Atheism and the Moral Zeitgeist

[Puppycow]

One of the important implications of atheism is that we don’t have to turn to any authority such as a cleric or book which claims to speak on behalf of The Creator for moral guidance. We are free to make up our own morality, just as we are free to choose what kind of music we like to listen to. However, just as with music, we do seem to have evolved certain collective norms and preferences. Some people like Country music and others Rock & Roll, but most people don’t like the sound of fingers on a chalkboard or discordant noise. Melodious and harmonious music follows certain rules. Certain notes sound good together, while others do not. It may not be possible to ‘prove’ that one sound or mixture of sounds is agreeable while another is not, but most people know it when they hear it.

I think something similar can be said of morality. Just because atheism implies that you can make up your own moral code, doesn’t mean that atheist would tend to be all over the place in what they come up with. Most reasonable people agree on certain basic things like that deliberate cruelty, killing and stealing are wrong. The ‘golden rule’ (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) seems to be the most common basic principle of morality. However, there is a certain amount of variation among ‘moral tastes’ of reasonable people. Some may accept certain acts that others condemn. Some prefer to be left alone most of the time while others crave company. But the point is that it is subjective.

Broadly speaking, there are two possible sources for morality: nature (evolution) and nurture (culture). Most people, I believe, have a natural aversion to aggressive behavior because they don’t want to be the victim of it. Sympathy and empathy may also be adaptations that help us protect out kin, and thus help ensure the reproduction of our genes and those of our close relatives. This is not to say that natural sympathy and empathy are only limited to our close relatives, but only that that is where they tend to be the strongest. For example, we feel sympathy for our pet dogs, because we live in a symbiotic relationship with them, although they are not our close genetic relatives. Groups of humans that can cooperate effectively also increase their collective chances for survival. Culture is also a tool by which we increase our collective chances for survival, so we tend to be predisposed to absorb our native culture.

So basically, morality is something we evolved for our collective protection. Those whose morality differed from the norm by too great a degree tended to have somewhat lower odds of surviving and passing on their genes. So, moral behavior is mostly the same as the behavior that tends to maximize your evolutionary ‘fitness.’ It varies according to the situation.

 

[MichelQC]

One of the important implications of atheism is that we don’t have to turn to any authority such as a cleric or book which claims to speak on behalf of The Creator for moral guidance. We are free to make up our own morality, just as we are free to choose what kind of music we like to listen to. However, just as with music, we do seem to have evolved certain collective norms and preferences. Some people like Country music and others Rock & Roll, but most people don’t like the sound of fingers on a chalkboard or discordant noise. Melodious and harmonious music follows certain rules. Certain notes sound good together, while others do not. It may not be possible to ‘prove’ that one sound or mixture of sounds is agreeable while another is not, but most people know it when they hear it.

I think something similar can be said of morality. Just because atheism implies that you can make up your own moral code, doesn’t mean that atheist would tend to be all over the place in what they come up with. Most reasonable people agree on certain basic things like that deliberate cruelty, killing and stealing are wrong. The ‘golden rule’ (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) seems to be the most common basic principle of morality. However, there is a certain amount of variation among ‘moral tastes’ of reasonable people. Some may accept certain acts that others condemn. Some prefer to be left alone most of the time while others crave company. But the point is that it is subjective.

Broadly speaking, there are two possible sources for morality: nature (evolution) and nurture (culture). Most people, I believe, have a natural aversion to aggressive behavior because they don’t want to be the victim of it. Sympathy and empathy may also be adaptations that help us protect out kin, and thus help ensure the reproduction of our genes and those of our close relatives. This is not to say that natural sympathy and empathy are only limited to our close relatives, but only that that is where they tend to be the strongest. For example, we feel sympathy for our pet dogs, because we live in a symbiotic relationship with them, although they are not our close genetic relatives. Groups of humans that can cooperate effectively also increase their collective chances for survival. Culture is also a tool by which we increase our collective chances for survival, so we tend to be predisposed to absorb our native culture.

So basically, morality is something we evolved for our collective protection. Those whose morality differed from the norm by too great a degree tended to have somewhat lower odds of surviving and passing on their genes. So, moral behavior is mostly the same as the behavior that tends to maximize your evolutionary ‘fitness.’ It varies according to the situation.

I agree completely. I also think that the concept of morality, which is something that religion would like to take credit for, is in fact something inherent to the human race , and for good evolutive reasons. The "golden rule" when applied benefits all of us. It gives us reasonable certainty that we do not have to constantly fear for our lives and our possessions if we reciprocate. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, in time of wars for example. That is why being an atheist will not void you of all morality as some religious faithheads seem to be claiming.

 

[qayak]

One of the important implications of atheism is that we don’t have to turn to any authority such as a cleric or book which claims to speak on behalf of The Creator for moral guidance. We are free to make up our own morality, just as we are free to choose what kind of music we like to listen to. However, just as with music, we do seem to have evolved certain collective norms and preferences. Some people like Country music and others Rock & Roll, but most people don’t like the sound of fingers on a chalkboard or discordant noise. Melodious and harmonious music follows certain rules. Certain notes sound good together, while others do not. It may not be possible to ‘prove’ that one sound or mixture of sounds is agreeable while another is not, but most people know it when they hear it.

I think something similar can be said of morality. Just because atheism implies that you can make up your own moral code, doesn’t mean that atheist would tend to be all over the place in what they come up with. Most reasonable people agree on certain basic things like that deliberate cruelty, killing and stealing are wrong. The ‘golden rule’ (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) seems to be the most common basic principle of morality. However, there is a certain amount of variation among ‘moral tastes’ of reasonable people. Some may accept certain acts that others condemn. Some prefer to be left alone most of the time while others crave company. But the point is that it is subjective.

Broadly speaking, there are two possible sources for morality: nature (evolution) and nurture (culture). Most people, I believe, have a natural aversion to aggressive behavior because they don’t want to be the victim of it. Sympathy and empathy may also be adaptations that help us protect out kin, and thus help ensure the reproduction of our genes and those of our close relatives. This is not to say that natural sympathy and empathy are only limited to our close relatives, but only that that is where they tend to be the strongest. For example, we feel sympathy for our pet dogs, because we live in a symbiotic relationship with them, although they are not our close genetic relatives. Groups of humans that can cooperate effectively also increase their collective chances for survival. Culture is also a tool by which we increase our collective chances for survival, so we tend to be predisposed to absorb our native culture.

So basically, morality is something we evolved for our collective protection. Those whose morality differed from the norm by too great a degree tended to have somewhat lower odds of surviving and passing on their genes. So, moral behavior is mostly the same as the behavior that tends to maximize your evolutionary ‘fitness.’ It varies according to the situation.

I agree with some of this but there is a lot missing. First off, morality isn't always something you "know when you see (or hear) it", it takes a lot of work to come to good moral decisions and choices. Most of the work should be done prior to needing it but there will always be some work to do for each new situation.

That's why religion fails. It uses 2000 year old morality in a modern world. There has been no work done since it was written down for the followers and they are lost with today's complex problems and pine away for a return to the good old days.

Don't think that just because you are atheist you have an inside track to moral right. It takes hard work, lots of reading, reasoning and discussions with others. Anyone can do it but they have to do it. You can't take the easy way and wait for it to magically appear or look it up in the bible when necessary.

 

[balrog666]

Broadly speaking, there are two possible sources for morality: nature (evolution) and nurture (culture).

You left out reason. How telling.

 

[Dogdoctor]

You left out reason. How telling.

I think reason would be a part of culture since members of society try to apply logic to moral thought although sometimes not more than rationalizations.

 

[Puppycow]

You left out reason. How telling.

That's why I said 'broadly speaking.' Nature and nurture (or evolution and culture) can be broken down into subcategories.

Evolution has provided us with instincts and reason. Most animals rely primarily on instincts, but humans have evolved a higher capacity for reason, presumably because the ability to reason has increased our odds of survival and reproduction.

Likewise culture can be broken down into religion, education, literature, popular culture, the news media, traditions, your friends, family and neighbors, etc.

I agree with some of this but there is a lot missing. First off, morality isn't always something you "know when you see (or hear) it", it takes a lot of work to come to good moral decisions and choices. Most of the work should be done prior to needing it but there will always be some work to do for each new situation.

That's why religion fails. It uses 2000 year old morality in a modern world. There has been no work done since it was written down for the followers and they are lost with today's complex problems and pine away for a return to the good old days.

Don't think that just because you are atheist you have an inside track to moral right. It takes hard work, lots of reading, reasoning and discussions with others. Anyone can do it but they have to do it. You can't take the easy way and wait for it to magically appear or look it up in the bible when necessary.

You are right. Actually I quite agree with that. All within reason of course. I don't think anyone is obligated to become some kind of saintly morally perfect person, but we should all at least aim to be reasonably good productive members of society, according to our abilities, and not a cancer on society. One rule of thumb might be: conform to social norms unless you can determine that not conforming will cause no additional harm
to others. So, obey the law unless you are quite sure that it is morally acceptable not to. Even in the latter case, it is probably better to speak out in favor of changing the law so that a public consensus can be built and the 'moral zeitgeist' thereby improved.

I agree completely. I also think that the concept of morality, which is something that religion would like to take credit for, is in fact something inherent to the human race , and for good evolutive reasons. The "golden rule" when applied benefits all of us. It gives us reasonable certainty that we do not have to constantly fear for our lives and our possessions if we reciprocate. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, in time of wars for example. That is why being an atheist will not void you of all morality as some religious faithheads seem to be claiming.

Well said!

I think reason would be a part of culture since members of society try to apply logic to moral thought although sometimes not more than rationalizations.

Actually, I think that much of our culture is a product of our reason (as well as other things), but our reason itself is a product of evolution.
Although, there is also a positive feedback: education is (or can be when it is done correctly) culture feeding back the past fruits of reason into new minds. So while culture is a product of our reason, it can also be used to shape our reason (in some cases (education) honing it, and in other cases (indoctrination) dulling it).

 

[Dogdoctor]

Actually, I think that much of our culture is a product of our reason (as well as other things), but our reason itself is a product of evolution.
Although, there is also a positive feedback: education is (or can be when it is done correctly) culture feeding back the past fruits of reason into new minds. So while culture is a product of our reason, it can also be used to shape our reason (in some cases (education) honing it, and in other cases (indoctrination) dulling it).

Culture invoves reason but I wouldn't say it is a product of it. Nor would I say reason is a product of evolution any more than everything that we do is in someway a product of evolution (passing of gas and stubbing of toes is also a product of evolution).

 

[qayak]

You are right. Actually I quite agree with that. All within reason of course. I don't think anyone is obligated to become some kind of saintly morally perfect person, but we should all at least aim to be reasonably good productive members of society, according to our abilities, and not a cancer on society.

I don't think it is a moral imperative to be a "productive" member of society.

One rule of thumb might be: conform to social norms unless you can determine that not conforming will cause no additional harm to others.

I like the variety of life. I have never been one to strongly believe in conforming. I hate even sitting in rush hour traffic. All I see are sheep in the cars around me, being tended by the shepherds (police) until the day they are led to the slaughterhouse . . . but that's just me.

So, obey the law unless you are quite sure that it is morally acceptable not to. Even in the latter case, it is probably better to speak out in favor of changing the law so that a public consensus can be built and the 'moral zeitgeist' thereby improved.

Outside of my job, I can't say I even concern myself with the law. I just try to make good choices everytime one comes up. I couldn't be bothered learning all the laws and all the ins and outs of those laws. I bet I have broken a lot of them without even knowing it.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't think it is a moral imperative to be a "productive" member of society.

Would you at least agree that a person capable of at least pulling his/her own weight should do so? That is, do enough work to pay for what you consume.

Outside of my job, I can't say I even concern myself with the law. I just try to make good choices everytime one comes up. I couldn't be bothered learning all the laws and all the ins and outs of those laws. I bet I have broken a lot of them without even knowing it.

Hmm. But earlier you wrote:

First off, morality isn't always something you "know when you see (or hear) it", it takes a lot of work to come to good moral decisions and choices. Most of the work should be done prior to needing it but there will always be some work to do for each new situation.
. . .
It takes hard work, lots of reading, reasoning and discussions with others. Anyone can do it but they have to do it. You can't take the easy way and wait for it to magically appear or look it up in the bible when necessary.

I sense a slight contradiction here.

Culture invoves reason but I wouldn't say it is a product of it. Nor would I say reason is a product of evolution any more than everything that we do is in someway a product of evolution (passing of gas and stubbing of toes is also a product of evolution).

I have to disagree here. The important features of evolution are those that are adaptive. The things that actually help us to survive and reproduce rather than those that are merely incidental. Like teeth, and eyes and a brain. I believe that our ability to reason is an adaptation resulting from natural selection. And I believe that human culture is a product of our brains (not strictly limited to pure reason, of course).

 

[qayak]

Would you at least agree that a person capable of at least pulling his/her own weight should do so? That is, do enough work to pay for what you consume.

No. Why do they have to pay for what they consume? Why can't they make it and grow it themselves?

I sense a slight contradiction here.

Can you explain the contradiction? I don't see the idea of making good moral choices instead of following laws and reasoning out your moral position on issues as being contradictory.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I have to disagree here. The important features of evolution are those that are adaptive. The things that actually help us to survive and reproduce rather than those that are merely incidental. Like teeth, and eyes and a brain. I believe that our ability to reason is an adaptation resulting from natural selection. And I believe that human culture is a product of our brains (not strictly limited to pure reason, of course).

It's probably just terminology we are arguing over but reason is no big deal, abstract thinking, extended reasoning, the ability to use logic or something else is what makes us humans different. Our culture is the product of our genes and our environment not just our brains.