Ethics without God ? - Canada by Adam Deen

[AntiKarateKid]

Doesn't look that way to me...

What are you trying to get at? Those are two separate statements.

Murdering isn't a REQUIREMENT for being atheist. But you sure as hell can and still validly consider yourself one.

This is getting off topic though. We're talking about the purpose of ethics without God and not atheism and murderers.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Which part have I ignored? I have given you a few reason for us to have morals and I have commented on how horrible it is that you need God not to be a mean pearson. Really I mean I could say how saddened I am to hear that you would treat your fellow man like gabage if you were not so fearful of your god.

Fearful? Again an atheistic misconception. For someone who posts so much on an Islamic forum and "talked" to so many Christians, you'd think you understand our relationship with Allah better.

Fear of hellfire is a part of the equation. Hope for paradise is another. Love for your creator and thankfulness for his blessings is yet another. And of course, knowledge that your actions matter and are immortal and that good will win over evil is also one. Hmm.... what else, oh yes, and that it is your destiny to follow Allah and perfect your character. Seems like a winning combo and judging by the character of the Prophet and the greatest generation of Muslims, it is the path to ultimate and true morality. You simply can't touch them.


I find it sad that all you have going for your morals is that "If I do X then I might get hurt". You have given me nothing except spurious supposed biological roots comments, a "i wont get hurt" reason.

I hope you find a higher purpose than what your biochemistry allows.

 

[Gator]

Here is a stream of consciousness on what I believe regarding “morality”. (And the caveat is that everything is on AVERAGE.)

There are 2 forces at work regarding a naturalistic basis for societal behavior.
The individual and the gene (going off dawkins, and wilson’s and many other’s “selfish gene” concept).

Individuals will react to further their utility and successful genes will further the perpetuity.

As has been stated, societal cooperation is more successful than just individual action.
How do genes promote societal cooperation? By incorporating Empathy in their hosts (us and other animals).

Empathy has been documented in many animals.

So genes affect a person’s utility function.

But empathy to a certain degree.

If someone breaks society’s rules they must be punished.

This has also been observed in other complex animal groups.

How do genes promote punishment of antisocial behavior? Anger and justification to punish.

A recent example is a person I know was over recently and I had just told her that the teenage AK-47 totting, hostage taking Somali kids had just been killed and the African food-aid delivering captain released. Now this is the nicest person in the world, much nicer than all the people who believe in hell for people for the slightest infraction, and she said “Great! I feel nothing for them”.

To her, members of her tribal group had been attacked and threatened, so something in her evolution based make up has suppressed her natural empathy for others. Why? Because they broke rules as to how to act in the best way to accord survival. She had tremendous empathy for the captain, but none for the people who took the captain hostage.

Why (on average) don’t you steal that wallet when no one is looking? Classic Nash-Baysian equilibrium. Because you would not want someone to steal your wallet when you’re not looking.

Why do people steal that wallet when no one is looking? Again, classic game theory. Because the reward of not getting caught is weighted higher than the punishment if you do get caught.

So here’s the thought experiment.

If GOD exists and he has in fact sent down a system of social policy (let’s call it Shariah) and he knows that (since he created people) deterring people from doing something would involve the person’s subjective probability of getting caught and the correct amount of punishment to weigh in the negative in following Shariah’s favor.

Well we know the punishment, which is arguably eternal torture.

What is God’s supposition on the thoughts of human’s subjective probability that he exists?

It must be pretty close to zero.

Thanks.

 

[Gator]

I find it sad that all you have going for your morals is that "If I do X then I might get hurt".

And how does your argument differ from that? Do good and go to heaven or go to hell?

Same carrots and sticks.

Thanks.

 

[Pygoscelis]

No. Not end of story.

Hypothetical Scenario: I'm on an Island away from civilization. There is an old man with a stash of jewelry and gold. Noone knows him, noone is watching what happens. WHy the hell can't I kill him and take his stuff? Cause we have "morals"? LOL. I'm going to die soon anyways, the least I can do is live large and well before I do. I care about myself and not the man, because it just doesn't matter whichever way I go.

You don't seem to understand still.

It-Doesn't-Matter.

Sure I'll follow them when there's some immediate benefit, but I'm not an animal that I work for the herd. If I want to be selfish I will, I don't give a **** about the other guy unless it suits me in some way, however minute, be it me "feeling" good that I gave the guy a dollar. It all comes down to ME.

If you lack empathy and have no moral values without your fear of punishment and promise of reward from authority (God in this case), that would make you a sociopath. Such people are rare, and I really don't think you are one.

I suppose it could be claimed that religion can control sociopaths, who would otherwise have no sense of morality. But I fear the reverse is more often true, sociopaths using religion to control and take advantage of others. Televangelists who live in their million dollar homes come immediately to mind.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Here is a stream of consciousness on what I believe regarding “morality”. (And the caveat is that everything is on AVERAGE.)

There are 2 forces at work regarding a naturalistic basis for societal behavior.
The individual and the gene (going off dawkins, and wilson’s and many other’s “selfish gene” concept).

Individuals will react to further their utility and successful genes will further the perpetuity.

As has been stated, societal cooperation is more successful than just individual action.
How do genes promote societal cooperation? By incorporating Empathy in their hosts (us and other animals).

Empathy has been documented in many animals.

So genes affect a person’s utility function.

But empathy to a certain degree.

If someone breaks society’s rules they must be punished.

This has also been observed in other complex animal groups.

How do genes promote punishment of antisocial behavior? Anger and justification to punish.

A recent example is a person I know was over recently and I had just told her that the teenage AK-47 totting, hostage taking Somali kids had just been killed and the African food-aid delivering captain released. Now this is the nicest person in the world, much nicer than all the people who believe in hell for people for the slightest infraction, and she said “Great! I feel nothing for them”.

To her, members of her tribal group had been attacked and threatened, so something in her evolution based make up has suppressed her natural empathy for others. Why? Because they broke rules as to how to act in the best way to accord survival. She had tremendous empathy for the captain, but none for the people who took the captain hostage.

Why (on average) don’t you steal that wallet when no one is looking? Classic Nash-Baysian equilibrium. Because you would not want someone to steal your wallet when you’re not looking.

Why do people steal that wallet when no one is looking? Again, classic game theory. Because the reward of not getting caught is weighted higher than the punishment if you do get caught.

So here’s the thought experiment.

If GOD exists and he has in fact sent down a system of social policy (let’s call it Shariah) and he knows that (since he created people) deterring people from doing something would involve the person’s subjective probability of getting caught and the correct amount of punishment to weigh in the negative in following Shariah’s favor.

Well we know the punishment, which is arguably eternal torture.

What is God’s supposition on the thoughts of human’s subjective probability that he exists?

It must be pretty close to zero.

Thanks.

Could you distill that into a smaller answer. I couldn't follow you and some of it seemed off topic. Let's stick to ethics without God please during this discussion.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

And how does your argument differ from that? Do good and go to heaven or go to hell?

Same carrots and sticks.

Thanks.

See my previous post. It is not merely fear, as you put it.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

If you lack empathy and have no moral values without your fear of punishment and promise of reward from authority (God in this case), that would make you a sociopath. Such people are rare, and I really don't think you are one.

I suppose it could be claimed that religion can control sociopaths, who would otherwise have no sense of morality. But I fear the reverse is more often true, sociopaths using religion to control and take advantage of others. Televangelists who live in their million dollar homes come immediately to mind.

Ontopic please, not mind-controlling televangelists.

So why should I not opportunistically use my empathy and tweak my "morals" to a very greedy version of them?

I could donate to charity to get admiration from my friends. Why burden my mind with thoughts about babies dying when I can choose to ignore their plight?

Again, you don't need to be a sociopath to steal a wallet. Let's not get ridiculous here. I could steal it then use it to buy my friends a free meal and myself a nice home theater system.

So why should I follow the popular version of morality? And I say popular because atheists aren't exactly unified on what type of morality is best.

I'll reiterate myself for the millionth time. We are all, according to atheists, a blob of atoms and biochemical reactions. We will die and turn to dust and be forgotten soon. WHy should I be a stingy, greedy, and opportunistic person who is just trying to enjoy himself as much as he can before he kicks the bucket?

 

[aamirsaab]

The only reply I could think of that athiests should use in relation to AKK's question is that by performing a moral or ethical act (in general terms), that person gets some sort of internal feedback - from their own body (blushing/ butterflies in your stomach etc). This ''good'' feeling acts as a form of reinforcement for that person and thus the act is continued/repeated. The act usually carries a double-reward in the form of the other person(s) saying thank you or something similar. So you have an internal and external reward system that encourages you to perform the act again (that's why you don't see someone commit suicide immediately after saving someone elses life)

All humans have that mechanism built into them, probably as a means of survival (you save someone from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger, you feel good about it and that person gives you a hot dinner, you just got two rewards and instintively your mind is registers that saving people from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger is beneficial to you, so do it again.) Critics would argue that is a considerably cynical mechanism as it is more to do with self preservation than helping others (altruism), but I'd counter with: ''next time your in deep trouble and you're crying out for help, I'll turn a blind eye''. That should shut them up. Although, the more polite response is: ''sorry, it's in my nature''

Now, the only difference between a theist and athiest in this regard is that with thiests we have an additional (and arguably better, overall) form of encouragement through the religious teachings. So, whilst athiests have 2 streams of encouragement, thiests have 3 - which is what I was trying to get at in my last, lengthy post on this thread.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

The only reply I could think of that athiests should use in relation to AKK's question is that by performing a moral or ethical act (in general terms), that person gets some sort of internal feedback - from their own body (blushing/ butterflies in your stomach etc). This ''good'' feeling acts as a form of reinforcement for that person and thus the act is continued/repeated. The act usually carries a double-reward in the form of the other person(s) saying thank you or something similar. So you have an internal and external reward system that encourages you to perform the act again (that's why you don't see someone commit suicide immediately after saving someone elses life)

All humans have that mechanism built into them, probably as a means of survival (you save someone from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger, you feel good about it and that person gives you a hot dinner, you just got two rewards and instintively your mind is registers that saving people from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger is beneficial to you, so do it again.) Critics would argue that is a considerably cynical mechanism as it is more to do with self preservation than helping others (altruism), but I'd counter with: ''next time your in deep trouble and you're crying out for help, I'll turn a blind eye''. That should shut them up. Although, the more polite response is: ''sorry, it's in my nature''

Now, the only difference between a theist and athiest in this regard is that with thiests we have an additional (and arguably better, overall) form of encouragement through the religious teachings. So, whilst athiests have 2 streams of encouragement, thiests have 3 - which is what I was trying to get at in my last, lengthy post on this thread.

Bro, I agree with you but could you also weigh in on my other point which was that in an "atheistic" universe, your actions and personal character don't matter because the "charitable and friendly" and "miserly and manipulative" people both end up dead and dust. The only difference being the evil person got a better ride through life by taking advantage of people.

 

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

So Akk if what you say is true why are there moral atheist? Why do I treat people well if I will just be dust?

 

[aamirsaab]

Bro, I agree with you but could you also weigh in on my other point which was that in an "atheistic" universe, your actions and personal character don't matter because the "charitable and friendly" and "miserly and manipulative" people both end up dead and dust. The only difference being the evil person got a better ride through life by taking advantage of people.

Oh yes certainly I agree with that notion - where ultimately, nothing you do matters so why not just be an ass? I think however that describes a nihilist more so than an athiests; athiests have no God-related ethos (other than the belief God doesn't exist), whereas (true) nihilists have no ethos at all.

Even athiests agree in their heart of hearts they have some purpose in life (or ethos) - even if it is only for this life. That is what keeps them going and not acting immoral/unethical....most of the time anyway.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

So Akk if what you say is true why are there moral atheist? Why do I treat people well if I will just be dust?

I was talking theoretically, if you think about it, you could be a really evil guy and it wouldn't matter.

Now as for your question....

Because Allah, the most Merciful, has given each of us the ability to do good or evil and has bestowed upon humanity Fitrah, or the inclination towards morality.

Thus, as a being who is more than the sum of his chemicals, a being with a soul, you have a sense of morality, purpose, being and the capacity to take these characteristics to the greatest heights.

Thus does Allah bless you, in spite of your rejection.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Now, the only difference between a theist and athiest in this regard is that with thiests we have an additional (and arguably better, overall) form of encouragement through the religious teachings. So, whilst athiests have 2 streams of encouragement, thiests have 3 - which is what I was trying to get at in my last, lengthy post on this thread.

This 3rd piece you mention can swing both ways. It may encourage a believer to give to charity, or it may encourage them to drink poisoned cool aid or shun outsiders (it often creates a powerful us vs them dynamic). It all depends on how those who the believer believes to speak for God (be it a holy book or a preacher).

 

[aamirsaab]

This 3rd piece you mention can swing both ways. It may encourage a believer to give to charity, or it may encourage them to drink poisoned cool aid or shun outsiders (it often creates a powerful us vs them dynamic). It all depends on how those who the believer believes to speak for God (be it a holy book or a preacher).

What you say is true. I'd add that you could also argue that same thought process for the other two forms of encouragement (that are prevalent in both thiests and athiests).

Depending on the reaction of others and if anything is gained via acting immorraly/unethically, a human being will pursue that action. E.g. I steal someones chocolate bar. My peers cheer me (external encouragement), I gain a chocolate bar (external encouragement), I feel good about myself (internal encouragement), I steal chocolate bars again to repeat the cycle. Even if I am acting alone (without peers), the mere fact that I got something (albeit insignificant all things considered) is enough feedback/encouragement for me to repeat the action again. It's like a twisted form of carrot/stick approach.

Now, the mechanism (internal encouragement to repeat an action) itself is neither good nor bad as it depends on the circumstance. However, at a core level it helps promote survival so it has the backing of psychology and thus tends to have a positive connotation. It's a case of ''good for the goose, good for the gander''. Of course, as you rightfully pointed out, it can be abused depending on the circumstance - as with most things.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Oh yes certainly I agree with that notion - where ultimately, nothing you do matters so why not just be an ass?

You've answered your own question in a later post:

Now, the mechanism (internal encouragement to repeat an action) itself is neither good nor bad as it depends on the circumstance. However, at a core level it helps promote survival so it has the backing of psychology and thus tends to have a positive connotation.

I think morality exists as a way of protecting the species. Obviously a society where murder was permitted wouldn't last very long, whether it believed in god or not.

Peace

 

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


You've answered your own question in a later post:

Hehehe you cut me off. I later on said what AKK was referring to is more of a nihilistic approach to life as opposed to athiestic. That was the crux of the point I was making.

I think morality exists as a way of protecting the species. Obviously a society where murder was permitted wouldn't last very long, whether it believed in god or not.

Peace

Oh absolutely agreed. I'm of the opinion that morality exists in all human beings - at least on a sociological level (i.e to appease or for the sake of others; family, friends etc).

I'm unsure as to whether or not morality is an inbuilt/inherent mechanism in humans (since there are differing opinions on and degrees of morality - usually shaped on our surroundings/environment) but I do agree that at least one of its functions (if not its only one) is to promote survival. Religion in this regard offers another stream or reason for behaving morally/ethically.

 

[Gator]

Could you distill that into a smaller answer. I couldn't follow you and some of it seemed off topic. Let's stick to ethics without God please during this discussion.

Sure, sorry about how unclear it came out.

Short answer - Our genes influence us act in a way that gives them a chance to perpetuate themselves. This is where the "internal moral compass" comes from.

That's why you may feel bad when you do bad and feel good when you do good.

Thanks.

 

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Sure, sorry about how unclear it came out.

Short answer - Our genes influence us act in a way that gives them a chance to perpetuate themselves. This is where the "internal moral compass" comes from.

That's why you may feel bad when you do bad and feel good when you do good.

Thanks.

We have the ability to know what suffering is and if we are causing it.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hehehe you cut me off. I later on said what AKK was referring to is more of a nihilistic approach to life as opposed to athiestic. That was the crux of the point I was making.

I only quoted your question because I wanted to make it clear which part of your text I was referring to. Do be assured that I did read all of your post the first time round.

Peace