Atheism Amorality? : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Atheism Amorality? » Atheism Amorality?

Atheism Amorality?
Can an atheist clear this up?

Page: 1 2

Atheism Amorality?

dwilljo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 23

Posted 05/08/08 - 10:48 PM: Subject: Atheism Amorality?	#1
Based on my definitions of morality and ethics (which I think are reasonable and typical) I don't understand how atheists can be moral/immoral - however, they can be ethical/unethical. Morality: An action is deemed as a general 'metaphysically' good/evil act based on info from the invisible dude with the big white invisible beard. This info on morality is meant to allow the max utility for the max amount of people Ethics: An action is deemed as rationally good/evil based on the resulting utility. Clearly morality and ethics overlap, but I just do not understand how most of the atheists I read/converse with seem to have this idea of general good, which I feel, they are confusing with individual good. Well...I kind of do, but that will be explained momentarily. Now I hope enough people read my post that they will attack my definition of morality. Perhaps one attack will question why morality has to be from god. My response would be that it would be logically impossible to otherwise know what action would be generally good in this situation. Now the tricky part, what is meant by generally good? I feel like when people talk about right/wrong and good/evil they look at it as explanations rather than just as devices which help us understand the world. By seeing them as explanations they become polarized into what religious morality is, and that is how I define "Good" in the aforementioned paragraph. It is also why I don't understand the viewpoints of many atheists who see their ideas as right/wrong. Anyways yadda yadda yadda only God or any omnipotent being would know what to do in a given situation to make it right/wrong. But, I think I still gave a fairly muddled idea of what 'good' is. Is it inherently good or extrinsically good? More clearly, the timeless question - is it good because God says its good or because it actually has some benefits? I hope good is both, because if it doesn't give utility it would mess with how i look at morality/ethics alot. I look at morality/ethics as a set of decisions illustrated as such: (d means decision) d2a... / d1a / d2b... d1 d2c... / d1b d2c... For each decision there is a number of utility attached to it and at the end of the chain there is a total number of utility you have achieved. Theoretically, there is a maximum number of utility - and my viewpoint is based on the fact that I want to gain maximum utility. As I am not omnipotent I could not know how to get the maximum utility - only God would know (note - I know there is a problem here, if you bring it up I will address it). Thus, therefore and subsequently, the idea I mentioned earlier of a general good is the maximum amount of utility for all people - to me this is the home of morality. The idea of ethics is the decision tree on an individual scale, maximizing the utility of the individual or individual good. Please agree or disagree to this statement, most people (you!) subscribe to ethics/morals (whatever ones definition is) that are rational. Why are these ethics/morals rational - more to the point to what end is the rationality relating to? The end is that by taking upon said ethics/morals, your utility will be higher. This falls under my definition of ethics, and I believe most people, athiests/theists/agnostics, would agree to this. However, when a person who subscribes to my idea of ethics is put into a compromising situation his/her idea of good/evil may now shift. It may now shift into more of an understanding of good/evil - this understanding perhaps allows them to see their actions on a spectrum and depolarization occurs whereby certain actions may change their status from good to evil or from evil to good, for example: d1a)eat people / d1)I want to eat people d1b) don't eat people If this individual feels that after considering all factors his utility would be higher by eating people than, for this individual, eating people becomes good, whereas before it was evil. You can infer the rest of the problems that arise from this conclusion as this is highly theoretical and doesn't take into account a bunch of stuff, because then this post would be super long instead of just really long. Sorry for that, I never meant it to be this big. And I am not imposing my views on atheists/theists whatever you are, I just really don't understand how an atheist is anything but amoral. edit: my decision trees didnt come out right...use your imagination or look it up

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/09/08 - 03:19 AM:	#2
Atheism aside, your definition of morality already relies on the utilitarian principle, which is a rational one. Why does the theistic factor matter in that case? (Also, you assume from the start that utilitarianism is the correct rational theory, which is not exactly a given.) Even if you want to say that omniscience (note: not omnipotence) is necessary to properly maximise utility, that is effectively empty unless it can be conveyed to the moral agent just what that action is that would maximise utility. It's not particularly useful to say that only God knows the maximising action, if there's no way for us to know just what that action is. At any rate, though, it's very confused. You refer to a distinction between individual and general good, then never properly explain it. In that attempted explanation, you seem to say that 'explanations' are different from 'devices which help us understand the world', but again, don't really say what that difference is. You then go on to decision trees to try to explain utility (and again just assume that the utilitarian principle is the correct rational one); despite admitting that the trees 'didn't come out right', you don't really explain why or how. In short, it really sounds like you're just rambling, with a bunch of unqualified assumptions.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/09/08 - 03:25 AM:	#3
Ethics do not have to be based on utility to be rational. I disagree with your definition of 'ethics' as necessarily containing the word 'utility'. One can only use reason to see why Utilitarianism is a weak form of morals, one which runs into constant contradiction and impossibility. It is a union of hedonism and Christianity. The first teaches man to love pleasure; the second, to love his neighbor. The union consists in teaching man to love his neighbor’s pleasure. To be exact, the Utilitarians teach that an action is moral if its result is to maximize pleasure among men in general. This theory holds that man’s duty is to serve—according to a purely quantitative standard of value. He is to serve not the well-being of the nation or of the economic class, but “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” regardless of who comprise it in any given issue. As to one’s own happiness, says Mill, the individual must be “disinterested” and “strictly impartial”; he must remember that he is only one unit out of the dozens, or millions, of men affected by his actions. If you want to claim that atheists are amoral because they do not abide by an ethical system which stresses devotion to happiness and altruism, you are forgetting the purpose of atheism: to escape the duties and irrational whims that govern such a system. Because atheists do not rely upon such a system, they can use reason itself to derive moral facts and act upon them, not derive them from calculating other people's happiness, comparing it to one's own, and acting according to 'utility'. Ethics is simply the study of two things: (1) in meta-ethics, the discussion of why and what the fundamental ethical premises are and (2) in normative ethics, in respect to certain situations, what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Your definition of 'ethics' seems to give meta-ethics to 'morality' and 'morality' to the word of God. 'Morality', in most uses today, is completely synonymous with 'ethics' in that morality implies a normative discussion: "was this action 'right' or 'wrong'?" dwilljo wrote: Please agree or disagree to this statement, most people (you!) subscribe to ethics/morals (whatever ones definition is) that are rational. Why are these ethics/morals rational - more to the point to what end is the rationality relating to? Don't corrupt the word "rationality" like this. Ethical systems you describe are not rational. If you consider utility as the highest moral good, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community. Are these reasonable?
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

dwilljo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 23

Posted 05/09/08 - 01:11 PM:	#4
hey, sorry guys, the post was written late last night and i was bored, realize now it makes not much sense and is full of mistakes. haha such as omnipotence insteade omniscience (at the very least)! Yes it was a late night rambling, but I will defend some of what I said. In terms of the axiom of my ideas, I believe that everbody wants to maximize their utility. This is based on experience, whereby if given a situation an individual will 'choose' one option instead of another, that option is the one they believe will maximize their utility. For what other reason would one decide one option over another? I think everybody can agree on that and I think that is rational. I see ethics as the study of the quality of decisions that one makes, thus a decision yielding more utility is right and less utility is wrong (theoretically). Consequently, in regards to the rational animal - what other rational would there be for right/wrong? How am I corrupting the word rational? How could the most utility for the most people not be the highest moral good? @The rational animal - you state what the study of ethics is, and I feel what you wrote was too short. What is right and wrong? In normative ethics how could right and wrong be anything but the decision to seek maximum utility? If given a situation would you choose the outcome that give you the least utility? Given that you agree to the idea that normative ethics is the study of right and wrong in certain situations, a person will choose option A over option B because they think A or B has more utility. If it is anything but that, it appears to me that you are appealing to some universal moral code, that things are right simply because they are right. Toe seems to be of that opinion. But where is the rational for that? In your example of enslaving 49% of the population, that would be ethically right to the 51% of the people theoretically. However, I think that is a rash conclusion, given that often ones happiness is tied into other peoples happiness. Perhaps, some people would be happier if the 49% enslaved were not enslaved. Can anyone tell me why enslaving 49% of the population is right/wrong, without using utility? @Klorius - I believe the theistic factor matters because without an omniscient judge there is no polarized good or evil. Without God, the labels of good and evil just become relative. Consequently, one cannot say they are good or evil in absolute terms, just relative - which amounts to nothing in my opinion. Thus, hitler can think he's good and churchill can think hitler's evil - who's right? Many of us would say churchill, but without the authority of God, the answer depends on who you ask. Maybe you are thinking that thought is dastardly, but how do you tell the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps using logic? I think we have all seen the failures in using logic to understand metaphysical problems. These ideas don't even touch upon the addition of utility to the mix. This is because I am just dissenting from the typical atheist opinion that we know right/wrong as a priori. I don't think utility matters in that situation because only an omniscient/omnipotent being knows what is right and wrong. For God would create right and wrong and would then know everything about right and wrong. Thanks for reading my post, I apologize for the incoherence and in the future I will make sure not to ramble!

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 05/11/08 - 02:55 PM:	#5
dwilljo wrote: Based on my definitions of morality and ethics (which I think are reasonable and typical) I don't understand how atheists can be moral/immoral - however, they can be ethical/unethical. This need not go any further. Morals - proper, are an abstraction. Abstractions only come from an existent source. To be valid they have to accurately reflect the nature of it's source. They are not opinions. So "your definition" automatically invalidates your argument. Their is no place for opinion in absraction. dwilljo wrote: Morality: An action is deemed as a general 'metaphysically' good/evil act based on info from the invisible dude with the big white invisible beard. This info on morality is meant to allow the max utility for the max amount of people Ethics: An action is deemed as rationally good/evil based on the resulting utility. Clearly morality and ethics overlap, but I just do not understand how most of the atheists I read/converse with seem to have this idea of general good, which I feel, they are confusing with individual good. Well...I kind of do, but that will be explained momentarily. A Moral are that which is best for an existent. Based on it's nature. An Ethic is the social application of morals. There is no overlap. The latter proceeds from the former. dwilljo wrote: Now I hope enough people read my post that they will attack my definition of morality. Perhaps one attack will question why morality has to be from god. My response would be that it would be logically impossible to otherwise know what action would be generally good in this situation. Now the tricky part, what is meant by generally good? Attack? I wonder sometimes if people will ever get the idea that opinions are a waste of time. What you are calling "your definitions" are actually your opinions. Actual definitions are derived from abstraction. They are an accurate reflection of exitent reality. This god thing plays no role in morals or ethics. It is a social artifice, that is of comfort to many people. There is nothing tricky about what is good. The only time things get tricky for most pople is when contradictions are introduced into a scenario and compromises it. They then try to find a way to make good from bad. It does not work.
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

dwilljo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 23

Posted 05/12/08 - 09:00 PM:	#6
Everything is an abstraction, therefore you are wrong....

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 05/15/08 - 03:40 PM:	#7
dwilljo wrote: Everything is an abstraction, therefore you are wrong.... It takes an existent to abstract. Existents are material. Abstractions are not.
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/15/08 - 05:07 PM:	#8
dwilljo wrote: how could right and wrong be anything but the decision to seek maximum utility? Utility is not the cause of the correct moral decision, it is the result. One must use reason, not intuition or emotions, to derive moral facts. These expressivist methods ultimately lead to normatively bad choices, as illustrated by my previous examples. If one uses reason, where reason is primal in ethics, one can most likely find the decision which promises the most utility. One must not base such decisions on utility itself. dwilljo wrote: If it is anything but that, it appears to me that you are appealing to some universal moral code... But where is the rationale for that? There are absolutes in the moral sense; it takes reason to access them because reason is the only absolute in the human realm. Trying to find absolutes on the basis of intuition and emoton in seeking utility alone will ultimately fail. dwilljo wrote: Can anyone tell me why enslaving 49% of the population is right/wrong, without using utility? It's a little suspicious and rather sickening that utility/utilitarianism is the only moral doctrine which permits large-scale slavery and mass executions.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

jdclanc
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/19/08 - 12:14 AM:	#9
You are prematurely assuming that utilitarianism is the only system of ethics. I think God would disagree, but I don't want to argue that. I will give you a common example that demonstrates Kantian ethics (Kant vehemently opposed Utilitarianism). A train full of people in on a collision course with a boy who is stuck on the tracks. The only way to save the boy is to redirect the train away from the boy (using a rail switch) and towards a cliff. Doing nothing will result in the boy's death, but redirecting the train will result in the death of the many passengers. A utilitarian would choose to do nothing because the death of many people is worse than one person. A Kantian would also do nothing because redirecting the train would mean you were responsible for their deaths. A slightly different situation would yield different results. This time, the train is headed towards the cliff. The only way to save it is to redirect the train towards the boy on the track. The Utilitarian would redirect the train in order to save the most number of people. The Kantian would not redirect the train because his/her actions would cause the death of the boy and that is wrong. Letting the train fall of the cliff is not wrong because you are not responsible for it happening. Doing wrong (whatever that is) is still wrong no matter the outcome. As an atheists myself, I don't believe in universal right and wrong. How could there be? I think things are wrong because of how I feel about them. The thought of someone abusing a child is wrong to me rationally and emotionally. Other disagree. That is why we have law. Democracy decides that is right and wrong in our society based on out personally feeling and what we think is best for society. If 99% of the population thinks something is right, but I think it is wrong that isn't going to change my mind. That may seem silly to some people, but I don't know any other way to live my life. I am not going to believe in God simply because I can't solve this ethical crisis. Suppose I did, then I would probably just choose the God that agreed with me. Thus, I would be doing the exact same thing as not having a God in the first place.

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/19/08 - 09:28 AM:	#10
jdclanc wrote: You are prematurely assuming that utilitarianism is the only system of ethics. I am well-aware of deontology, but thank you. I thought by your heavy emphasis on utility that you thought utilitarianism was the only moral doctrine, jdclanc wrote: As an atheist myself, I don't believe in universal right and wrong. I think things are wrong because of how I feel about them. If you want to disavow the existence of absolutes (right vs. wrong), don't in the next sentence say what right is and what wrong is (decided by how you feel about certain situations.) If right and wrong are not universal, not absolutes, don't pretend to know absolutes, or know how to access right and wrong. jdclanc wrote: Democracy decides that is right and wrong in our society based on out personally feeling and what we think is best for society. If 99% of the population thinks something is right, but I think it is wrong that isn't going to change my mind. That may seem silly to some people, but I don't know any other way to live my life. Democracy is not supposed to be premised upon the emotions of its participants. Democracy is predicated upon the belief that human beings are capable of self-interests, and the self-interest of the majority will prevail. Democracy is, in fact, supposed to counteract the irrational emotions of the voters. 99% of voters can think the same thing; that does not mean that their premises are wrong and thus their conclusion is faulty. "The good of many" is not a proper ethical doctrine, neither is "the good of duty". jdclanc wrote: I would probably just choose the God that agreed with me. Thus, I would be doing the exact same thing as not having a God in the first place. The place of God in morality is to provide an absolute set of ethics; if you pick a God which agrees with you, you are severely corrupting the concept of God and I am sure any theist would be horrified by such a remark. People believe in the morality of God because it is a duty-based system, it gives certain absolutes. It is a non-thinker's deontology where one must use reason to achieve ethical ends.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

jdclanc
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/19/08 - 03:11 PM:	#11
I'm not the original poster. My post was directed towards the original poster. Anyways, about the God problem. I am an atheist, and if the original poster convinced me that ethics cannot exist without a God then I would have to choose a God to believe in. But how do I know which God to choose? Jesus, Zeus, perhaps Thor. There is no way to know which is the one true God. Thus, most people either choose the God they are familiar with (which is an accident of birth and not a very good reason) or they choose the one they agree with. Thus, people are making value judgments without God and are only masking their own values with that of God.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2469

Posted 05/19/08 - 03:32 PM:	#12
jdclanc wrote: I'm not the original poster. My post was directed towards the original poster. Anyways, about the God problem. I am an atheist, and if the original poster convinced me that ethics cannot exist without a God then I would have to choose a God to believe in. But how do I know which God to choose? Jesus, Zeus, perhaps Thor. There is no way to know which is the one true God. Thus, most people either choose the God they are familiar with (which is an accident of birth and not a very good reason) or they choose the one they agree with. Thus, people are making value judgments without God and are only masking their own values with that of God. What does it mean for a god to be true? What does it mean for an apple to be true? That it exists? Well all gods exists, so in that case it doesn't matter which one you choose. A hindu doesn't ask "which one is the true god?" He has a whole bunch of them. Where does this "which one" come from? If you have two apples in front of you, do you have to choose which one to believe in, and discard the other?
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

jdclanc
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/19/08 - 03:51 PM:	#13
Well, if ethics are derived from God then you have to choose a God so you know which ethical system to follow. This is a practical exercise, not simply theoretical. Since we are assuming that ethics is derived from God it matters which God you choose. A person can't choose Jesus and a Hindu god because Jesus says that the Hindu gods are false. Thus, choosing a God and ethical system means saying that most/all other gods and ethical systems are incorrect. Choosing Jesus requires acceptance of one God and rejection of all others. Therefore, how does one know which God to choose?

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 05/19/08 - 04:05 PM:	#14
The_Rational_Animal wrote: Democracy is not supposed to be premised upon the emotions of its participants. Democracy is predicated upon the belief that human beings are capable of self-interests, and the self-interest of the majority will prevail. Democracy is, in fact, supposed to counteract the irrational emotions of the voters. 99% of voters can think the same thing; that does not mean that their premises are wrong and thus their conclusion is faulty. "The good of many" is not a proper ethical doctrine, neither is "the good of duty". Democracy is the idea that a majority is what makes the best course. This is an absolute fallacy. The best of the political ideas by far, is the constitutionally limited republic, where by properly abstracted moral rights are protected from mob rules - aka - majority vote.
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2469

Posted 05/19/08 - 04:09 PM:	#15
jdclanc wrote: Well, if ethics are derived from God then you have to choose a God so you know which ethical system to follow. This is a practical exercise, not simply theoretical. Since we are assuming that ethics is derived from God it matters which God you choose. A person can't choose Jesus and a Hindu god because Jesus says that the Hindu gods are false. I don't think I have heard of or read of Jesus saying that at any one point. In any case, are there any Hindu gods that do that? If not, then why choose one instead of two or more? Thus, choosing a God and ethical system means saying that most/all other gods and ethical systems are incorrect. Choosing Jesus requires acceptance of one God and rejection of all others. Therefore, how does one know which God to choose? Is this not a generalisation? Does all gods say, reject all others? If not, why ask the question? If one ethical system says, it is ok to accept another one, does it not mean you can have two?
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2469

Posted 05/19/08 - 04:19 PM:	#16
ugx2000 wrote: Democracy is the idea that a majority is what makes the best course. This is an absolute fallacy. The best of the political ideas by far, is the constitutionally limited republic, where by properly abstracted moral rights are protected from mob rules - aka - majority vote. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin Beware of the people (the vast majority to be correct), for they are as corrupt as the government, for they have contracted with a wolf to keep alive the mechanism that will massacre us all, for pennies to buy a few more days in their futile lives. The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see? Businessmen, Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. - Morpheus
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

dwilljo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 23

Posted 05/19/08 - 08:30 PM:	#17
ok I was away for a bit and now I'm here. And I must say I was surprised to see so many responses - However, I kindly request to all the posters who went off topic, nay, WAY off topic to not hijack this thread. I will now address relevant posts: @ugx2000: By existent do you mean anything that exists? By that you mean everything which exists must be material? Thus, existents are material? If you think so, prove it! Wait, you can't...and nobody else has been able to, so good luck! @The_Rational_Animal: I'm not sure where you're going with the whole cause and effect thing, I just don't see how it relates. For this post I will agree you should use reason to derive moral facts; however, when using reason there must be an end to the reason. I have 2 explanations I can give you: 1) Q: Why use reason in morality? A: Reason has constantly yielded good results in the past so I will continue to use it until it does not yield good results Q: What do you mean by good results? What do you think are bad results? Aa: Well good results being ones the desired results, and bad results being the undesired results Ab: (Alternatively) Well good results being the ones that made me happy and bad results are ones that made me unhappy. If I did not care between results, I would have no reason to reason and would not need to think about morality. Q: (Continuing from Aa) What reason do you have for deciding which results are desired/undesired? A: The reason is that one result makes me happier than another result. For what reason would I even bother choosing if I did not care to make a choice in the first place? Even if I decided not to choose, I would still be using utilitarianism as by not choosing increases my utility. 2) While you see utility as the result, I see it as the end. With logic being the means to this end. Because in order to reason, one must first decide what they are reasoning about. How could one use logic to solve a problem, if they do not know what the problem is? The bottom line is that what I have made is a system - you can reject it or accept it. Every system has axioms, and my axioms are based on experience. This experience is that people make choices which they believe which will make them happier. What other reason would one choose one decision over another? You say that utility is a side effect of using reason for deriving moral facts. But what is the end of this reasoning? However, like all systems and experiences - perspective is ever present. I see utility as the primary effect (although I totally disagree with your analogy, I'm just using your language), while you see it as a side effect. What is the primary effect then? Continuing on with this line of thought - how can you say there be absolutes in the moral sense? There may be the appearance of absolutes, but this does not mean there are. If you could use reason, I am sure we would have figured this out already. And this is coming from someone who believes in moral absolutes! I believe there are, but who knows! In regards to your last statement, what's suspicious about it? Could you explain why it's sickening to a utilitarian? Would they even care? It sounds like you cannot let go of the moral instilled in you by society or you have a strong position in favour of universal morality! @jdclanc: I may be premature in certain areas, but in my statements I try not to be. I know there are other systems of ethics, given my definitions and axioms, I think utilitarianism is one that I see as rational. I have to agree with rational animal's response to your "as an atheist myself..." statement I don't think I need to address the rest of your post, Thank you to The Rational Animal for saving me time.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1415

Posted 05/20/08 - 08:15 AM:	#18
dwilljo wrote: Based on my definitions of morality and ethics (which I think are reasonable and typical) I don't understand how atheists can be moral/immoral - however, they can be ethical/unethical. Morality: An action is deemed as a general 'metaphysically' good/evil act based on info from the invisible dude with the big white invisible beard. This info on morality is meant to allow the max utility for the max amount of people Ethics: An action is deemed as rationally good/evil based on the resulting utility. Clearly morality and ethics overlap, but I just do not understand how most of the atheists I read/converse with seem to have this idea of general good, which I feel, they are confusing with individual good. Well...I kind of do, but that will be explained momentarily. Now I hope enough people read my post that they will attack my definition of morality. Perhaps one attack will question why morality has to be from god. My response would be that it would be logically impossible to otherwise know what action would be generally good in this situation. Now the tricky part, what is meant by generally good? I feel like when people talk about right/wrong and good/evil they look at it as explanations rather than just as devices which help us understand the world. By seeing them as explanations they become polarized into what religious morality is, and that is how I define "Good" in the aforementioned paragraph. It is also why I don't understand the viewpoints of many atheists who see their ideas as right/wrong. Anyways yadda yadda yadda only God or any omnipotent being would know what to do in a given situation to make it right/wrong. **** But, I think I still gave a fairly muddled idea of what 'good' is. Is it inherently good or extrinsically good? More clearly, the timeless question - is it good because God says its good or because it actually has some benefits? I hope good is both, because if it doesn't give utility it would mess with how i look at morality/ethics alotSorry for that, I never meant it to be this big. And I am not imposing my views on atheists/theists whatever you are, I just really don't understand how an atheist is anything but amoral. edit: my decision trees didnt come out right...use your imagination or look it up Naturally you can't understand why an atheist could be anything but amoral. That's because you've defined morality in terms of God's decrees. But plenty of people don't believe in God and yet do believe in morality. So your definition might define something. But it doesn't seem to define the concept of morality. You seem to think it's logically impossible to know what is moral without knowing what God has decreed. But many apparently reasonable and intelligent people seem to know and care about what is moral without in the least knowing or caring about what (if anything) God has decreed. And their knowledge and concern for morality seems to be at least equal to and in some cases considerably greater than the knowledge and concern of many of those who believe in God's decrees. That phenomenon would be hard to explain if your definition of the word 'morality' were actually an explanation of the concept of morality and not of some other concept. One solution would to hang on to your definition and complain that the atheists are confused and unreasoning, despite appearances. Another would be to question the validity of your definition.

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 05/20/08 - 09:30 AM:	#19
dwilljo wrote: ok I was away for a bit and now I'm here. And I must say I was surprised to see so many responses - However, I kindly request to all the posters who went off topic, nay, WAY off topic to not hijack this thread. I will now address relevant posts: @ugx2000: By existent do you mean anything that exists? By that you mean everything which exists must be material? Thus, existents are material? If you think so, prove it! Wait, you can't...and nobody else has been able to, so good luck! I am not sure if this is serious. There can be no greater error in thinking. Empirical evidence. It is absolutely no stretch when I say: there is no other thing with more empirical evidence. jdclanc wrote: As an atheists myself, I don't believe in universal right and wrong. How could there be? I think things are wrong because of how I feel about them. "I don't believe in universal right and wrong." Let's pick this apart. The first part: "I don't believe in" Beliefs are an artifice. To believe or not is that act of accepting or rejecting a belief (artifice). Second part: "universal right and wrong" A flawed statement in that, right and wrong are existent reality based descriptives. That is; a statement / observation, either accurately reflects reality, or it fails to do so. The word universal is superfluous. So combined, you are saying that right and wrong are subject to belief. They are not. They are words that describe (repeating the above) the accuracy of an observation or statement. Do you see the difference? Edited by ugx2000 on 05/20/08 - 09:46 AM
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

dwilljo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 23

Posted 05/22/08 - 01:18 PM:	#20
Ok ugx2000, yes im totally serious. Answer this if you are so sure about the validity of empirical evidence. Does it exist inside our minds or does it exist separately? There is no right/wrong answer, the main point here is that it is impossible to empirically prove that physicality impossible to prove even that physical things are outside the mind. whatever one considers the mind to be - physical or non-physical. I could really go on and on about this. But it's not the thread for it. Go make your rants in the metaphysical section. And I would suggest reading Hume on Knowledge, or treatise on knowledge, something along those lines. Or descartes, locke, berkeley etc...so you can see the problem with your reductionist method of thinking

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/22/08 - 02:31 PM:	#21
I recently built up the energy to sufficiently respond to your comments, dwilljo. dwilljo wrote: Q: Why use reason in morality? A: Reason has constantly yielded good results in the past so I will continue to use it until it does not yield good results Q: What do you mean by good results? What do you think are bad results? A: Well good results being ones the desired results, and bad results being the undesired results Q: What reason do you have for deciding which results are desired/undesired? A: The reason is that one result makes me happier than another result. For what reason would I even bother choosing if I did not care to make a choice in the first place? Even if I decided not to choose, I would still be using utilitarianism as by not choosing increases my utility. You can use reason to reach whatever ethical end you wish to. That is not the matter I am interested in; I am interested in your treatment of utility as the end in itself. I agree with your last answer "that one result makes me happier". This is the principle of self-interest; but self-interest and ensuring your own happiness is not utility as utility is presently defined in formal philosophical settings. The utility of an act (or rule) equals the sum of its beneficial consequences minus the sum of its detrimental consequences; utility, then, is not self-interested but interested only in itself: an "end in itself". dwilljo wrote: 2) While you see utility as the result, I see it as the end. With logic being the means to this end. Because in order to reason, one must first decide what they are reasoning about. How could one use logic to solve a problem, if they do not know what the problem is? You cannot use reason to derive an irrational conclusion, that is a conclusion based on happiness (or "utility") and not objective reality. If you do, that means your argument, or process of reason, relies on irrational premises and are liable to forcing a contradiction. You are right that one must know what the problem is in order to reason: reason is a means of composing an argument to fulfill some necessity. In moral cases, the problem is obvious: a moral decision must be made, the question lies in which decision is the right one. Utility will result in some cases where the correct rational process has been made. But the end in itself is not utility, but is self-interest, as you mention in the dialogue above. Only self-interest is the rational end of moral discussion, utility cannot be the rational end of moral discussion because, as I said, utility is irrational happiness and whims and the "greatest pleasure for all". dwilljo wrote: The bottom line is that what I have made is a system - you can reject it or accept it. Every system has axioms, and my axioms are based on experience. This experience is that people make choices which they believe which will make them happier. Utility is not self-interest, especially when that utility becomes, essentially, hedonism. Just because you experience people doing what makes them happy (which is irrational, not based on reason), does not mean such a concept should be or is axiomatic to a moral doctrine. dwilljo wrote: What other reason would one choose one decision over another? You say that utility is a side effect of using reason for deriving moral facts. But what is the end of this reasoning? However, like all systems and experiences - perspective is ever present. I see utility as the primary effect (although I totally disagree with your analogy, I'm just using your language), while you see it as a side effect. What is the primary effect then? The end of this reasoning is the decision you ought to and will make. It is not proper reasoning to derive a moral fact which says "do that which makes the most people happy", including yourself. Animals cannot reason to moral facts and yet this is the very action they will choose, to make themselves happy. Man possesses reason, which will lead him to a similar but more enlightened conclusion: that the end in itself is self-interested, goal-directed action, not what merely makes you happy. Utility is a side-effect because, on occasion, the action your reason brings you to do will positively effect the happiness of other beings. This is a mere coincidence, not an appropriate motivating action. dwilljo wrote: Continuing on with this line of thought - how can you say there be absolutes in the moral sense? There may be the appearance of absolutes, but this does not mean there are. If you could use reason, I am sure we would have figured this out already. And this is coming from someone who believes in moral absolutes! I believe there are, but who knows! If there are no "black-and-white" moral absolutes, all there are is "grays". If there are no moral absolutes, what you are (explicitly) admitting to is: "There are no blacks and whites"/ (implicitly): "I unwilling to be wholly good—and please don’t regard me as wholly evil!” People who say there are no moral absolutes belong to a cult of uncertainty and are most likely overwhelmed by the necessity of using reason and using morality as a useful practice. dwilljo wrote: In regards to your last statement, what's suspicious about it? Could you explain why it's sickening to a utilitarian? Would they even care? It sounds like you cannot let go of the moral instilled in you by society or you have a strong position in favour of universal morality! It's suspicious because no rational moral system would allow the irrational, collectivist, systematic extinction of 11 million innocent people. I don't care why it would be sickening to a utilitarian, but it is suspicious why a utilitarian would even need an explanation of why such is the wrong course of action. To the bolded part, it is obvious that the moral views (self-interest as the end in itself) that I am pushing here is not your typical altruist, Christian deontology. I only have a strong favor for universal morality because without it, all there exists is indecision and moral grayness, which is what utilitarianism is: hopeless calculation to achieve what is, in the end, animalistic satisfaction. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 05/22/08 - 02:39 PM

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/22/08 - 05:11 PM:	#22
The_Rational_Animal: Why is self-interest a legitimate moral end but not utility? You never seem to justify that rather critical point, which all your points in this post seem to rely heavily on. For the OP (dwilljo): it's still very unclear why you think a divine judge is necessary for morality. You seem to want to claim that it is necessary for polarised good/evil, and that that in turn is necessary for an absolute morality. Neither claim of necessity seems obviously true. If I have a clearly-defined set of actions that are required and/or forbidden, that seems sufficient for an absolute demarcation of right/wrong, and that surely can be established without any divine reference. Similarly, a moral method that tells me how to decide between the right/wrong thing to do in a given situation may not have a particularly clear statement on the extremities of morality, but that doesn't seem like it's necessary for the morality to be absolute, if the rules and procedures are clearly defined and not malleable. Of course, much of this depends on what you mean by an absolute morality, and why you think it's particularly important.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/22/08 - 06:40 PM:	#23
klorius wrote: Why is self-interest a legitimate moral end but not utility? You never seem to justify that rather critical point, which all your points in this post seem to rely heavily on. An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. Without an end in itself, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. The activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself. This is why self-interest is the end in itself, not utility (for the reasons I previous addressed in my last post).

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 05/22/08 - 11:18 PM:	#24
dwilljo wrote: Ok ugx2000, yes im totally serious. Answer this if you are so sure about the validity of empirical evidence. Does it exist inside our minds or does it exist separately? There is no right/wrong answer, the main point here is that it is impossible to empirically prove that physicality impossible to prove even that physical things are outside the mind. whatever one considers the mind to be - physical or non-physical. Here is where I pull out the word context. Yes there is a right answer(s), and it is in a context(s). dwilljo wrote: I could really go on and on about this. But it's not the thread for it. Go make your rants in the metaphysical section. And I would suggest reading Hume on Knowledge, or treatise on knowledge, something along those lines. Or descartes, locke, berkeley etc...so you can see the problem with your reductionist method of thinking Rants hah? LOL. I see we are finished. No thanks on the suggested reading.
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/23/08 - 02:01 AM:	#25
The_Rational_Animal wrote: An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. I can see how one might make the claim that life is a natural basic standard for value. However, I fail to see why: (a) it is a necessary standard; (b) that it should be the standard; or even (c) the only standard. It seems to me you're making all these three claims, and I'm rather puzzled as to how you justify such strong claims. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Without an end in itself, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Is infinity an impossibility? I'm not too sure why we should agree with the idea that an infinite progression is metaphysically impossible, even if we have a problem with an epistemological justification of such a concept. Furthermore, why should it be a linear progression? Why not, for example, a circular progression, or any other shape that loops back onto itself? More concretely, though, why do we require an ultimate end for all this? Multiple ends appear to be perfectly possible, and arbitrary ends seem to work just as well as ultimate ends for the purposes of chains of justification. Also: why is it that we should assume that ends define values? Is it not possible that values define ends instead? The_Rational_Animal wrote: Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. Again, this requires further justification. Why should life be the only possible metaphysical phenomenon that is an end in itself? Why not rationality, or information, or divinity, or any number of possible formulations? Also, I'm rather unclear what sort of epistemology you're referring to here, since you seem to want to use genetics to define epistemology. If you're pursuing a biological line of argument, it seems perfectly plausible, even if one goes with the idea of life as value, for an individual organism to choose genetic continuity over individual happiness. In any case, it seems rather incongruous to be arguing metaphysically and then suddenly make a physical (natural) claim about the same thing.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.