The Atheists Moral Pledge

Empathy is where my moral values come from. I wont treat people like dirt because i know that i would not like to be mistreated. Simple as that. I treat other human beings with respect because i want to them to treat me with resect.

It always makes me shudder when people say "without belief in a deity and afterlife where do your morals come from". It makes it sounds like they would be running round murdering if they didnt think it would displease god.

I do the right thing because it is the correctway to treat people, not because a god who may or may not exsist will be displeased.

Bluesma
I understand to a certain extent what the OP is asking- he is refering to a code of ethics, or morals, that is static and unchanging. A code one can count as being sort of an objective reference outside of self.

I am asking what sense is there in partaking in something that doesn't exist to you.

It seems like you are saying that it is for a sense of security, rather than a sense of being good, but then a sense of security is reliant on security being good. Ultimately, you must subscribe to the notion that security, or longevity, of you, or your species, is a good thing, if it is to be logical.

Further still, if there is no good, then it cannot be good - it can only be delusional, right? And practicing it while believing there is no good, is even more delusional, right?

The above was in reply to your post and this one.

The only way to know what is good or right, is to be here, now, with self and others, fully.

Nay, there is no way to know what is good or bad, if there is no ultimate good or bad. It would not exist.

But your post and CB328's is the closet to being logical, remove no true good.

Spiramirabilis
Morality is logical. Nature is logical - even if you can’t see the logic at first glance. Some of us see other things as being arbitrary and artificial - but there you go

Depends on your point of view and your needs I guess

I think if it is logical, it is logical because there is a true right or wrong.

It's logic depends on a point of view? Can you expand on that?

Acting out? Stepping out of line? Being bad?

I meant it with the same sense of the word as enacting. As to say, an actor acts out his role. You are acting out your thoughts, of what you believe is good, while at the same time, trying to get others to also act out your thoughts of what is good- but you hold that there is no such thing as good?

Why should religion have the right to say what is right - demand certain practices and behavior, then enforce it however it sees fit, whenever it chooses - based on a promise to something it cannot prove?

It is not the religious or their books that ascribe the true knowledge of what is moral, but the supreme being(s) of those religions and books.

Morality and logic? Which of these do you think you understand?

Nice try

I'm a pacifist and a humanist Bleeeeep - and I also believe in letting others have their say and their way - so long as they don't ask everyone else to live their way or no way

Is that logical or illogical? Moral - or not?

I think I understand both morality and logic.

Others' way may be immoral, so allowing their way, may be, in turn, immoral as well - it just depends on what the true moral code is.

Logically, however, it may be sound - if there is no true right or wrong, then feeling nothing, and doing nothing, may be logical. As would doing something, or not doing something. It could be completely logical, while at the same time being removed from moral righteousness or injustice.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

The validity and justice can only come from he who has the best perspective.

The all knowing God, who is most just towards good.

Can you argue against this without saying there is no true good?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


There is nothing factual about right or wrong to atheists, for they feel it is just "common sense", while it is also experiencing empathy/or sympathy. You are right, human beings do, do things to make "themselves feel good". However, it is no different then being too self indulgent in their senses, or poisons, and there are plenty to chose in our age.

"Too much of a good thing, can be a bad thing".

Existing, it is nothing more then just "being" like how the Earth is existing, or why that rock is over there in that specific spot. Logic is nothing more then communication of thoughts, being expressed with words, although these day logic has been an "abstract expression of understandings" though without involving one perceptions. It doesn't involve emotions, it just the understanding of theory. Body language makes up at least 70% of what make communication between peoples.

That is why logic and science are universal, it just about understandings, and it just becomes practical.

It all about consequences without moral judgement. Some are willing to pay the price tag, while other will pay without knowing the price.

Mix the wrong batch of chemicals, or juggle nitro and "KABOOM". Dead.



A better question to ask, does one simply do kind things out of their heart, wealth, time, or does one be kind just for gain. I think that what you are asking, right?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Howdy,

I'd like to thank you for passionately contributing to the conversation.

I know for a fact, that some members of ATS are impressed by your
devotion and perspective.

Best Regards,

KPB

winofiend
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

I don't get why it's such a hard thing to grasp when removed from a religious context. Why?

I don't plan on death. I don't look toward the end of my life to reflect on my past and go "Ahh who cares, I'm dead now anyway!".. there is no goal post to run toward. No ball to shoot. Why are you asking it in that context?

I live right now. Right at this moment. Not 5 minutes ago nor 5 minutes from now. That is simply where I am and where I make my choices. I don't want to see people suffer. I don't want to see people in pain. So why would I act right now in a way that would cause it, either by my action or inaction?

I smile at people. Sometimes they smile back. Do I get a brownie point? No... I do it because I feel that expressing it is no effort on my part and maybe someone may benefit from being reminded that even big ugly hairy buggers can be decent.

I give to homeless people, or buskers, or when someone asks for some change. If I can, I do. Not because I want god to love me for being a superficially moral person. Not because I think karma will repay me thrice... never has, never will.. But I do it because I know what it's like to be in their position and how much of a difference being nice to people can make in their day.

I don't kick puppies or microwave kittens. Why? I don't think the puppy god or kitten lord will strike me down should I do it, like a religiously moral person would, so I must have a different reason.. like, knowing causing pain and suffering is wrong. I don't like it when I'm kicked. Or treated with less than decency when I've not caused any reason to be treated so.

God doesn't instil morals. The idea simply installs a fear. Don't be bad or god will not be happy, and it's off to the fires of Hades for you, sonnyjim. Nice.

Most religious people do nice things to get a better lot in the after life. Not because they really care about people. That's why they will cause suffering to everything that does not believe in their god, or look down on them as if they're not worthy of decent acceptance but still have to be treated nice because god says so.

"I'll pray for you." - to god? why? what will he do? Pray to me. That would be nice. Give ME nice thoughts. Wish ME well.. don't pray to your god because you're only sending letters to santa. "Dear santa, please give me a new bike. I've been really good."

Morals, if they need a chain to ensure you have them, are not morals. They're rules and laws instilled by religious fearmongers.

Be nice. Don't steal. Give back more than you take. Share. Don't cause pain or anguish and accept you're not the centre of the universe.

Why does this all seem to foreign to someone coming from a religious angle.. Not saying you are OP, but the question has arisen more than once here, from people who think that without morals instilled by religion, then we're all running around raping everything, eating everything, killing anything, stomping on ants because they're just ants.. etc etc.

I find religious morals very strict in their application. And far from honest.

edit on 11-10-2013 by winofiend because: Dear santa, please give me the ability to not make typos in my posts. I've been really good and left you some cookies and milk!!

Love it Wino.

Star from lj01.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I am not religous and do not believe in any kind of rebirth or afterlife. I endorse everything tanda7 says above, but I would like to add something more: a scientific justification for behaving morally.

Apart from moral injunctions specifically relating to religion itself (don't blaspheme, don't offer flawed animals for sacrifice, don't plough on the Sabbath and so on), all morality is social or filial. It is all about doing unto others — especially those we relate to most closesly — as we would have them do unto us, or even a little better.

The roots of this social morality are instinctive; they lie in our animal origins. We can see the same behaviour exhibited by many other social animals. Altruism has biological roots — as the great biologist J.B.S. Haldane put it, 'I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.'

Morality precedes religion. When religion evolved, it found in moral sanction a powerful lever of social control — do as you're told or the gods will turn their faces away and the magic will cease to work. Very useful since, of course, the gods don't exist and magic only ever works by coincidence. The failure of religion to deliver on its promises is invariably blamed on the moral turpitude of the faithful. Very convenient indeed!

The reason why doing the right thing 'improves my mental ease and creates a healthier mind/body interface', as tanda7 puts it, is the same as why getting plenty of exercise improves our physical ease and creates a healthier mind/body interface. Practised in moderation, what comes naturally usually feels good, and is good, for you.

Yes, I believe morality should be practised in moderation. Sainthood and holier-than-thouness are offensive and unhealthy.

reply to post by Astyanax

That is the best and worst answer so far. I love it.

You have created a paradox: Morality exists to circumvent itself.

I think morality feeds the conscience and the conscience feeds back to morality, but good and evil cannot exist without the concept of good and evil - a.k.a. morality.

How might you become aware of good and evil should they not exist?

If we created the concept of good to be representative of a feeling, what created the feeling to be representative of good?

If the concepts of good and evil are delusional, wouldn't it be better to stop teaching the concept of bad? Wouldn't it be better to become disillusioned?

If evil is that which is not good, and good does not exist, how is it logical to feel, teach, and practice the creation of what doesn't exist?

Back to square one?

reply to post by Bleeeeep

That is the best and worst answer so far. I love it.

Thank you. I appreciate compliments.

You have created a paradox: Morality exists to circumvent itself.

It may look like that if you've got the premises of my argument out of sequence. I believe you have, so I'm going to re-order the paragraphs of your post in responding to them. This will illustrate the correct sequence.

Let's start with the paragraph immediately below:

I think morality feeds the conscience and the conscience feeds back to morality, but good and evil cannot exist without the concept of good and evil - a.k.a. morality.

Good, evil, conscience, morality — these are big words. I use them with trepidation. What is conscience? It does not appear in the model I described. Feelings of guilt and shame, however, do appear. Prior to them, generating them, are atavistic urges, the products of evolved instinct, which cause us to do such things as nurture and protect our young and our mates, cooperate with others for mutual benefit in peace and war, exchange gifts and obligations, comfort each other in distress, keep secrets and so on. Animals in the wild exhibit all these varieties of instinctive behaviour.

It is easily seen that such instincts are preferentially aroused by kin; and the closer the kinship, the sharper their goad. Beyond the circle of close kind, we want the community at large to respect us. We bask in the good opinion of others — see how much I loved your compliment — and fear ill repute. You say all this is due to knowledge of something called good and evil. I say it is due to evolved instincts of altruism, sociability, cooperation and the urge to protect our offspring, that is, our precious and costly reproductive investment.

How might you become aware of good and evil should they not exist?

But they do exist. Good and evil come into existence when beings who are driven by instinct evolve reason and the concept of a future, and begin to think about what they do and what they are. It is very important to us that good and evil are recognised for what they are, but the idea of them need not be given at first hand by a divine Creator. They can — and did — evolve through natural selection.

If the concepts of good and evil are delusional, wouldn't it be better to stop teaching the concept of bad? Wouldn't it be better to become disillusioned?

As perhaps you see now, it would make no difference. The knowledge of good and evil is not taught as you believe it to be. It is largely innate, and that part of it which is learnt is learnt mainly by example and social group sanction, not by precept.

The reason religious people fight an ongoing battle against sin in their lives is that moral precept and external discipline are actually very weak influences on human behaviour. Nature's ideas of good and bad — which are not morality at all but mere ingenuity in the propagation of itself — is so very much stonger.

Learning better is the best way of all, I have found.

Back to square one?

You tell me.

reply to post by Astyanax

It seems like you're piecing together a bunch incomplete concepts. Can you make a rudimentary flow chart to express the development of the desire to produce good?

Do animals create the concept of good or do they become aware of it?

What is the mechanism that drives evolution? Is it not a desire to produce good?

You're using an ambiguous concept (instinct) to nullify conscience. Are instincts not the good concepts, and good desires, to produce good, which are inherited from ancestors? Is conscience so different from the desire? A lot of animals can be said to lack a moral sense of bad, but can they be said to lack a sense of good? Is it not morals and conscience which is inherited?

Which came first, good, or the desire to produce good? From whence has good came? If good is a cosmic law unattached to the laws of physics, then you might as well call yourself spiritual.

Can we say, with certainty, that desires were not derived from the awareness of good? Awareness first then the desire to produce it?

Rudimentary flow chart pls.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Good (and evil, for that matter) come from perspective.

There is no "absolute'" good or evil, as they exist in harmony like yin and yang.

What is "good" to one, is "evil" to another, based purely on perspective, in an ever shifting balance.

As new situations are experienced and information is learned from them, the concepts of good and evil shift, often completely contradictory to each other.

For instance, a couple hundred years ago, public execution was entertainment, and religiously sanctioned. People would gather to watch the torture and death of a perceived "evil", and enjoy the whole process.

This was seen as good, as it was removing "evil" from the community.

With the progression of ideas and the recording of information, we can now see many religiously sanctioned "goods" of the past, as "evil" as we currently understand it.

In the end, very simple... our perspective defines the nature of right and wrong, you use a God to define that perspective, I use my experiences.

puzzlesphere
There is no "absolute'" good or evil, as they exist in harmony like yin and yang.

As they exist in harmony? Can you clarify that for me?

For instance, a couple hundred years ago, public execution was entertainment, and religiously sanctioned. People would gather to watch the torture and death of a perceived "evil", and enjoy the whole process.

This is still practiced. And to a lesser extent, it is the foundation of the judicial system. To remove from the populace, or punish, the perceived evils. Yet, if there is no true evil, logically, law is irrational.

In the end, very simple... our perspective defines the nature of right and wrong, you use a God to define that perspective, I use my experiences.

You use your experiences to create an illogical sense of moral right and wrong, and then you irrationally follow the illogical concepts. If they don't exist, it is irrational to create them.

Can a mystical harmony create concepts of good and evil without a mind? Is the creator of mystical harmony not your god? Does it contain, within it, divine knowledge of what is truly good or evil? Did Buddha not receive his enlightenment/divine knowledge from the mighty ones?

If you say it is observed from the universe and it is true, how does the universe create concepts without mind?

reply to post by Bleeeeep

It seems like you're piecing together a bunch incomplete concepts

No, I am presenting a very well-established hypothesis in evolutionary biology. If you wish to learn about it, try the following links:

Overview at Wikipedia

Exhaustive critical discussion of the subject in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Attempt at refutation by a Christian blogger. Unfortunately, he falls at the first hurdle by attributing the evolution of morality to the dubious mechanism of group selection.

Through the process of natural selection, naturalistic forces mold certain behavior that we call moral behavior which simply functions to allow the organism to exist and continue to survive. Actually, not the organism, but the species, because in some cases it requires sacrificing individual organisms so that the larger species can survive. This is all that morality ends up being.

Like most religious obscurantists, he sets up a straw man, knocks it down and claims victory over his opponents. It is not 'the survival of the species' to which we look for an explanation of how morality evolved, but the preferential survival of genes within the genotype of the species. But perhaps that discussion is a little too technical for this thread.

I will quickly address the other questions in your post. Animals have no concept of good and evil; advanced concept formation is, as far as we can see, a purely human attribute. The mechanism that drives evolution is natural selection, which is not at all teleological. Instinct is not an ambiguous concept in biology: it is strictly defined. It is not a desire to produce good, it is an innate impulse to behave a certain way under certain circumstances; an animal does not need a rational object or a foreseen outcome to behave instinctively, it behaves like that because it cannot help doing so.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Bleeeeep
As they exist in harmony? Can you clarify that for me?

Do you not understand the concept of Yin and Yang? Quite simply, one cannot exist without the other.

Good (or more specifically the "divine") and evil are a duality, or a spectrum. We need one to contextualise the other... from an Abrahamic perspective, Satan cannot exist without God.

If there is only "good", how do i contextualise something as "good"? At the very least there has to be varying levels of "good". For example... that thing over there, is "more good" than that other thing, which is also "good".

Now I have a scale, or a spectrum of "good", as things now get less "good" on this spectrum of "good", there comes a point where it is worth using another label to define the two extremes of the scale... in this case... good and evil.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

For instance, a couple hundred years ago, public execution was entertainment, and religiously sanctioned. People would gather to watch the torture and death of a perceived "evil", and enjoy the whole process.

Bleeeeep
This is still practiced. And to a lesser extent, it is the foundation of the judicial system. To remove from the populace, or punish, the perceived evils.

Yes, it is, but, but it is seen as barbaric where it is still practiced, and in 1st world classified countries public executions are extremely rare, if not abolished completely.

We understand through generations of recorded experience (and empathy) that deriving pleasure from another beings' painful demise is cruel, and psychologically damaging to the witnesses.

Bleeeeep
Yet, if there is no true evil, logically, law is irrational.

That's hogwash. Law has nothing to do with evil. Law is a construct of rules to help manage a population, and can be completely rational in and of itself.

Evil is a concept (along with divine) that may or may not even be real, depending on your beliefs.

Religious morality used to see torture and execution as a "divine" thing. Do you believe that killing someone based on doctrine, that is known to be false (christian influenced withchcraft executions still happen in certain areas of the world) and deriving pleasure from it is a good thing?

Hopefully not.

Bleeeeep


It seems like you are saying that it is for a sense of security, rather than a sense of being good, but then a sense of security is reliant on security being good. Ultimately, you must subscribe to the notion that security, or longevity, of you, or your species, is a good thing, if it is to be logical.

I don't think so. Because security is something we find to stimulate pleasure in both humans and animals. Animals do not think as humans do- they do not have beliefs. From birth, babies respond positively to sensation of security (being wrapped up tightly, or held) and negatively to lack of it (being left on a surface with nothing holding them, being placed on a glass surface through which they can see an empty space below). This pretty much proves that that feeling and response is biological and instinctive. No thought or belief is necessary.

Further still, if there is no good, then it cannot be good - it can only be delusional, right? And practicing it while believing there is no good, is even more delusional, right?

No, to not believe in static inherent good does not eliminate an individuals perception or experience of goodness. For one, there is the fore-mentioned instinctive and conditioned biological responses of pleasure, or repulsion, which can be trained by the intellect with time.

-By that, I mean that we can learn to have such a positive reaction by our body to things that we did not react to instinctively, naturally.

The examples of how we can stimulate positive biological reaction inside us through our thoughts and experiences is endless. Our brain has a reward system mechanism, that we can program with our mind.

But instead of going into all that, in the moment of sensing good or bad, there isn't much real difference (for the experiencer) between an atheist and theist. It is just that one doesn't believe that experience to be happening because of an exterior entity. My sense of goodness is my internal experience- and I find value in my internal experience. It can be a very useful guide.
It is not "delusional"- it gives my conscious awareness feedback on things like:

-What I said in the past (it calls my attention to my own self contradictions)
-The health, and security of my body in relation the current environment
-the state of being of others around me

The only way to know what is good or right, is to be here, now, with self and others, fully.

Nay, there is no way to know what is good or bad, if there is no ultimate good or bad. It would not exist.

I disagree. I have good or bad (positive or negative) reactions to things,
The other people around me have good or bad reactions to things,
They are not all necessarily the same things.
When we come together to relate, if we can find solutions and ways to interact which provoke the experience of goodness for us both, or us all, then we have found the good in that moment.

If only one experiences goodness, and not the other, then we have not been successful at that endeavor.

reply to post by Astyanax


I want to know what you think - not how pretentious you can be.

You say "we" as if their is something to admire about collective idiocy.

And you're even brass enough to set up a strawman about a man who sets up strawmen. wtf?

If you do not want to bring your understanding to the post, then don't, but do not send me to read pages and pages of hyperbole about ant and ape social behaviors.



This is the on topic understanding I have taken from your post - if I am wrong, feel free to respond and correct me:

Arbitrary changes occur(red), within genes, causing creatures to develop a superstitious view of good. From thence forth, they have been trying to replicate the cause of their superstitious sense of good.

Things that fight for survival, at the cellular level, do not contain the concept of good and bad, but only randomness mistakenly identified as a desire to survive - it was prosperous for cells to randomly fight for survival, yet their is no true desire for survival within genes or cells and it is just happenstance which appears to be a desire to the superstitious mind.

Just a bunch of randomness mistakenly identified as good and bad?

If genes are not the codes of desires then I am surely blind. Thanks for helping me see.

reply to post by puzzlesphere


If that is true, what is the source of it? Who created that universal law? (No good without evil.) If there is no true good or bad then that law is philosophical blather?

I am not saying it is not true, I am just saying that it cannot be true, if no good or bad truly exists.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Here is a paper trying to explain morality if you are honestly interested.

How does morality work in the brain? A functional and structural perspective of moral behavior

Neural underpinnings of morality are not yet well understood. Researchers in moral neuroscience have tried to find specific structures and processes that shed light on how morality works. Here, we review the main brain areas that have been associated with morality at both structural and functional levels and speculate about how it can be studied. Orbital and ventromedial prefrontal cortices are implicated in emotionally-driven moral decisions, while dorsolateral prefrontal cortex appears to moderate its response. These competing processes may be mediated by the anterior cingulate cortex. Parietal and temporal structures play important roles in the attribution of others' beliefs and intentions. The insular cortex is engaged during empathic processes. Other regions seem to play a more complementary role in morality. Morality is supported not by a single brain circuitry or structure, but by several circuits overlapping with other complex processes. The identification of the core features of morality and moral-related processes is needed. Neuroscience can provide meaningful insights in order to delineate the boundaries of morality in conjunction with moral psychology.

read much much more here