Commandments for Atheists?

[Rincewind]

Or if you had been born German then during WWII you would have been herding Jews into gas chambers.

Why do you think that?

I don't believe that my morals would have allowed me to do that.

 

[angrysoba]

Why do you think that?

I don't believe that my morals would have allowed me to do that.

Well, in that case maybe people's morality is not purely determined by religion and culture after all.

For some reason, tsig believes 99% of people would, although I am highly skeptical of that opinion and I very much doubt he could back it up.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well, in that case maybe people's morality is not purely determined by religion and culture after all.

For some reason, tsig believes 99% of people would, although I am highly skeptical of that opinion and I very much doubt he could back it up.

I don't believe reluctance to commit genocide necessarily shows that morality is not culturally determined (Not that I'm arguing that it is though).
I'm pretty sure that there were plenty of elements in German religion and culture that were against "herding Jews into gas chambers", competing with the nazi's version of morality.

It doesn't help that we're talking about two different things, using the same word.
One could call the way an individual makes moral judgments, based on their biological hardwiring and their environment, morality.
The word morality can also be used to indicate the ever-shifting moral system that arises when lots of individuals interact.
As far as I can tell no one here has argued that because the latter is defined by (a very fluid) consensus, the former meaning is invalid or somehow completely dependent on group morality.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't believe reluctance to commit genocide necessarily shows that morality is not culturally determined (Not that I'm arguing that it is though).
I'm pretty sure that there were plenty of elements in German religion and culture that were against "herding Jews into gas chambers", competing with the nazi's version of morality.

It doesn't help that we're talking about two different things, using the same word.
One could call the way an individual makes moral judgments, based on their biological hardwiring and their environment, morality.
The word morality can also be used to indicate the ever-shifting moral system that arises when lots of individuals interact.
As far as I can tell no one here has argued that because the latter is defined by (a very fluid) consensus, the former meaning is invalid or somehow completely dependent on group morality.

Actually, the distinction that is most conspicuously being ignored by a number of posters here is the one between descriptive and normative morality.

 

[tsig]

Well, in that case maybe people's morality is not purely determined by religion and culture after all.

For some reason, tsig believes 99% of people would, although I am highly skeptical of that opinion and I very much doubt he could back it up.

Most Germans went along with the Nazis. When your national leaders and all the population is going in one direction very few will go the other.

Read the polls on torture right here in the good ole USA.

 

[angrysoba]

Most Germans went along with the Nazis. When your national leaders and all the population is going in one direction very few will go the other.

Read the polls on torture right here in the good ole USA.

Maybe you can source the evidence for your 99% claim.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Most Germans went along with the Nazis. When your national leaders and all the population is going in one direction very few will go the other.

Read the polls on torture right here in the good ole USA.

Right. Or the support for Putin in Russia today, Erdogan in Turkey, what's-his-name in Hungary...

As for the social construct, norms seem to track with the swings between the extremes of cooperation and competition in group and individual behavior, the degree of deference to authority in lieu of independent judgment, and on the perception of the degree to which others in society are similar to or different from oneself. That is, all the things ideology and demagoguery love to exploit.

The US has been on a major me-first, pick-lice-off-the-head-monkey (aka 'being a team player'), we-are-surrounded-by-brown-people-let's-panic track for the last 40 years. Thus many flee to absolutes, call those questioning leaders traitors, and grab an extra sidearm every time some fear is mongered on TV.

 

[Correa Neto]

So take this hypothetical:
Tomorrow you wake up and the societal consensus has evolved overnight so that it has now been ordained by consensus that it is not only moral, but rightful and required, that one must beat the crap out of someone weaker than them on a daily basis. Bullying in the extreme is codified and declared joyous and correct by all, atheists and theists alike. Those who do not follow this commandment to bully are fined and publicly humiliated before their peers. Would you join in the bullying? Why or why not?

I believe you made a cut-and-paste mistake here; the contents (more specifically questions) of my original post (#43) are not related to your hypothetical.

Your hypothetical, by the way, has a number of problems. The most important thing you forgot, something know to anyone who has ever lived under an authoritarian repressive regime (as I did) is that the state, the social conventions, society, economy, the police, whatever, may force people to act in this or that way, because it may be a matter of survival or to avoid some sort of harm to the individual or his/hers family. This doesn’t mean those who bow to those rules, those who live under them, actually like the rules and consider them to be correct, moral, fair.

Some people, regardless of the consequences they may suffer, challenge dictators, warlords, gangsters, abusive parents, bullies, homophobic and/or misogynistic societies. The fines and the public humiliation may be considered worthwhile. It is not just about agreeing or not with a given set of rules, it also depends on how each individual perceives the cost/benefit ratio of following these rules and how bearable they can be for them.

The other thing you are not taking in to consideration is that morality, ethics, behavior guidelines are in no small parts cultural constructs. Individuals are shaped by societies, by cultures to great extent; collectively, they shape and build societies. If we lived in ancient Rome or Greece, for example, the odds are we would treat our infants and toddlers in ways which we, living nowadays and under our culture, would consider as nauseating, horrible and despicable. Those ways, however, would be considered natural, normal, fair, for most of us. Most of us would never know any other way.

There is no actual need for presenting extreme dilemmas, be them the “bully society” or a Godwin. Just think about how many gays and lesbians suppressed their orientations, their loves; how many lovers had to hide their feelings because they had different skin colors, eye shapes, whatever. How many of these people stood their grounds? Why? How many bowed to the rules? Why? They convinced themselves the rules were right? They stopped being gays or lesbians? They stopped to love the person with the “wrong” skin color? Or they just repressed themselves?

An ethical and/or moral position is taken or built by an individual; it is created by interactions of a human being with other humans, human society, human culture, individual life experiences, individual biology and the particular moment of life experienced. It’s a constant feedback loop of iterations. The codes of societies change across time, our own personal codes change too.

We may adopt behaviors which are against our beliefs, our morality, our ethics, depending on the circumstances. We may challenge society and its rules. We may agree with them or parts of them. It all depends on the context and how we perceive the cost/benefit ratio of a given act at a given moment.

 

[dudalb]

Don't become a Bizarro version of the religious fanatics you dislike.

 

[stanfr]

I believe you made a cut-and-paste mistake here; the contents (more specifically questions) of my original post (#43) are not related to your hypothetical.

Your hypothetical, by the way, has a number of problems. The most important thing you forgot, something know to anyone who has ever lived under an authoritarian repressive regime (as I did) is that the state, the social conventions, society, economy, the police, whatever, may force people to act in this or that way, because it may be a matter of survival or to avoid some sort of harm to the individual or his/hers family. This doesn’t mean those who bow to those rules, those who live under them, actually like the rules and consider them to be correct, moral, fair.

Some people, regardless of the consequences they may suffer, challenge dictators, warlords, gangsters, abusive parents, bullies, homophobic and/or misogynistic societies. The fines and the public humiliation may be considered worthwhile. It is not just about agreeing or not with a given set of rules, it also depends on how each individual perceives the cost/benefit ratio of following these rules and how bearable they can be for them.

The other thing you are not taking in to consideration is that morality, ethics, behavior guidelines are in no small parts cultural constructs. Individuals are shaped by societies, by cultures to great extent; collectively, they shape and build societies. If we lived in ancient Rome or Greece, for example, the odds are we would treat our infants and toddlers in ways which we, living nowadays and under our culture, would consider as nauseating, horrible and despicable. Those ways, however, would be considered natural, normal, fair, for most of us. Most of us would never know any other way.

There is no actual need for presenting extreme dilemmas, be them the “bully society” or a Godwin. Just think about how many gays and lesbians suppressed their orientations, their loves; how many lovers had to hide their feelings because they had different skin colors, eye shapes, whatever. How many of these people stood their grounds? Why? How many bowed to the rules? Why? They convinced themselves the rules were right? They stopped being gays or lesbians? They stopped to love the person with the “wrong” skin color? Or they just repressed themselves?

An ethical and/or moral position is taken or built by an individual; it is created by interactions of a human being with other humans, human society, human culture, individual life experiences, individual biology and the particular moment of life experienced. It’s a constant feedback loop of iterations. The codes of societies change across time, our own personal codes change too.

We may adopt behaviors which are against our beliefs, our morality, our ethics, depending on the circumstances. We may challenge society and its rules. We may agree with them or parts of them. It all depends on the context and how we perceive the cost/benefit ratio of a given act at a given moment.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.
You still haven't answered my hypothetical though. As you evidently noted, it does not call for execution or imprisonment if you disobey, merely fine and humiliation. So, am I to infer from your response that you might decide to go along with the edict to bully, to avoid that consequence? Note, that is a little bit different than repressing ones sexuality, it requires a bit more action and not just thought processes.
And bear in mind, my hypothetical doesn't take place in Ancient Greece--I'm trying to come up with arguments in a debate with a Christian, and your 'treat the children' examples were not Christians.
You keep trying to find 'real world' examples to dismiss my hypothetical; but my example is not meant to be 'real world'--it's a 'Twilight Zone' question, meant to get to the heart of your beliefs. I don't want to assume what those are...

 

[stanfr]

......Third, a problem with the directive versions of the Golden Rule, such as the Biblical "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or the Egyptian version from around 1800 BC "Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you" is that some of the things you'd want done to you are things you wouldn't want to do to others.

For example, if you'd like everyone to give you gifts of lots of money, then according to the Golden Rule you should give gifts of lots of money to everybody.

What's wrong with that? Sounds good to me--give me $10,000,000 and I will gleefully hand out dollar bills to a million appreciative recipients.

 

[angrysoba]

Going back to one of the more serious attempts here. I was wondering if these commandments could be reduced for the sake of parsimony:

I've attempted to come up with a simple set of moral guidelines myself, and I think I've come up with a pretty good result with just six guidelines (not Commandments).

1. Do not cause avoidable harm, suffering or distress.
2. Act to prevent or lessen the harm, suffering or distress of others.
3. Do not steal, damage or mistreat the property of others.
4. Honour your agreements and arrangements with others.
5. Do not intentionally deceive, mislead or misdirect.
6. Do not taunt, harass or mistreat other people.​

Wouldn't "commandment 2" cover all the others by implication?

Unless of course, we are talking about occasions when dishonouring an agreement or telling a lie might be beneficial, but in that case why would it be wrong to lie or dishonour an agreement?

 

[stanfr]

Morality does not have a scientific basis, it is an emergent property of how we function as biological beings. It is open to scientific inquiry though, but that does not mean we can pinpoint some kind of optimal scientific morality. You are looking to replace one absolute (God told me to) with another (Science told me to). A differently colored infinite stack of turtles isn't going to provide a better explanation.
Morality is a kind of behavior, and what constitutes the 'optimal' kind of behavior depends on your goals and on your environment. Sometimes option A will help you reach goal 1, in other cases option B is better. But what if two groups exist at the same time, one using A, one using B? Or what if there's another group, striving for goal number 2, sometimes helping group A, sometimes group B, but with a goal that's alien to either? How could you choose what goal and what method is 'better', without siding with one group and invalidating your experiment?

You chose the goal and/or method in advance, there is no 'siding' here. That's the way science has always operated, with a theory or hypothesis, then testing of the same. The argument of the 'believer' is that if there is no absolute morality, even the most 'obvious' premise can change based on expediency or circumstance. Obviously some atheists are fine with that--i'm not.

 

[stanfr]

Going back to one of the more serious attempts here. I was wondering if these commandments could be reduced for the sake of parsimony:



Wouldn't "commandment 2" cover all the others by implication?

Unless of course, we are talking about occasions when dishonouring an agreement or telling a lie might be beneficial, but in that case why would it be wrong to lie or dishonour an agreement?

Or, #3, destroy the heavy equipment of loggers who are cutting down 1,500 year old trees...

 

[angrysoba]

You chose the goal and/or method in advance, there is no 'siding' here. That's the way science has always operated, with a theory or hypothesis, then testing of the same. The argument of the 'believer' is that if there is no absolute morality, even the most 'obvious' premise can change based on expediency or circumstance. Obviously some atheists are fine with that--i'm not.

I think that the problem for believers is that even absolute morality is incoherent. For example, if something is considered Good or Bad simply by Divine Command, then anything including massacring of neighbouring tribes would be moral. In other words Good and Bad would be arbitrary and could easily include all kinds of things that offend our sensibilities. (Why is it right? Because I say so!)

On the other hand, if Good and Bad is known to God, but only revealed to be true then ultimately it is not dependent on God. Conceivably then such absolute ideas of Good and Bad are discoverable.

These two possibilities are usually referred to as the Euthyphro dilemma and they undermine the case for a Divine Absolute Morality a priori. That is to say, we don't even need science to dismiss the argument.

On the other hand, what I have noticed here is a kind of substitution of Society for God and I don't see anything like a more coherent argument. In this case, some people are saying that what Society deems to be Good or Bad is moral. I think that also fails for the same reason Divine Command fails. (Why is it right? Because Society says so!) It's trivial to point out that what Society thinks is moral is what Society thinks is moral. It doesn't get us anywhere.

Having said that, it doesn't mean we are left with throwing out the whole notion of morality and abandoning any striving to do "Good things" we just have to come to some rational agreement as opposed to, in my opinion, some deference to tradition, or culture, or society. And while some people might still say that it is "arbitrary" to select some things to ground morality in, if we are talking about such ideas as "harm", "rights", "justice" etc... then I think we can generally agree that that is less arbitrary than saying "bananas", "sheep", "foreskins", etc... are good bases for morality.

However, science does not play much of a role in devising first principles even if by using science we can find out why we prefer those first principles. This is another area which causes a lot of confusion for some people.

 

[Brian-M]

Wouldn't "commandment 2" cover all the others by implication?

No, although it could also cover 1. But I thought it would be a good idea to keep them separate in order to make it clear that if you're not in a position to prevent suffering, you should at least try to avoid causing it.

Unless of course, we are talking about occasions when dishonouring an agreement or telling a lie might be beneficial,

Not necessarily beneficial, but also cases where it's not clearly harmful.

but in that case why would it be wrong to lie

I didn't say it was wrong to lie.

You can lie all you want, as long as you're sure your listeners are aware that your statements aren't true. You can lie for the sake of hyperbole or sarcasm. You can lie in the process of making a joke. And what is fiction, if not an entertaining and well crafted body of lies?

Deception, on the other hand, is where you trick people into believing that something isn't true. You can deceive by lying, but you can also deceive by telling the truth (for example, telling it in a way that makes them think you're joking or lying), or deceive by actions.

So lying and deception are not necessarily the same thing.

There are two problems with deception, even when it isn't directly harmful.

First, it causes people to believe false things about the world. Maybe in many cases this might do no harm, but we form new beliefs on the basis of old beliefs and new information, so a false belief can sometimes lead to developing even more false beliefs and incorrect assumptions. And since we act on what we believe, this can result in people acting in ways they wouldn't act if their beliefs were more accurate, possibly in ways detrimental to themselves and those around them.

Secondly, it erodes trust. If deception is commonplace, people would no longer be able to trust the information provided by other people, which itself can cause problems.

For example, if it were commonplace for doctors to lie to a dying patient by telling them that they were going to be okay, how could any patient trust a doctor when the doctor tells them that they're going to be okay? A lot of patients who the doctor knows are going to recover might have to endure the fear that they're dying because they can't trust what the doctor tells them.

or dishonour an agreement?

Because if people tended to dishonour their agreements, nobody would bother making them in the first place. After all, what point would there be making an agreement with someone if you thought that there was a good chance the other person wouldn't fulfil their part?

The practice of making and keeping agreements is one of the things that is contributes to a successful society.

 

[Brian-M]

Or, #3, destroy the heavy equipment of loggers who are cutting down 1,500 year old trees...

But are the trees the property of the loggers?

 

[Pup]

On the other hand, what I have noticed here is a kind of substitution of Society for God and I don't see anything like a more coherent argument. In this case, some people are saying that what Society deems to be Good or Bad is moral. I think that also fails for the same reason Divine Command fails. (Why is it right? Because Society says so!) It's trivial to point out that what Society thinks is moral is what Society thinks is moral. It doesn't get us anywhere.

But what if that is the answer? Where are we trying to get? If we're trying to get to an absolute morality, well, if there isn't any, then the only way to get there is to believe in one of the many religions.

Having said that, it doesn't mean we are left with throwing out the whole notion of morality and abandoning any striving to do "Good things" we just have to come to some rational agreement as opposed to, in my opinion, some deference to tradition, or culture, or society. And while some people might still say that it is "arbitrary" to select some things to ground morality in, if we are talking about such ideas as "harm", "rights", "justice" etc... then I think we can generally agree that that is less arbitrary than saying "bananas", "sheep", "foreskins", etc... are good bases for morality.

I would still argue that we have an interest in harm, rights, justice, etc. because those are things that we've evolved to hold opinions about (harming other tribe members is bad, giving them rights and adhering to justice is good). They've become the basis for what society deems important, though different mixtures of our natural urges come and go, making society's norms shift relatively quickly.

Yes, there's a bit of a paradox: if "everyone" goes along with society's norms, what about the people who change society to adopt new norms? But I still think it's as good an explanation as any. People who reject society's norms rarely reject all of them at once.

 

[Correa Neto]

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

You are welcome.

You still haven't answered my hypothetical though.

The fact is that I actually have answered and you missed it. Here it is: It all depends on the context and how we perceive the cost/benefit ratio of a given act at a given moment.

And there’s also this relevant bit: the state, the social conventions, society, economy, the police, whatever, may force people to act in this or that way, because it may be a matter of survival or to avoid some sort of harm to the individual or his/hers family. This doesn’t mean those who bow to those rules, those who live under them, actually like the rules and consider them to be correct, moral, fair.

As you evidently noted, it does not call for execution or imprisonment if you disobey, merely fine and humiliation. So, am I to infer from your response that you might decide to go along with the edict to bully, to avoid that consequence?

You should avoid making inferences when there’s not enough data to support them.

Note, that is a little bit different than repressing ones sexuality, it requires a bit more action and not just thought processes.

Nope, its very similar. Not too long ago prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians were much more deeply entrenched within society than nowadays. In the 50’s, the 60’s and the 80’s the mere suspicion of being gay could render a lot of bullying, discrimination and violence to an individual (unfortunately things have not changed depending on where you are). It was the norm. Sadly. And we were blind to it. And many people suffered because of that. Back then, NOT bullying, not showing prejudice against gays (or those perceived as possibly being gays) actually could even render you some sort of humiliation among your peers “What? You are some sort of a fag too?”[/i].

All of this happened because of a book written thousands of years ago, allegedly containing the words of god, a book describing moral codes of a Bronze-Age society, a society which died thousands of years ago. Lots of their values are obsolete and wrong under our modern eyes.

And bear in mind, my hypothetical doesn't take place in Ancient Greece--I'm trying to come up with arguments in a debate with a Christian, and your 'treat the children' examples were not Christians.

Then think about Christian Europe back in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution. Think on how children were treated back then by Christians. Would you or your opponent consider OK to have, for example, children working at coal mines? Now, place yourself in their places, wear their shoes, try thinking as a member of one of those societies, someone raised within them, educated by their culture, someone who learned and valued their ways. Now, under these conditions, would you or your opponent consider OK to have, for example, children working at coal mines?

Perhaps the most important questions would be:

If you lived back then, what would be needed for you to no longer consider OK to have children working at coal mines?

If you lived back then and considered not OK to have children working at coal mines, under which circunstances would you openly fight it (or not)?

You keep trying to find 'real world' examples to dismiss my hypothetical; but my example is not meant to be 'real world'--it's a 'Twilight Zone' question, meant to get to the heart of your beliefs. I don't want to assume what those are...

But I don’t live in a Twilight Zone episode. Not to mention even Twilight Zone episodes had more context, more background. Individuals take moral and ethic decisions usually within given complex, detailed contexts and backgrounds even if their options are just “yes” and “no”. Your example has not provided enough information to back any decision from my part.

And you should avoid assuming things when you have no solid grounds to base them.

 

[jakesteele]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/19/living/atheist-10-commandments/index.html?hpt=hp_t4



What would you all add or delete? If you care that is.

Ranb

Here are some alternate version of the non-10 commandent

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11...eists-guide-nonbelievers-want-explore-values/

The Ten Non-Commandments:

I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.
II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.
III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world.
IV. All truth is proportional to the evidence.
V. There is no God.
VI. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.
VII. There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave.
VIII. We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy.
IX. We benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society.
X. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.

Another version

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-new-ten-commandments/


First Commandment: Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

Second Commandment: In all things, strive to cause no harm.

Third Commandment: Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

Fourth Commandment: Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

Fifth Commandment: Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

.Sixth Commandment: Always seek to be learning something new.

Seventh Commandment: Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them

Eighth Commandment: Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

Ninth Commandment: Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

Tenth Commandment: Question everything.




My personal favorite comes from Satanism 101
http://thesatanictemple.com/about-us/35-2/

There are seven fundamental tenets.

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.