Religious vs non-religous bases for morality

[Immanuel Can]

If I believed that this is really the world in which I have found myself -- and I mean really believed it, not just said it -- if I believed it with all my heart, and with all the confidence with which anybody ever believes anything. If I felt certain that my wisest choice was to invest my belief in this particular origin story, and decided to live out my life as if this is the whole truth of my origins, then what?

I tell you the truth: I would see the logic of that immediately. The logic would be that there is simply no legitimate thing such as a moral requirement. Maybe the group of late chimps in which I happen to troop would impose one on me, and put rules on me to serve their purposes. But I would see that that was all it was. And in honesty, in sticking to the truth as I believed it to be, I would have to see that it served my own turn to be selective in my adherence to such rules: to obey them only when others were watching, but to find as many ways as I could to subvert or avoid them whenever something in my interest popped up.


You can now see the problem, can't you?

Can't you? I am saying that it is the knowledge (and other non-moral factors will weigh in on what action you end up taking)

I'm not asking what decision will be made. I'm asking why I ought to choose to do the difficult but moral thing, when the immoral thing stands to be easier and to get me what I want.

But seriously, do you believe that it is only a question of "if the others know"?

That's all it can be, given the worldview we're considering. What else could it possibly be?

When you look at the "secular" origin story (**), do you not see that as we evolved ans social animals, and social animals that would have "culture", morality would come into existence/evolve along with us?

There's absolutely no reason to think it would. We evolved by "survival of the fittest," allegedly. Why would I then give up my "fit" edge, my chance to get whatever it is I want, for the sake of something abstract and unreal, like moral compunctions? That seems totally anti-evolutionary, as well as highly detrimental to my interests.

What's the logical connection between a group of animals living in a troop, and moral concepts? Monkeys have none. And they survive in groups. Instinct and impulse seem to be all they need. Why would we have this other weird thing, morality?

[Immanuel Can]

We, the chimps, and the bonobos, are all approximately the same distance apart

You see, Mike, this is where the thesis from which you're working becomes severely problematic for any moral justification.

Let's say I agree with you: human beings are sophisticated bonobos. Or chimps. Or neither, but all derived from a common ancestor...an uberchimp, or even earlier, a common paramecium-like cell in the primordial soup. It won't matter for the deduction that naturally follows.

Whichever it is, all of us are mere products of chance. Our world exploded into existence billions of years ago, purely by some natural phenomenon of which, while admittedly we have no detailed understanding, we are confident had no intelligence, no plan, no purposes, and no intention behind it. Chimps, bonobos and Mikes all came into being through the same accidental route. Between that accident and today, the operative forces have simply been time and non-directed, non-teleological evolution. Time plus mutation. That's it. What we are today is as accidental as the origin of the universe, ultimately.

If I believed that this is really the world in which I have found myself -- and I mean really believed it, not just said it -- if I believed it with all my heart, and with all the confidence with which anybody ever believes anything. If I felt certain that my wisest choice was to invest my belief in this particular origin story, and decided to live out my life as if this is the whole truth of my origins, then what?

I tell you the truth: I would see the logic of that immediately. The logic would be that there is simply no legitimate thing such as a moral requirement. Maybe the group of late chimps in which I happen to troop would impose one on me, and put rules on me to serve their purposes. But I would see that that was all it was. And in honesty, in sticking to the truth as I believed it to be, I would have to see that it served my own turn to be selective in my adherence to such rules: to obey them only when others were watching, but to find as many ways as I could to subvert or avoid them whenever something in my interest popped up. I might even be able to use them to limit others' advantages relative to me, or to give me a survival and prosperity edge...pretending to believe in them so others had to fall in line with my wishes, but personally feeling no duty whatsoever to stay true to them myself, when I found it useful to do otherwise.

I would realize that it was in a battle for survival and for privileges. There would be no ultimate reason why I shouldn't play the moral game in front of others, but completely abandon it in my own interests. In fact, that would be the perfect logic I would have to derive from my starting point: I'm in an accidental world, with no rules, with no obligations, and no price to pay for subverting the moral game. I would have everything to win by being adaptable, cunning and amoral, and zero to lose. Who could possibly fail to see that logic?

Would that make me a bad person? No, in the first place, because "bad" would never be a real thing. But if I failed to see that logic, I would be a stupid and disadvantaged person, for sure...I would miss my own opportunities, out of some false sense of duty to a non-thing, to morality, when I could be getting ahead. And in the second place, it would actually make me, in a perverse sense, "good." Why? Because, ultimately, it's even better for the human race if I do get ahead, if I am truly one of the few who has managed to be a total realists about things, like this: for the human race, I would believe, progresses by guys like me, guys with the cunning, strategy and amorality to get ahead, to procreate, to seize more power for themselves, to enjoy more privileges and increase survival potential -- and to raise children who thought exactly the way I did, and were just as beyond morality in their realism as I was. Thus would the race evolve, I would conclude.

Now, do you think that's how I should reason? But if you don't, how would you say I ought to reason? Should I abandon my original belief in an accidental, Materialist kind of universe? But why, if I truly believe it? Should I know that there's no such real thing as morality, and still play patsy to the moral demands of others, and even of lesser men? How would that serve me, or the human race, if I did it? Where would doing that be to my advantage?

So tell me, Mike...why should I, as a believer in accidental origins and evolutionary bonobos, take any moral imperative seriously at all? Why would you have me abandon my brain, deny my essential beliefs, lose my advantages and impair the human race?

You can now see the problem, can't you?

Are you saying that a society couldn't decide on rational rules to govern the behavior of its members for the benefit of all if there is no God?

No. But I am saying there's no reason for me to feel bound by those rules, so long as I think I can get away with something. The indifferent universe doesn't care. And people aren't going to catch me, I believe. So why should I hold back?

Or are you saying that atheists could come up with rational rules, but cheating is always the best rational option for any member of a society?

Why don't you tell me the answer: why is it wrong for an Atheist to cheat?

[Lacewing]

Are you saying that a society couldn't decide on rational rules to govern the behavior of its members for the benefit of all if there is no God?

No. But I am saying there's no reason for me to feel bound by those rules, so long as I think I can get away with something. .../... And people aren't going to catch me, I believe. So why should I hold back?

Considering how many theists break the rules and commit crimes (especially sexual) against others (mostly children), it would seem that there's not a strong enough reason to deter them from doing so either. Furthermore, religion builds in the idea of 'asking their god for forgiveness' if they get caught. How contrived and self-serving. Under the pretense of being righteous, this suggests they could be the worst predators of all.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you saying that a society couldn't decide on rational rules to govern the behavior of its members for the benefit of all if there is no God?

No. But I am saying there's no reason for me to feel bound by those rules, so long as I think I can get away with something. .../... And people aren't going to catch me, I believe. So why should I hold back?

Considering how many theists break the rules and commit crimes...

It's not true, but if it were, it would still have zero to do with the question. Even if all the Theists were evil, it wouldn't imply that Atheists couldn't do whatever they wish.

So...answer the question, or admit you can't.

[Lacewing]

Even if all the Theists were evil, it wouldn't imply that Atheists couldn't do whatever they wish.

ANYBODY can do whatever they wish... and many do... for better or for worse... REGARDLESS of theism or atheism.

Human beings have inherent qualities. You can claim that they have no reason to be good without a god, but that's just your mistaken opinion to validate your own belief system.

So...answer the question, or admit you can't.

I just did, twice... whether you like it or understand it or not.

[Immanuel Can]

Even if all the Theists were evil, it wouldn't imply that Atheists couldn't do whatever they wish.

ANYBODY can do whatever they wish... and many do... for better or for worse... REGARDLESS of theism or atheism.

That's not the question: the question is whether there is anything that should cause a secularist moral restraint, or whether somebody who believes in that worldview can logically decide on the basis of the inherent meaninglessness of existence to do whatever they want, so long as they feel can get away with it.

What's your answer?

[Lacewing]

Even if all the Theists were evil, it wouldn't imply that Atheists couldn't do whatever they wish.

ANYBODY can do whatever they wish... and many do... for better or for worse... REGARDLESS of theism or atheism.

That's not the question: the question is whether there is anything that should cause a secularist moral restraint, or whether somebody who believes in that worldview can logically decide on the basis of the inherent meaninglessness of existence to do whatever they want, so long as they feel can get away with it.

What's your answer?

Your question is worded in a way that limits and ignores any other conditions or qualities that are likely to reasonably exist. So, it's not really a question that can be answered to your liking except for you to hear absolute agreement. But that's your goal, right?

That's not my viewpoint, so your question cannot be answered in the way you insist.

[Immanuel Can]

ANYBODY can do whatever they wish... and many do... for better or for worse... REGARDLESS of theism or atheism.

That's not the question: the question is whether there is anything that should cause a secularist moral restraint, or whether somebody who believes in that worldview can logically decide on the basis of the inherent meaninglessness of existence to do whatever they want, so long as they feel can get away with it.

What's your answer?

Your question is worded in a way that limits and ignores any other conditions or qualities that are likely to reasonably exist.

How? It's a very simple question, and premised on nothing more than the existence of Atheists or secularists. Does an Atheist have a duty to be moral? Show that he does.

Go ahead.

[Lacewing]

Does an Atheist have a duty to be moral?

Duty to himself? Duty to his family... his community... humankind? Depends on the person.

[Immanuel Can]

Does an Atheist have a duty to be moral?

Duty to himself? Duty to his family... his community... humankind? Depends on the person.

Any duty. To anybody.

Show that he has one.

[Lacewing]

Does an Atheist have a duty to be moral?

Duty to himself? Duty to his family... his community... humankind? Depends on the person.

Any duty. To anybody.

Show that he has one.

For me, I feel that I have a 'duty' to myself, and the people in my life, and the larger cosmic web, because I feel it's all connected... and being my best is my contribution to that. That's my expression of gratitude and love. Not doing so would be a disservice and a disrespectful waste. I don't need to imagine that I'm doing it for a god. It's just what I naturally feel, and many people are like this.

[Immanuel Can]

Duty to himself? Duty to his family... his community... humankind? Depends on the person.

Any duty. To anybody.

Show that he has one.

For me, I feel that I have a 'duty' to myself,

Well, that's just you. But it's not rational, it's just a feeling. And you could ignore it, or the feeling could disappear when you find something you want.

Prove that it's not just a feeling. Prove it's a moral duty.

[Lacewing]

Any duty. To anybody.

Show that he has one.

For me, I feel that I have a 'duty' to myself, and the people in my life, and the larger cosmic web, because I feel it's all connected... and being my best is my contribution to that. That's my expression of gratitude and love. Not doing so would be a disservice and a disrespectful waste. I don't need to imagine that I'm doing it for a god. It's just what I naturally feel, and many people are like this.

Well, that's just you. But it's not rational, it's just a feeling. And you could ignore it, or the feeling could disappear when you find something you want.

Prove that it's not just a feeling. Prove it's a moral duty.

Prove that you're not delusional and full of crap.

[Gary Childress]

Why don't you tell me the answer: why is it wrong for an Atheist to cheat?

Because if society would benefit from everyone playing by the rules and a society has set up a reasonable set of rules to better serve the welfare of the society of citizens, then it is counterproductive to others for someone not to play by the rules, and a person can be legally sanctioned for it. Wrong in this case = going against the rules laid down by society. That is what "wrong" is in most moral scenarios. If there is a God, then wrong is going against the rules laid down by God.

[Gary Childress]

Are you saying that a society couldn't decide on rational rules to govern the behavior of its members for the benefit of all if there is no God?

No. But I am saying there's no reason for me to feel bound by those rules, so long as I think I can get away with something. The indifferent universe doesn't care. And people aren't going to catch me, I believe. So why should I hold back?

Of course, there's a reason to follow them. If you don't and you are caught, you'll be sanctioned for it. And there are no guarantees that you won't be caught. And if you care about your fellow citizens, then you might observe your duties or restraints toward them.