The Atheists Moral Pledge

I think winofiend expressed my feeling on the matter pretty well.

I always get sort of creeped out by the religious who make claim that without a religion and belief in a deity, they would have no moral compass at all. It always makes me think that perhaps a large part of humanity need religion, because they are psychopaths.

But then, one of the common elements you find in people making such a claim is one you find in this OP too-
that one would be in error to trust their emotions.
This is common to typical paternalistic religions, who worship masculinity and demonize femininity.


The further along we go in discovering how behavior works, the more we have become aware that altruism and ethical behavior find it's roots in empathy. Empathy is only possible with emotions.

So I guess it makes sense that if one decides to repress and not pay attention to their emotions, they then need something else to fill in for that. Religion benefits by influencing others to repress their emotional bodies- it creates a vacuum or need for their product.

I try to not hurt others because I feel what others feel, and since I don't enjoy pain (either emotional or physical) I don't enjoy causing it to others. Simple as that.

OP-
You said in another thread that the man who doesn't care enough to beat his wife, is an "emotionally dead husband"- which is inferior to the (caring) beater husband.

How do you reconcile that with your assertion of the error in following ones emotions as detriment to morality? Do you mean that only emotions which are of the violent and destructive type should be trusted an acted upon, in your view?

mOjOm
That's just it though. Just how do you know what that "Perfect Understanding" is?? How could you know since rather than actually understanding those moral principles yourself, you simply take the words of someone else, or a book, or whatever and follow them as if you do understand them. But if you actually did understand them then you would no longer need some other authority would you??

Just because you follow certain rules doesn't mean you are a moral person. It just means you can follow orders.

This is one of my points. Without what is perceived to be divine knowledge, how can morality be justified? As you understand, it can't - it's just emotions.

Everyone is getting defensive but I assure you, I am not judging morally, just logically.

Bleeeeep

Good post.

How would you express separation between morality, emotional ties to what is believed to be most logical, and what is rational?

I'm kinda confused as to what you're asking here. Maybe write it a different way. I've read it like 8 times but my brain just can't figure it out for some reason.

Can you give me an example of morally wrong, while at the same time, being rationally right? Is it not morality which believes itself to be most rationally sound?

Good Question!!!

Ok, here it goes. Keep in mind though that like I said earlier My morals aren't Universally True, even if they are the same as others, they can still be of lesser importance or whatever. But I'll try and use as common of an example as possible.

You steal food to feed your starving family. Morally wrong to take what isn't yours. Rationally however it makes sense to do what you can to keep them from suffering.

Is that the most rationally sound?? There is the difficulty and it's also where your own evaluation comes in. Was that your only option?? Is someone else going to go hungry now because they needed that food more than you?? Would you be willing to work for it given the chance or did you just take it because it was the easiest route?? This is how you determine to the best of your ability what to do. Doesn't mean you are always right or that there is always a "Right" answer for that matter. But you are at least choosing to make your own choices because of your understanding of things.

How was that?? I'd like to know how others would answer that too!!

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Believing there's a divine set of ultra tight parameters outside of us is not logical.

It makes more logical sense that we have built up a natural inherent trait of altruism to insure survival.

If you are of sound mind it's pretty easy to understand right from wrong without having to resort to a manual.



Just as an aside though I really dislike being labelled an atheist because I don't accept nor have any interest in gods.
Can anyone please explain why I should be labelled with something that has nothing to do with me whatsoever?
It's akin to describing me as non-deciduous.

CranialSponge
And both of these are human traits in all of us (atheists and theists alike). It's a natural human trait. NOT an emotion.

It is an emotionally charged trait with one group having their moral rules defined by something believed to be divine versus another group who is just going with their natural instincts - where natural means derived from randomness.

I would argue that almost all concepts are emotionally derived. That is, everyone is trying to produce their version of good. The separation is where their version of good is from - purely emotional or something divine.

Bleeeeep

This is one of my points. Without what is perceived to be divine knowledge, how can morality be justified? As you understand, it can't - it's just emotions.

Everyone is getting defensive but I assure you, I am not judging morally, just logically.

I think, at least IMO, the part I don't get is the "Divine" part. Why is something of a Divine Nature before you choose to put any value in it?? Do you not trust yourself at all to make your own choices??? And not just make them but to stand by them too???

You see, to me that is the problem I have with doing it any other way other than by my own understanding. Because if I act in some way that I don't understand why I did it, then right away I'm most likely not going to own it as I should. After all, since the reasoning behind the action wasn't from my own understanding it allows me to avoid being responsible for it "Morally". However, if I do understand it and own up to it, I should be able to show others why that is so.

Bleeeeep

CranialSponge
And both of these are human traits in all of us (atheists and theists alike). It's a natural human trait. NOT an emotion.

It is an emotionally charged trait with one group having their moral rules defined by something believed to be divine versus another group who is just going with their natural instincts - where natural means derived from randomness.

Where are you getting natural means random? Mutually beneficial relationships are formed because it makes sense. Why do animals live in groups? Because it works.

mOjOm
Can you give me an example of morally wrong, while at the same time, being rationally right? Is it not morality which believes itself to be most rationally sound?

"Emotional ties to what is believed to be most logical", was me reiterating your thoughts on how you perceive a difference between morality and emotions towards rational grandeur/superiority.

You steal food to feed your starving family. Morally wrong to take what isn't yours. Rationally however it makes sense to do what you can to keep them from suffering.

But then you have the issue of whether or not stealing for them is actually the most rational thing to do, in regards to the moral consequences set by the rules of the eternally divine rule maker.

i.e. You are not equating what is the most rational thing to do in lieu of the divinity. You are only thinking of right then and there, but right then and there does not hold precedence over eternity - thus it may actually not be the most rational thing to do.

Life, empathy, hopes, dreams.

One doesn't need a religious belief to be a good person towards others.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


So are you saying that it is rational to allow someone to suffer when you have the ability to help them only because of some personal concept which you hold true simply because you believe it to be true??? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. And it's also the thing about others "Faith" that causes so much pain upon others.

You see we all have the emotional part which is why we even bother with such choices, however absolute loyalty to some kind of "Percieved Divine Law" even when it's Not Rational or Logical is just not very responsible as being a choice. Yet it's done all the time by those who follow without thinking why.

Example: Let's use your own Divine Law. Honor your mother and father. Emotionally a good thing. Logically makes sense too. But what if your Father and Mother are absolutely horrible people who are abusive to themselves and others. Worse still, that they are most abusive to those weaker than them like their kids or other children and animals. There is no honor there. This is where "Faith" without "Reason" is a flop and even though one may justify it using some "Percieved Divine Law", that's just a lame excuse to not think for yourself and to allow by your own willful choice, pain and suffering upon the world. If such a Divinity really existed, I can't imagine there would be any justification for allowing such wreckless suffering upon those who are innocent.

reply to post by Bleeeeep



Stealing bread?


The only thing one needs for morality is a sense of empathy then everything else falls in line.

Bleeeeep

CranialSponge
And both of these are human traits in all of us (atheists and theists alike). It's a natural human trait. NOT an emotion.

It is an emotionally charged trait with one group having their moral rules defined by something believed to be divine versus another group who is just going with their natural instincts - where natural means derived from randomness.

But it is not randomness. You're applying something to it that is not true, because we're removing a 'belief' in a god that otherwise tells you what to do.

If not for god, then it must be random.

?

That's scary logic.. makes no sense to me.

Look at religion. Tell me you do not see absurd randomness in all of it. And now, how can one person interpret a scripture one way, yet someone else interpret it an entirely different way, yet both be coherently reading the words of god?

Religion is randomness... it's why the world is in such a mess.

And we can't look at our past and say athiesm did this or that. It's been a constant struggle to remain separate from religion that has sought to impose itself authoratively over everything, as long as 'gods' have been in the minds of men.

This sort of thinking really makes me wonder just how much evil a religious person would do if it were not that they feared gods wrath.

I think now may be a good time to introduce to others something that I constantly am reminded of which was written with this very topic in mind.

What Is Enlightenment? by Kant

This is just the first part. Check the link for the rest.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts. Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.

mOjOm
I think, at least IMO, the part I don't get is the "Divine" part. Why is something of a Divine Nature before you choose to put any value in it??

Divine means something that is perfect byway of coming from a perfect god or source. It is believing that something is perfect because it was made to be that way, by the very rules set forth for reality.

Do you not trust yourself at all to make your own choices??? And not just make them but to stand by them too???

You see, to me that is the problem I have with doing it any other way other than by my own understanding. Because if I act in some way that I don't understand why I did it, then right away I'm most likely not going to own it as I should. After all, since the reasoning behind the action wasn't from my own understanding it allows me to avoid being responsible for it "Morally". However, if I do understand it and own up to it, I should be able to show others why that is so.

If you own up to your faults, you're morally justified for said fault?

I don't understand the argument you're setting up. Morality for the spiritual minded is a predetermined moral right or wrong thing. It is not set by the person but by the moral rule maker(s).

Maybe it can be defined as the rules created by the conscience, but it is not conscience itself.

I don't always trust my instincts, no. I tend to trust my conscience. And I almost always trust my moral compass.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Honestly?

I'm really getting tired of people trying to make atheism into something. Atheism is the absence of something.

One doesn't require some label, followed by a doctrine to live a life that is good and kind hearted.

That leads to indoctrination by the simple fact that now you've allowed yourself to be placed in a category of people who can be marginalized for having or not having something.

There is no big secret, it's not a huge mystery. I intrinsically know the difference between right and wrong and so do 99% of people who are born and grow up and die. We either choose to follow that so called moral compass or we don't.

It doesn't matter how we choose to dress up that moral compass. Be it religion or some crusade against religion. It's all just a piss poor excuse to over abuse ourselves for our failures, and over congratulate ourselves for our successes.

~Tenth

~Tenth

Bleeeeep

CranialSponge
And both of these are human traits in all of us (atheists and theists alike). It's a natural human trait. NOT an emotion.

It is an emotionally charged trait with one group having their moral rules defined by something believed to be divine versus another group who is just going with their natural instincts - where natural means derived from randomness.

I would argue that almost all concepts are emotionally derived. That is, everyone is trying to produce their version of good. The separation is where their version of good is from - purely emotional or something divine.

Moral rules.

Now there's an interesting thing to say...

Since when is "morality" in need of a defined set of rules ? Something is either good or bad, is it not ?


Or are you now talking "moral code" as defined by a particular organized religion ?

Two very different things.

Let's not forget that each religion has their own set of "moral codes".

Therefore, morality, as defined by organized religions (moral code) is contradictory and inconsistent.



With regards to empathy and compassion being "emotionally charged traits", I disagree.

They are natural human characteristics (primary) that get followed by emotions (secondary), and therefore often get confused as being emotions in and of themselves. Empathy can be acheived by means of instinct, intuition, perception, emotion, knowledge, logic, etc... and/or any combination of all of the above.

Human instinct is to not harm others unless we feel threatened. It's an evolutionary survival trait that evolved (better survival in groups). You'll see plenty of examples of this same evolved (learned) instinct in the animal kingdom.

It's only the psychopaths that are missing this neurological synapses connection that do not carry this trait. Again, with varying shades of grey. That synapses was either a defect in vitro, or it was broken during the child development years due to environmental upbringing.

Neural synapses are literally learned (evolved) neural bridges that pass down through DNA programming from the biological parents.

homeskillet
Where are you getting natural means random? Mutually beneficial relationships are formed because it makes sense. Why do animals live in groups? Because it works.

Because it makes sense and because it works is what I was referring to. It implies there is something just out of reach which ultimately boils down to randomness, or "nature".

Nature is just a way of saying "because stuff happens". It is not a root answer.

What you are doing is looking at the image of a thing and trying to define the image by the image.

To say animals live in schools, packs, and herds, for safety or better hunting is just presumptions on our part. We see they are safer so we say "Ah! - it's because there is safety in numbers!", but truly this is just a guess.

And that is how natural and nature works. We see the images and we assume the thing is as the image is, but there is a concept that the image is based upon, and that is what the image truly represents.

We are just guessing what the concepts are by looking at the images, but we can't truly know what the images are meant to be unless we create the images.

And this is borderline off topic but it needed to be said about the "nature" of our thoughts.

reply to post by CranialSponge


In regards to morality, yes, something is good or bad - it is a strict set, but intent plays a big role in what is perceived as good or bad in society, whereas with morality, intent is nothing.

Think of morality as all the laws of the judicial system and based only on circumstances are you are judged. However, in the real judicial system, you are also judged upon intent.

Good and bad are ascribed to both intent and a strict rule set of morality.

Everyone tries to do good, even the devil is trying to do his version of good. Thus, based on intent, he is good - but based on moral principles, he is bad. His version of good is morally unjust = bad.

It is like I have to explain reality to you all just to ask a few simple questions. This is getting annoying, but I know you all are only trying to do your version of good, so I shall have patience and wait.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

To say animals live in schools, packs, and herds, for safety or better hunting is just presumptions on our part.

No it's not actually.

We (humans) know this to be fact by way of learned knowledge through experience and observation. This experienced knowledge has been passed down for millenia. It isn't just some sudden novel idea that came around a few days ago.