The Atheists Moral Pledge

reply to post by puzzlesphere


I think laws are good too, but from the perspective of someone who says there is no true good or bad, then really it is just lunacy.

To cut off the hand of a thief, to steal from him, because he has stolen, seems barbarous to me, but that is because I think there is truly good and bad - but without a good and bad, it is nothing but people doing stuff.

As of now, in the most simplest of terms, I think:
good is creation
bad is a view of unjust creations

I have always believed, the most dangerous man is one who doesn't fear God...

Bleeeeep
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.

From your "perspective" it is illogical because you "believe" God is as real as gravity. My answers only seem irrational to someone who can't remove the concept of the divine from their reasoning.

Just as your arguments seem irrational to someone who can't entertain the concept of the "divine" at all.

I have no problem with perceived irrationality based on perspective. In fact, I expect it.

A child can't rationally understand how an adult can watch the news, talking boringly for hours about things that don't make sense. Just as an adult often looks at the things children do (just one... seeing who can hold their breath the longest!... go! ;-)), and see them as irrational.

... but when understood in context or looked at from the right perspective, perceived irrational thoughts and actions can indeed be seen as rational.

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?

Who knows? Without a mind to witness, who can say? Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if unobserved?... sounds like philosophical masturbation...

Again, good and evil, and morals, are concepts only contextualised within the age that they exist. 1000 years from now, future humans may look back at many common actions of today's society and see them as immoral based on the moral code 1000 years from now.... just as we look at certain tribal practices from the past (sacrifices as an example) as immoral.

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

The universe as an object most likely doesn't create concepts itself, it just exists for the sentience within it to define reality as it sees fit.

Whether humans are the pinnacle of sentience, or whether there is a higher sentience within the universe above us is all very ephemeral stuff.

In the end it doesn't affect my day to day life, and whether there's a God or not, I would make the same choices and have the same morals.

Cheers

AbleEndangered
I have always believed, the most dangerous man is one who doesn't fear God...

That would make a great bumper sticker or country song but I've found fanatics are more dangerous than non-believers.

reply to post by Bluesma


This is going to be deep:

Are instincts not hard coded senses of good, evolved from your ancestors thoughts of what is good? Can this not answer why babies "respond positively"? If their response is positive, why can it be said that their bodies/brains do not have a sense that, whatever they're responding to, it is perceived to be good or bad? Must the mind be aware of good and bad in order for it to exist for the body?

Side thoughts: This line of thinking can branch off into questions of whether or not the mind is the brains concept producer, and if it is, why can the other parts of the body not also produce concepts? Do the eyes not relay their concepts to the brain, and in turn, the brain relays its concepts to the mind? Where does subconscious end and conscious begin? Where's that line at? If the line is drawn at the brain, then is the mind separate from the brain?

Granted, babies do not have many concepts that they themselves have created on their own, but I think they do have many concepts that were passed down by their ancestors.

That is, I think instincts are not given their proper respect; and the brain is given too much respect. I see concepts within instincts, and maybe I'm delusional for that - since their is no mind to genes - or is there? Dun dun dun!

...

-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

It is the same as your earlier examples - you must view these things as good, if they are to be representative of good value. If there is no good, they represent delusions - but that is not to say that they are delusions, just your placement of value on them.

P.s. I do appreciate your reasoning for why morality is just, but I would also like you to note that your reasoning seems to rely on good being empirical. Must be empirical, that's all.

AbleEndangered
I have always believed, the most dangerous man is one who doesn't fear God...

That's the thing about belief,
quite often it's wrong.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Thanks, but I am more interested in how it is justified by those who do not believe in right or wrong. What makes it logical for them to follow morals?

Can I ask what that bit of neuroscience theory does for you? Does it make you think morality is just, if we can find what parts of the brain are most active while someone is contemplating moral codes? Does it give you any sense of security, relief, admiration, or wonderment to know someone is trying to find morality in the brain?

Edit: Sorry I should have read more of the page before forming an opinion. It is quite a good source - thank you.

reply to post by puzzlesphere


I may think a child or ancient culture is irrational, but I can see why they would think it is rational.

I cannot, however, see why you think it is rational to practice what you do not believe in.

Can you tell me why it is? If it is to make yourself feel good, I can accept that, as that was my premise from the very start. If something else, I would like to know what that is.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


What are you talking about?

What do you mean by "... practice what you do not believe in." ?

Where did I say I don't believe in something?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Go read my previous few posts again... I explain it fairly clearly. If you choose not to understand what I have written that is your prerogative.

You asked for where morals come from, if not God... you have received many answers... which you haven't accepted.

In order to accept these answers, you will have to remove the concept of God (just for long enough to look at something from a different perspective) from your reasoning entirely...

From this thread, I'm not sure that you are able to disengage yourself from a deity.

If you want to only look from the perspective of a religious viewpoint at your question (which you are absolutely doing, even if you falsely state that this is all based on pure logic), then likely...

Bleeeeep
... If it is to make yourself feel good, I can accept that, as that was my premise from the very start.

... that condescendingly basic version is as close as you're going to get to understanding... it is something else (instincts, empathy, nurture, nature, experience, action, reaction, learning, etc.), but you have to take the perspective of self-responsibility... not divine-responsibility... to understand it.

puzzlesphere
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

What are you talking about?

What do you mean by "... practice what you do not believe in." ?

Where did I say I don't believe in something?

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.

The no "absolute" good or evil that "exists in harmony".

Exists in harmony does not tell me where they come from, unless "exists in harmony" is some place in the universe. I took it to mean some esoteric spiritual law but then at the same time you said it is not absolute, meaning there is no true right or wrong. That is very confusing, sorry.

Was no "absolute" meant to say it is absolute, and it comes from "exists in harmony?"

Don't get mad that I cannot understand your philosophy - I'm trying - honestly.

puzzlesphere
... that condescendingly basic version is as close as you're going to get to understanding... it is something else (instincts, empathy, nurture, nature, experience, action, reaction, learning, etc.), but you have to take the perspective of self-responsibility... not divine-responsibility... to understand it.

I didn't mean for that to be condescending - I wasn't even morally judging it - I was simply saying that I could rationally understand it. I know it feels good to feel good, thus it is rational to do something that makes yourself feel good.

The whole reason why I got into asking where good came from, with you, was because I thought you were saying good was a universal law like yin yang. You understand yin yang is supposed to be a real spiritual law type of thing? Those of yin yang philosophy/religion have god(s), I do believe.

I am probably just not familiar enough with your religion? Did you mean to say good is a spiritual essence? The Tao thing I'm looking at on wiki atm? Is that the harmony you mentioned?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I apologise too if i say anything inadvertently offensive, but it does seem you are being deliberately obtuse at times, that may just be my perception of your writing style.

By "absolute"what I am trying to say is, what is perceived as evil at one time, at another point in history may be seen as good. This means that there aren't "absolutes" when considering the concepts of divine and evil.

"Exists in harmony" is just another way of saying they are a duality, inseparable as concepts.

It is probably worth defining some semantics here, as terms are loosely being used to describe multiple concepts in this thread, which can lead to confusion.

Good and Bad - as every day concepts. -> Example) Fire burns so touching it = Bad
-> Example) Fire is warm so sitting near it = Good

Good and Evil - where Good actually means Divine. -> Example) Jesus
-> Example) Satan

The key here is that these are concepts, whether they explain reality or not, they are labels that have developed to define the collective human experience over the millenniums.

Right and wrong are arbitrary when taken by themselves as pure concepts, it is only with context that the idea of good and bad emerge.

... and context is ever changing, so the very nature of good and bad is also ever changing.

Lets take a hypothetical to see if this can be explained better.

If we consider some emerging technologies, concepts such as enhancing our skin (through genetics or nanotechnology) to withstand deadly heat, and even make scolding temperatures "feel" pleasurable to us rather than painful, all of a sudden flip, "good and bad" concepts such as "touching fire = Bad" can change to "touching fire = good."

In this scenario, a very fundamental concept, stretching back thousands of years is instantly turned on it's head... and this is only a very simple example.

The context of us and everything around us is what makes us understand right and wrong. We start learning from birth the intricacies of right/wrong, evil/good, etc. Different context leads to different perspectives, some religious, some non-religious, but all valid based on the context in which they were experienced.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


... but it's not just about feeling good... unless you take some pretty long suffering situations, in hope of a delayed gratification that may never come as "feeling good". Doing the right thing is often extraordinarily hard depending on circumstance, made harder by a very judgmental world... a world where we get punished for honesty, no group, religious/atheist is exempt from that struggle.

I don't necessarily have a religion, per se... I had my moment with god when I was quite young (more than 30 years ago), I haven't had a need of a religion since, the God I met would agree that, for me, there is no real need for it.

Take God away for 1 minute... gone... your morals are still there regardless of whether a god instilled them or not.

God's back now, and again, nothing has changed... our moral compass is defined by the experiences we have throughout our life. Whether atheist or religious, whether there's a God or no god, we're all the same in that respect.

Bleeeeep

Are instincts not hard coded senses of good, evolved from your ancestors thoughts of what is good? Can this not answer why babies "respond positively"? If their response is positive, why can it be said that their bodies/brains do not have a sense that, whatever they're responding to, it is perceived to be good or bad? Must the mind be aware of good and bad in order for it to exist for the body?

The term "concept" has different definitions, but mostly used to designate mental representations. It would depend upon your particular definition of the word.

Reflexes of the body can exist without the conscious mind (if you've ever done the "salted frogs legs" experiment, this is observable)- obviously our body has all kinds of built in automatic systems for survival- we feel good when we breathe, we feel bad when we don't.....I have no problem with the idea that processes and reflexes that increase chances of survival and reproduction evolved without any conscious thinking or beliefs.

But you enter into questions that I find extremely important to explore - the nature of the subconscious part of our mind, the possibility of memory storage in tissue.. perhaps in DNA.
I have read that an experiment with mice showed some suggestion of that- certain mice were allowed to learn a complex maze. Then they had offspring, which, when put into that same maze, were able to learn it considerably faster than offspring of the same age from mice who had never learned it.

We just don't know for sure yet.

Personally, that doesn't change my lack of belief in a static Divine code of ethics.... it would reinforce my thought that our experiences of goodness and badness are learned, conditioned, or passed on, but they aren't inherent in objects, entities, or acts.

For example, humans can have a bad reacion to a wild tiger in front of them while out on a walk- the tiger may be bad for them (whether it is because they have knowledge of tigers, their behaviors and abilities, or because their anscestors had some bad run ins which set a reflex into the genes), and that bad is legitamate- there is real threat to their life. But the tiger itself is not a bad thing apart from them.

What is good for one may be bad for another. Some medicines for example, are beneficial healing for one person, but for another, they may be toxic. Good and bad remain relative and subjective to me.

-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

It is the same as your earlier examples - you must view these things as good, if they are to be representative of good value. If there is no good, they represent delusions - but that is not to say that they are delusions, just your placement of value on them.

You lost me there. To be able to recieve information about my own self contradictions (lack of integrity), the present health and security of my body and the that of others, I need to view these things as good?
Why?

Much of that information is of negative value to me- threats to my wellbeing in the environment, discomfort or pain of others.... the indication of self contradiction comes in as a neutral observation, but because I have set an intent of integrity, that becomes a negative charge when I become conscious of it.

I guess I didn't understand your statement there.

reply to post by puzzlesphere

I am not trying to be obtuse, I am trying to simplify in order to gain a better perspective. It lets me see the concepts instead of the words.

e.g. your entire post becomes:
There is not two things, but multiple perspectives of one.

Once I have simplified your post to the above, I ask questions like:
If things are one, how is it logical to practice separation, while knowing they are one? Why not just do the one?

And then it occurs to me, or you could reply, that, we can only truly do the one thing, because only the one thing exists. And that is a logical analysis, but irrational to try otherwise.

What could make it rational, is the emotional pleasure from believing we have succeeded in separating them - but that sense of fulfillment is, itself, irrational, because it cannot be separated.

And then we're back at the beginning. Why do what is believed to be impossible or untrue if it doesn't best serve you.

Deep thought (off topic kind of):
I guess it is the foundation of the argument between God and the devil. Be good versus do what thou wilt. Of course doing what thou wilt seems sound, if your will is perfect, but no one but a God could be that.

Thus, logically, it seems feasible that they could be separated, or that you could do what is only good, or you could find the most perfect perspective from where to view the one. From my imperfect view, however, bad does not seem to even be produced - yet a perfect being would be able to see for certain what is bad.

The way I see it, is that everyone is trying to do good, but some of the good is unjust, which is what a perfect being would be able to know for sure, and that is what we are all truly striving to know and do - be the perfect good.

Bleeeeep
e.g. your entire post becomes:
There is not two things, but multiple perspectives of one.

I'll pay that with a star... ;-j

I actually think you've kind of hit the nail on the head with most of the post.

I guess it is the foundation of the argument between God and the devil. Be good versus do what thou wilt. Of course doing what thou wilt seems sound, if your will is perfect, but no one but a God could be that.

Even here, if we take it as different perspectives of the one, they are kind of saying the same thing. We all do what we wilt regardless of our moral standard, some go with the concepts of god, some go with a similar moral set but without god, and some go with what we understand as evil or satan... and many in-betweens.

Will is a fluid idea, our will changes greatly throughout our lives, to different situations, but God has stated (at least in Christianity) that the soul is perfect, and even that we are a part of God. If our will falters and leads us astray, as long as we right our path, make amends and do what we perceive to be good, within the context of everyone elses perception of good, it doesn't matter if there is a belief in a God or not.

If we can rationally aim towards the same divine truth that religion claims, without a gods guidance, then by the very definitions, which god has laid out for us in many religions, we will find our way to the divine bosom eventually, even if there is lots of stumbling along the way.

That leaves the here and now...

The way I see it, is that everyone is trying to do good, but some of the good is unjust, which is what a perfect being would be able to know for sure, and that is what we are all truly striving to know and do - be the perfect good.

... understanding others perspectives and melding the contradictions is the key to harmony.

I am intelligent enough to know how to be a good person to my fellow human beings, I dont need to live in fear from a higher power who will send you to hell for eternity if you dont follow his bidding.

reply to post by Bluesma


I love thinking about stuff like "rats passing on concepts through genes." I think it should be obvious that that is what is going on with instincts.

The way I see it is that a concept doesn't cease to be a concept just because it is stored as a memory, or put into a thing you have made. It becomes conception - an image of the concept.

I would even go much further and say, all of reality's "physical" is nothing but images/conceptions or are conception in progress. Everything that moves is producing a concept - so maybe will, itself, is the motion of concept production.

But will, and concepts, are unseen, they're spirit, so the only way for it to be passed on is by an image or word or gene or something physical.

Is that too far removed from what we're doing as we type and make conceptual images for one another with our text? We're trying to reproduce concepts, I think. And so is a tree as it grows towards the sun, or a rat runs a maze. There must be concepts they're trying to reproduce - so they must have within them, concepts.

About your examples: I was not asking a loaded question by asking "how do you justify it", I only wanted to know how, while expressing that, whatever it was, whatever the justification is, it was an emotional thing. There is no justification without saying that something is good or bad - thus nonspiritual atheists use and depend on the very system that they deny. And to that I ask, why do that? It is irrational/illogical to practice what is denied - but people keep trying to give me rational and logical answers, where there are none without the use of the very system they deny.

Bleeeeep
And then we're back at the beginning. Why do what is believed to be impossible or untrue if it doesn't best serve you.

Why not? What other choices do we have?

It's only impossible or untrue from your perspective, if you choose to view me that way, then I am indeed doing something impossible from your perspective... from my perspective, the impossible is more than possible, and because I can empathise with your perspective at the same time, I understand that contradictory impossibilities can indeed coexist.

Not sure if this was a question or a statement, but I thought I'd answer it with a couple of questions and an anecdote...


Anecdote
______________________
I currently run my own company... me and my co-founder have recently reached the point where we can actually start paying ourselves. We were paying our employees before, and not paying ourselves, and recently put everyone on full-time salaries... feels good, but still not long term sustainable without some luck.

The question was how much do we pay? We decided in the end for everyone, including the founders, to be on the same wage.

This was a moral choice that had nothing to do with God... and it was a hard decision to make.

While everyone has put work into the business, me personally am by far taking the most risk... in reputation, financial risk (I am still hemorrhaging money, and have taken a 30% pay cut since my last job), and I by far work and think the hardest (though that's not fully fair to my partner... he has indeed invested his time and effort into the business).

By rights, I should be earning more than everyone else, based purely on my personal and financial investment... but I see that as "old business" and counter-productive to true progress, both financially and socially.

Not necessarily rational, but a moral choice with a perceived purpose towards the good of all.

There's the contradiction that I choose to live with in order to justify my actions.

The religious use the contradiction of God being both external and internal to justify their actions.

If people don't step up and take the risk for others' insecurities then the world will stall... There is no need for god to define that simple concept...

I feel it viscerally, imposed on myself by my very actions... a moral choice to run my business in a way that hopefully has ripple effects of good... after all it is big organisation that seems to be the root of many problems, so we need to instill a new ethos in business... which is actually mutually beneficial and sustainable...

...religion is also a business.