Religious vs non-religous bases for morality

[Gary Childress]

If you want to be unreasonable and insist that it's in your interest to break rules where there are sanctions for breaking them and that you'll always believe that you won't get caught, even though there are no guarantees for such a thing, then debating with you is pointless. You need to accept when your objections are answered. Continually repeating the same objections over and over again doesn't make them any truer than the first time your objections were answered.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with what secularism itself can rationally warrant from within its own system. If a secularist/Atheist can warrant even one moral duty purely from his secularism, you'll prove me wrong. Just show how he can do that.

If you can't, then maybe Nietzsche and I are seeing something that they are afraid to admit to themselves -- that their belief system offers no warrant at all for morality.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That's actually just an argument from power. That society has the power to make people "play by rules" doesn't tell us those rules are legitimate or right or moral. Did not the Third Reich make people "play by rules"? Yet would you call them moral?

You need more than power, for morality. You need moral justification. You need to be able to say exactly why, given how things really are, your rules are right, and other rules are wrong.

So again, given secularism, why is it (morally, with justification, not mere use of power) wrong for an Atheist to cheat?

[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. The indifferent universe doesn't care. And people aren't going to catch me, I believe. So why should I hold back?

If you don't and you are caught, you'll be sanctioned for it.

Nobody sane does things when they believe they'll be caught. So that doesn't even enter into the equation. What you need to say is why I SHOULD hold back, even though I feel certain I won't get caught and will get an advantage of some kind.

[Lacewing]

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.

It has nothing to do with me.

I knew you couldn't do it.

[Immanuel Can]

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

It has nothing to do with me.

I knew you couldn't do it.

No, what you knew was that is was irrelevant. What you said was "you couldn't do it."

But the one who "couldn't do it" wasn't me. I was the one who posed the challenge: what moral precept can Atheism justify? So far, I've heard no response at all; but that non-answer IS the answer.

[Lacewing]

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

It has nothing to do with me.

I knew you couldn't do it.

No, what you knew was that is was irrelevant.

It's absolutely relevant to know such a thing when considering anything you say. It's too bad you can't prove it.

[MikeNovack]

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.

First, it is YOU who believes the non-believer will not have reasons for what he or she does believe. The non-believer has beliefs. BUT --- we haven;t quite gotten there yet, since I for one, at THIS POINT, am not assuming no gods. Just not believing on the sort of "hands on" deity you assume. In effect, I am arguing that as far as discussing morality is concerned, there is going to be little difference between the believer in a "hands off" deity and the secularist who believes in no deiuty.

You are ignoring that societies are in competition (evolutionary competition) with other societies. If the society is burdened by the inefficiency of members of the society being unable to predict the actions of others in response to their own actions, the society will ose our in this competition and go extinct. Therefore we see no such societies that have nno morality. Remember, I am considering morality to be the knowledge fo what considered right and what considered wrong.

Of none saee --- you are assuming more than just a deity giving the rules of morality but one choosing to watch what you do. In other words, even if other people don;t see what I do, the gods will see. But that assumes not only gods ut ones that would bother to watch what we do. So stop with this business of secularist/atheist and discuss in terms of belief in a god that does not bother watching you.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

First, it is YOU who believes the non-believer will not have reasons for what he or she does believe.

No, apparently it's every single such person in the world. Because I've asked the question a hundred times, and nobody is ever able to give one secular justification for even one moral precept.

A 100% record of failure is pretty darn convincing.

The non-believer has beliefs.

You're right: but then, he shouldn't call himself a "non-believer," should he?

BUT --- we haven;t quite gotten there yet, since I for one, at THIS POINT, am not assuming no gods. Just not believing on the sort of "hands on" deity you assume. In effect, I am arguing that as far as discussing morality is concerned, there is going to be little difference between the believer in a "hands off" deity and the secularist who believes in no deiuty.

I'm pointing out the difference. It's that the latter cannot justify even one moral precept on basis of his "non-belief".

You are ignoring that societies are in competition (evolutionary competition) with other societies.

Well, only because it will make no difference to the question. Why should I, as an assumptive secularist, not cheat there, too? Why should I not cheat in any given situation?

[Immanuel Can]

It has nothing to do with me.

I knew you couldn't do it.

No, what you knew was that is was irrelevant.

It's absolutely relevant to know such a thing when considering anything you say. It's too bad you can't prove it.

I'll simply ask you the question again: what's your evidence that you have a moral duty, not just a feeling?

[MikeNovack]

Because I've asked the question a hundred times, and nobody is ever able to give one secular justification for even one moral precept.

A 100% record of failure is pretty darn convincing.

WHAT SECULARIST?

Are you really not paying attention? You aren't getting your divine basis for morality JUST because you believe in God/gods. You are also using presumptions about what this God wants to do, intends, etc.

A person can believe in God/gods, can believe by deity was the universe created, without believing this deity the least interested in giving you moral direction or the least interested in seeing what you do or don;t do.

You are getting your divine morality and divine judgement of human behavior from your PARTICULAR conception of God. You believe in "that sort of god".

Try it, pretend you are not arguing with a secularist but another believer in God/gods, a believer that this deity created the universe, created life. But not somebody who believes this deity is the least bit interested in controlling creation, not the least nit interested whether a particular species evolves or the behavior of individuals of this species.

Do you not see that you are arguing both against secularists AND believers in deity (just not a deity of your particular sort). Some of these "believers in the ONE consider it presumptuous even to ponder what the intentions of th eONE might be.

[Immanuel Can]

Because I've asked the question a hundred times, and nobody is ever able to give one secular justification for even one moral precept.

A 100% record of failure is pretty darn convincing.

WHAT SECULARIST?

Any.

I'll take an answer from any. If one can do it, they have success...they've defeated my argument.

You are also using presumptions about what this God wants to do, intends,

This isn't true, but it has nothing to do with the question anyway. So I could grant it to you for argument's sake, and stilll, you've said nothing to the point.

The question is about what secularism can warrant by its own lights, regardless of what somebody else can or cannot do.

[Lacewing]

I'll simply ask you the question again: what's your evidence that you have a moral duty, not just a feeling?

My evidence is in the life I have lived and the person I have been consistently. You can't have a clue about these things, so I guess you're not meant to know. I don't need to insist on a reason or excuse for it (as you do) -- it's just the kind of being I am, as many beings are.

It's too bad you don't understand this natural potential. I think there is much more at work than you realize while you're busy demanding that everything must be explained within the limits of your awareness.

[MikeNovack]

I'll simply ask you the question again: what's your evidence that you have a moral duty, not just a feeling?

My evidence is in the life I have lived and the person I have been consistently. You can't have a clue about these things, so I guess you're not meant to know. I don't need to insist on a reason or excuse for it (as you do) -- it's just the kind of being I am, as many beings are.

It's too bad you don't understand this natural potential. I think there is much more at work than you realize while you're busy demanding that everything must be explained within the limits of your awareness.

I'd like to take this a step farther. IC,why are you so quick to pooh-pooh "feelings". Let me put it another way, how do you get from recognizing you have a duty to do X to actually ding X? Isn't that something like when yu do your duty you FEEL good and when you don't, yu FEEL bad << siding with Hume here >>

Look, evolution can USE what is already there for other/additional purposes. If you start with two feelings, if feels good do/keep doing and if feels bad, don't do/stop doing. Then INSTINCTS can be encoded using these feelings. Rather than having to code a bunch of steps (in each case) just associate to "feels good" or "feels bad". And once this mechanism is in place (for instincts) can use for other purposes. In this case, learning "morality". Back when you learned to use the pot instead of doing it in your diaper was long before you could think in terms of duty (to do it in the ;pot). Instead you learned/were taught to feel good when you used the pot.

Then can learn new "moral things" simply by associating to that same "feels good"/"feels bad". Our brains are god at establishing/encoding associations.

PLEASE --I am not arguing that deontology is wrong, just that it might not be the only game in town. The argument that "it's all just feelings" has the benefit of explaining how ACTIONS might result.

[Immanuel Can]

IC,why are you so quick to pooh-pooh "feelings".

Can you make it a duty, an "ought" or obligatory to have a "feeling"? Can you base a law, a rule, a justice action or a principle on a "feeling," and then require others to agree with that law, rule, principle, or act of justice? Can you summon a society to consensus around a "feeling"? Can you use a "feeling" to justify resistance to oppression, or to interdict an evil? Can you command respect from others, or protest your rights based on nothing more than your "feeling"?

If you can't, then feelings cannot do any of the work we routinely use morality to do.