Humanist morality

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Is humanist morality for humans?

  • yes
  • no
0 voters

It is inverse to what the religious suggest: they depend on our morality when they do morality right,using reason and facts rather than our using their subjective morality based on what men of yore composed[ no god involved]. Our morality uses indeed reason and facts to find out what is good or bad for humans , other animals and the enviornment . In this we are taking Jeremy Bentham’s lead with his pleasure and pain principle. Of course ,one rules out the Pol Pots who used irrationality and whims to plan their immorality. Ours is objective in that as Quentin Smith states that it applies to all , universal morality. It is provisional like science and like in science there are disagreements. It is contextual- the case in point. See Michael Shermer’s ’ The Science of Good and Evil ’ for more on this provisionality. Social conditions are much better in the more industrial and secular societies than in other lands. My South comes out a loser comparatively and it is in the Bible Belt! Also read Michael Martin’s book on atheism and morality .

2

Ok, I have no knowledge, only questions. Now feed me answers.

How does one know what is good and bad for humans? If based all on pleasure and pain, how do you define? Shouldn’t it lead to a greater good at the end? What’s the greater end? Couldn’t you stick me with a needle, but hey that hurts, so no I don’t need a needle? But really I do to save my life in the long run? See the connection I’m making?

Doesn’t some pleasure actually lead to pain?

I will have to pick these books up. But regardless, these questions i’ve posted need to be answered. Just imagine I’m between the lines of religion and atheism, persuade me, comon do it.

3

Thanks. We discern that murder ,rape and theft do harm to people, so we call those acts immoral.I’ll let others flesh this out !

4

False dichotomy.

I’m a theist, yet objective morality is possible without God.

God knows what is good/evil, yet actions are not simply good or evil in virtue of God’s preference for them. Theistic morality is not averse to reason/facts etc either.

5

Silly.

Morality is imbedded and there must be an author as accident and chaos will not give the same repeated results in living matter over and over with a meaning that we could understand and use/prove as a tool to accomplish goals. This is called Purpose and morality has a Purpose and it was designed. The golden rule is all the proof one needs to see that morality is embedded, if you don’t like it done to you then any normal person realizes that it is wrong to do to others, plain and simple. I’m always amazed at how people complicate such simple things that even a child can understand.

6

How is an objective morality possible without a transcendent being?

7

With Quentin Smith , I find morality objective in that it is universal, applying to all people. Yes , theists can find morality independent of God as Plato in the Eurypthro showed. Indeed I stress that . I find they have to have a source of morality that transcends all beings. Morality’s lawmakers are we: We discern what is good or bad ourselves without input from any god[ the men of yore had no such input!]. We easily discern that rape,etc, are immoral . We discern no being would have muredered through a deluge or countenance genocide or slavery. There is better morality in the advanced ,secular countries . The Bible Belt leads in crime . Nature gave us a moral sense that we need to extend to all people . As theists use reason and facts rather than the biases of the men of yore they use our morality . Who wants to prescribe stoning for working on the sabbath or children cheeking their parents? Theists chery pick from their scriptures on morality . We make progress through consensus . [-X [-X :^o :unamused: #-o

8

Woah woah… wait a minute. I’m not asking if you believe, regardless, even if you do, how can you have the right to believe in an objective morality without the consideration of a transcendant being?

You can’t just say they’re there, because the problem with this is how do you know? Different countries have different morals, etc. So how do you, in perhaps an atheists shoes, believe you can have objective moral values?

The difference I see is this, Religionist, who believe in a transcendant being have the right to believe in objective morals. Problem is they can’t prove their right. Atheists can’t either, and they don’t have that right, they have no beliefs in something transcendent, something outside of us that controls everything, that sets up a system. The atheist believes the universe was random, so how then can an atheist ‘now’(after all i’ve said) believe they can anchor morals?

So how then can we have beliefs independant of God? First person that tried to do that perhaps was Lucifer, and then Kant, second Lucifer. Perhaps Plato, but I don’t remember him discussing theists morals apart from God…Maybe you need to explain here.

Bible belt leads in Crime? What…?

Now listen to me here however. I do believe a Moral law Does exist. I’m willing to give an argument here, not my own.

A Moral law can only exist if God exists.

A Moral law does exist.

Therefore God exists.

I’m not saying this proves God, but by looking at this arguement we must question these first 2. Does a moral law exist? Well you claim yes? But logically, reasonable, how can one exist if not universally? And if the universe is random, no purpose, how then can a moral law cohere? it’d be random? I see your train of thought here, as nature goes. But it’s really not a law then if perhaps evolutionary ethics, we are just one of many planets. Here’s my next question though… Say perhaps I grant you that a moral law does exist, here in the world, and I just believe everything in the universe does cohere to such, as a faith belief, which atheists(if looking at it this way) aren’t supposed to have supposedly. Now then, if the universe is chance, random particles, with no purpose, no ending, how can a moral law mean anything? Aren’t morals for betterment? But what’s the betterment?.. Sustaining life?

Sustaining life… that’s a good one, why hasn’t anyone pointed this out before.

Alright well I won’t erase all of this, but I will do further study… it seems not even the best atheist i’ve listened to have gotten to such. I’ve just heard they are there, and then they use Kant(luthern). Perhaps they are here, and perhaps they do cohere to the rest of the universe through a belief system. Perhaps explaing evolutionary freaks like mother teresa can be backed by a faith in something not of herself. Thus we do live for ourselves in such a way, even she may have lived for herself thinking of an afterlife.

Hmm… your guys turn, discuss.

9

God would have to acknowledge a morality independent of Himeself as Plato demonstrated by the dilemma posed in the Eurypthro : Do the gods make morality in which case they can make the immoral moral or do they follow a code? He opted for the latter. The moral code is independent of God. It isn’t the case that nature is essentially random in that natural selection is the anti- chance agency.It is irrelevant t o morality that even if nature were so random . We are the gods [excepting the psychopaths,etc] who have to look at what is good or bad for ourselves, other animals and the enviornment. As in science and elsewhere , we have disagreements, but who would disagree that murder, rape and theft are wrong . We need no god to see that! Yahweh commanded genocide and slavery and capital punishment for trivialities. Allah is no better . Ignorant men of yore composed Yahweh’s and Allah’s characters . So religious morality is subjective at the hilt .Drs. Paul Kurtz’s “Forbidden Fruit” and Michae Michael Martin’s “God ,Morality and Meaning” and Michael Shermer’s " The Science of Good and Evil " taken together demonstrate an objective ,provi sional, and contextual ethic. Such atheists as Stalin and Pol Pot were not interested in what was good or bad but in their nutty whims and beliefs . And the same applies to Calvin and Luther! :^o [-X

10

I’m gonna disagree with the premise that for a moral law to exist, God also must exist.

Robespierre argues that moral laws can be contructed through reason. That is largely correct, but to view it through a modern lens, moral laws can be constructed through natural selection.

Humans are social beings, after all. Those groups of humans who fit together better will be more successful. Hence, moral law is a strong positively selective factor.

11

You judge God from a book written by man?

How silly. Are you one of those who thinks books are the source of knowledge?

12

Xungian, that is telling =D> . Bigdaddy, I actually describe the mind-set of the men of yore who just made Yahweh . Yes , morality could judge a god: might does not make right.And considering the superfluity of evil in the world , morality would judge God immoral. Morality, as Plato demonstrated in the Euthrypro , rests independent of God. And the god notion is just begging the question as to a begginning and to a purpose for us. The cosmological and the teological arguments therefore are null. And the ontological is just a definition without substance! It , too, I have just thought ,begs the question as to a largest being . That is succinctly the rational anwer to the god notion. As Keith Parsons notes, the notion shows vacuity and mystery rather than explaining matters at all . It just the tautology God wills what He wills. Existence is primary , in which all explanations and causes find themselves . It is the eternal multiverse. The god notion is dead intellectually although philosophers of religion and theologians use reams of paper defending it. What is debateable is which multiverse theory is right . Next week I’ll read a book on it by an exponent of one. :unamused: #-o [-X

13

Oh well… Doesn’t Dawkins see necrophilia as morally ok…? Should this not be a morally obvious wrong? I mean… I’m just saying. Who are you to tell him he’s wrong? He’s a brain, he knows more than you do and he believes were just dancing to our DNA.

Most atheists aren’t truly atheist, but they want to be as free as they can in a religious society such as America. However, look at Europe and the decline their on with Secularism, you want that? lol

Anyway some things yes are obvious wrongs, that’s why a moral law does exist, but it coheres with the standard of God’s moral law. Sure we can become like Europe and wipe ourselves out, but I’d rather not it get there, would you?

14

I’d rather have problems like Europe than problems like Iran (cue drumroll).

Though I would argue that Europe’s decline in religiousity has been a long time coming – if you look at when a lot of strongly anti-theistic and certainly anti-Church thought was going on, Europe was at its heyday. If I wanted to fall into the same corrolation-causation trap, I could argue that Europe’s secularism caused it to achieve dominance in the world.

The French Revolution had anti-theistic leanings, and it conquered Europe. Bismark wasn’t thinking about God when Prussia dominated European affairs.

As for Dawkins on Necrophilia, do you have a quote on that? It certainly isn’t a reproductive act, meaning that it is non-selective (I’d say neutrally selective, but people are less likely to copulate with a corpse-fucker), and being non-selective is the closest I’ve seen Dawkins come to calling something immoral.
Anybody have any more info handy on that? I don’t remember Dawkins dwelling on the source of morality overly much, aside from morals being memes?

15

Europe is on the decline and probably won’t have a nation left soon. Rarely do people ever know there nation is crumbling from the inside. Such as an example Malcom Muggeridge once used, if you put a frog in hot water he will jump out, if you put a frog in cold water and bring it to a slow boil he will slowly die without notice.

Well I would consider sex with “inanimate objects” Necrophilia, wouldn’t you? Anyways that’s beside the point, point is Dawkins is smart enough to know that as an atheist he can’t claim a moral anchor, it’s impossible, thus all we’re doing is dancing to our DNA. How much profound then is the statement Christ makes when he say’s you must be born again? Lol, Dawkins probably doesn’t dwell on morality much because morals to him our just a construct of ourselves, our biological evolutionary process, holds no objective validity.

16

Sorry Xunzian, I find that to be in error.

Morality is predicated upon the simplest of constructs: greater authority.

Socially, we all make judgement calls that are rarely, if ever, predicated upon what is good/bad, correct/incorrect, but the nature of the consequence(s) for an action(s).

Social contract does not equate to morality, it equates to a personal judgement of conformity or rebellion.

“Humanism” is an utterly bogus term, and I mean that in the classical definition of the word, “error of stupidity”. Humanism is becoming more rampant with every generation, and it is simply a more newly defined way of saying “I, human, ego, avarice” and accepting no responsibility for one’s actions.

17

You know I’ll just quickly point out real quick that why it seems all jolly that objective morals can exist without God or some transcendent anchor, the fact is it isn’t possible.

Just as who is going to tell an atheist he is immoral? You? Me? Society? The government? None of these are objective.

18

The problem with that stance is that you then go on to define God as being objective. Since the Biblical God seems to have emotive capacity, that would make its position as subjective as any other.

So, you can take the subjective position of one individual (albeit an intelligent individual) or you can let the power of statistics define what is moral/immoral through normative values.

Both systems have their hiccups, but at least the latter is honest and contains the power for change. Adaptability is key in any system.

Mas,
Ahhh, but which ‘Greater Authority’? If we accept that humans are social animals (in your altruism thread, it seems as though you do not so this may be where we hit a roadblock), and that ‘self’ is more a matter of perspective and resolution then it follows that the ‘Greater Authority’ in this instance is ‘self’ of society as a whole.

As I stated before, Robespierre was close to the heart of the matter, but he bet on the horse known as ‘rationality’ and we all know that humans rarely act rationally. However, acting in concordance with what is socially viable – we do that all the time. We are conditioned to act in harmony with our society from the moment we are born and we are also actively taught to shun those who do not. Indeed, it goes further than that, as humans are hardwired to practice reciprocal fairness to such an extreme degree that we will actively hurt ourselves if it damages someone who has ‘wronged’ us.

19

If morality is predicated on greater authority, can not the authority be blind? I mean, why does the authority have to be humanly intelligent, like god. For example, what if, when I killed someone, I instantly disappeared (in a way explained and accounted for by science)? Let’s say that it is an accepted and undisputed fact that when you kill you disappear forever. So, my judgment calls still being predicated on the consequences, I would still choose to be good, or else I get disappeared. Objective morality still exists, and the authority is the consequences of my actions, but the consequences are not distributed by an intelligent being. Now, replace disappeared with, negative effects on survival, and you have a morality predicated on logic.

20

Good on ya Xunzian.

No, altruism seems speculative when juxtaposed 'gainst the primal instinct of survival first, which as a corollary, would make society, and subsequent socially grounded behaviors, secondary.

I haven’t read Robespierre, but we would be in agreement that “rationality” is not a common reaction. He was reaching for an ideal, if your inclination of his intent is correct.

This may be unfounded wild speculation on my part, but socially concordant behaviors are rooted in conditioning, and the “hardwire” aspect appears tenuous at best, with respect to sociality.

As far as “greater authority”, either divinity, (actual or created), and/or the social identity is the other. But then with respect to morality, this raises another difficulty with social identity being foundationally from religiosity, which has become the inherent social conditioning premise, almost uniformly, and irrespective of culture or nation.

The problem with atheistic/humanistic arguments for against morality, it is just non-sense. Moral sense comes from greater authority of social conditioning incorporating the higher authority of deism. Someone being humanistic/atheistic has no grounds for morality, as they are the only authority of their behavior, which means all is a basis of mathematical probabilities of success/failure ~ not measures of meretrition or righteousness.

Any humanist/atheist who claims morality is possible without divinity, has failed to recognise a simple logic error, as stated more succinctly by you.

If one accepts humanistic/atheistic morality on the basis of social identity, then by proxy of the fact all societies are founded from theistic doctrines, they are accepting the identity of social “self” as the deity, the greater authority.

In the end, their morality that they say is real but different, is exactly the same.