral is illegal as well, but the most disruptive acts all are.

Hobbes' hypothesis regarding the social contract is correct. I don't agree with his assertions in regards to "human nature" but it's easy to see that his theory is correct from a socio-economic point of view. Collective self-interest (or enlightened self-interest, like Wolf calls it) determines what is right or wrong. The government sees to it that those acts wich are forbidden are punished.

After a few centuries of "mass-atheism" it's perfectly possible that public morality is going to be very different, but it won't lead to the collapse of society.

[Edric O]

Subjective morality isn't going to garantue that bad things won't happen, and neither will so-called "objective" moral codes.

Of course not. I never said that objective moral codes will give us utopia. I only said that objective moral codes are necessary for stable societies. Not all stable societies are good, but all good societies are stable. Thus, objective morality is one of the things you need for a good society, but it isn't the only thing.

Do trees thus have a personality and also a soul?

Yes.

Is land clearing a sin if each tree is unique and gives life?

It depends. Any killing not done for the purpose of survival is a sin.

Does the lawful execution of a sinner constitute a sin, such as among the good god-fearin' folk in the great state of Texas?

Yes, killing any human being is always a sin.

Was the lawful execution of Jesus of Nazareth for heresy just and accordant with the divine right with which leaders were supposedly anointed here on Earth?

There is no such divine right.

Or is there no place for judgement according to law among humans for moral infringements if only god has the call?

God has the final call. The purpose of judgement according to law is to protect society from criminals (or "particularly dangerous sinners", if you wish to call them that).

What need for law and justice if we all face judgement in the afterlife, or can repent on our deathbed?

The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Fighting evil (without becoming evil in the process) is the duty of every Christian.

Theism would appear to be a far greater cover for amorality and immorality than atheism, becasue in an atheist world, all consequences and precedents affect the here and now.

But in an atheist world, the here and now doesn't matter. Nothing has a purpose. Nothing has any value. Nothing matters. So, why care?

And, again, I must remind you that you cannot speak of "amorality and immorality" if you do not believe in good and evil, as you've said in a previous post.

[Darth Kwisatz]

In an atheist world the here and now, and the future on Earth is everything. You are mistaking an atheist for a relativist. Relativism may find itself in either camp, disguised as pragmatism.

[Edric O]

A point of clarification: For the purpose of this discussion, I use the word "atheism" with a meaning roughly equivalent to "philosophical materialism" - the belief that there is nothing supernatural. Technically, an atheist is merely a person who does not believe in gods, but by "atheist" in this topic I mean a person who does not believe in gods, souls, spirits, life forces, higher beings, karma or anything outside the realm of the physical universe.

Gods are not necessary for objective morality, but the supernatural in general is necessary. Buddhism is a perfect example. There are no gods in Buddhism; however, the supernatural concept of karma provides a basis for objective morality (since a person's karma fluctuates according to that person's good or bad behaviour, thus making "good" and "bad" objective).

In an atheist world the here and now, and the future on Earth is everything. You are mistaking an atheist for a relativist.

An atheist (as defined above) is always a relativist.

Moreover, if this society did collapse it would simply be replaced by another. Terrorism is basically about this, and the ideals of terrorism and subversion generally are entirely relative, as are all human values. Ours is not the society of the Holy Roman Empire, nor the Rennaisance, nor the industrial revolution, despite belief in god being around at the time. Humans don't lose the ability to communicate, establish hierarchies and organise simply because an existing order disintegrates. Never have done.

Of course. If atheism led to social collapse, another society would eventually rise from the ashes. And that society would probably be religious. But I am assuming that you actually care about the future of our society, not another one that may replace it in the future. If you do not, then you may of course shrug off my argument.

There are always young people who think they will live forever without consequences and who tend toward anarchy. You don't see too many 40 or 60 year-old anarchists, and if anarchists survive, they tend to get regular jobs and conform to basic social norms eventually, or else they populate jails and lunatic asylums.

I am not an anarchist (after all, if I was one then I wouldn't be making the argument in this thread, would I?), but I feel obligated to dispell your apparent ignorance regarding anarchism. You seem to be imagining that all anarchists are some kind of rebellious punks bent on violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some were even committed to extreme pacifism. I suggest that you read the Anarchist FAQ. And by the way, there was not a single anarchist writer who changed his views later in life.

[Edric O]

I don't subscribe to notions of good or bad. Effectiveness is that which assists the harmonious, sustainable survival of the species, and that is a subjective biological imperative only. Too bad, so sad if it doesn't happen. My preference is for it to happen as a matter of comfort.

Wonderful. So, if you don't subscribe to notions of good or bad, and if you recognize that even this "effectiveness" of yours is subjective, then you must agree that, for example, it is not evil to plunge a knife into a man's chest and pull out his still-beating heart, then push his bloody corpse down the stairs.

(why use the Nazis as your example of visceral evil when the Aztecs are so much better?)

If good and evil are not objective, some other things that are not objectively evil include: Child sacrifice; rape; genocide; slavery; burning people alive; hacking a man to pieces with a blunt knife in front of his wife, then feeding her children to hungry lions before raping and killing her; the Crusades; the Inquisition; the brutal murder of your entire family; and the destruction of the universe.

Social order might be illegitimate, but human nature implies that a single specimen cannot survive if completely isolated from others. Survival requires cooperation, and cooperation requires order. If people neglect social order and its rules, they will soon find themselves in trouble, this way or other. I think most humans instinctively aspire to maintain order, and those who are trying to go against it might be neutralised up to physical destruction if the society finds them dangerous (I'm not talking only about the modern, Western type of society here).

I agree with you that there is an inherent human need for social order, just like I believe that there is some inherent human knowledge of objective morality. When reading the evils I listed above, for example, most people will instinctively feel that such things are wrong, and moral relativists will have to explain to themselves why they are not always and absolutely wrong.

But social order is a public good. One may enjoy the benefits of social order even if one does not personally contribute to social order (and even if one personally works against social order). You are essentially making the same argument that Wolf made earlier; see my counter-argument.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Karma can also be a philosophical belief in probability that is not attached a supernatural life force.

I'd regard anarchy as being a very temporary state if it emerges in a general sense, unless all infrastructure and administration is swept aside, as in the case of global nuclear war or meteorite catastrophe. You see it on a small scale after localised disasters and during/after coups de tat. Anarchists can diversify and call themselves whatever they like, but to my mind true anarchy in general terms is the descent into warlordism which gives rise pretty quickly to new social order.

As to whether I give a damn about this society - the world remains composed of many societies. If mankind makes the planet barren, bringing about its own decline, it would be a self-fulfilling prophesy akin the fate of a plague of vermin upon itself in a given environment. I would blame deism particularly, within your definition scale, for bringing that about, through such ludicrous teachings as man having dominion over the earth and all the beasts etc etc etc.

In terms of the futures of nation states and individual societies, I can't see how natural selection does not continue to apply as it always has done. Civilisation is a constructed state of mind designed to restrain bestial urges in humanity, for humanity's (not necessarily general) enrichment. It is always fragile. Apathy can take many forms. It is apathy at the corporate level and the indifference of consumers that really determines the fate of the world at this point. The power of voters and politicians within individual nation states has never been more uncertain. Through the facilitation of stock markets and now the internet, they've really unbottled a genie that no one can control.

As I've said before, China and India are the ones to watch, and the Arabs for as long as we keep buying oil from them, which would appear to be for a very long time to come, despite scares about peak oil.

With no certainty at all, my gut feeling is that the world is fulfilling an Orwellian prophesy of two or three super powers that each will enslave the world by default.

I don't expect a supernatural rescue.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Most of these things in the "evil" list have been done in the name of god at some point. Hence my objection to defining good and evil on an imagined pretext of an impossible objectivity. Karma is also self-fulfilling by definition.

Pointless, cruel, and barbaric are words that spring to mind as being eminently more useful in describing such events you've called "evil", unless I was eager to coerce a response from others. Good and evil are essentially coercive and manipulative words. When they get misapplied to more mundane things, things get complicated and you get the arguments about what's what in the world and who's right and wrong.

This was precisely my earlier point - a non-superstitious person is much more economical in thought and less-prone to confusion about trivia. No good praying for the courage to know the things you can and cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference - just get out there and observe, and learn from your mistakes along the way. Remain curious and open to all things.

I'm open to the possibility of the supernatural as I think it would be a very funny thing if it all were true. I'm just waiting for someone to show me that it is all true. I expect to die waiting.

[Edric O]

Most of these things in the "evil" list have been done in the name of god at some point. Hence my objection to defining good and evil on an imagined pretext of an impossible objectivity.

That was intentional. I wanted to show, once again, the irony of the fact that you can only condemn the "evils" of religion on religious grounds. If no religion is true, then none of the things ever done in the name of God were objectively evil. Religion cannot be evil if there is no such thing as evil.

Karma can also be a philosophical belief in probability that is not attached a supernatural life force.

It just so happens that evil people have a greater probability of getting hurt in some way? Not only is that completely laughable from a scientific standpoint, it is also obviously not true.

I'd regard anarchy as being a very temporary state if it emerges in a general sense...

I agree, though "very temporary" can mean up to a century IMO.

If mankind makes the planet barren, bringing about its own decline, it would be a self-fulfilling prophesy akin the fate of a plague of vermin upon itself in a given environment. I would blame deism particularly, within your definition scale, for bringing that about, through such ludicrous teachings as man having dominion over the earth and all the beasts etc etc etc.

How do you explain the fact that the most intense human assault on the environment (the past 60 years) coincided with the decline of organized religion? I'm not saying that atheism is to blame (correlation is not causation, after all), but clearly you cannot blame religion for something that is growing while religion diminishes.

In terms of the futures of nation states and individual societies, I can't see how natural selection does not continue to apply as it always has done.

Natural selection only applies to genetic traits. It does not apply to anything that is not genetic.