Atheist Ethics

[naz]

I'd like to enquire about the ethical beliefs of the atheists here. Could you all give a short summary of your beliefs with maybe some examples and reasons for them?

Also is there any system of ethics you subscribe to or is it just something more personal? Or a little of both?

I would like to contrast them with my own and those of other theists.

TIA.

[ydoaPs]

I outlined the basic principle in this thread and argued that (a)theism cannot in itself provide a moral framework in this thread.

[dahduh]

Nov 30, 2009 19:24:03 GMT naz said:

I'd like to enquire about the ethical beliefs of the atheists here. Could you all give a short summary of your beliefs with maybe some examples and reasons for them?

Also is there any system of ethics you subscribe to or is it just something more personal? Or a little of both?

Three things:

1. The fact that humans do have innate 'moral intuitions'. See e.g. Steven Pinker, Johnathan Haidt. These arose through evolution and provide us with the underlying values that define us to be 'human'.
2. These intuitions are further informed by our study of game theory, which tell us e.g. why altruism should exist, and why certain scenarios of reward and punishment are or are not effective.
3. Finally, we can take a step back and formulate an ethical philosophy based on ethical principles; this is quite analogous to what happens in physics, for example, in which general principles are recognized and re-applied. These principles can then be used to test the soundness of certain moral ideas, and to identify possible defects in moral reasoning.

So for example: Haidt identifies five major 'moral intuitions' which he labels fairness, nurture, loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. He finds that 'liberal' personalities value mostly the first two: fairness and nurture. 'Conservative' personalities value all five about equally. These findings are robust and appear to apply to every culture everywhere. This tells us a great deal as to why, for example, conservative types should find homosexuality abhorrent - it violates their 'purity' moral sense - and why liberals should think conservatives bigots for doing so - it violates the liberal's sense of 'fairness'.

Concerning game theory, an example is that cooperation quickly breaks down if freeloaders are allowed free reign; but if you allow people to 'punish' free-loaders, cooperation is quickly restored. Since cooperation is to everybody's benefit (freeloaders included), this provides ethical justification for punishing freeloaders.

As an example of ethical principles, take Rawls' "veil of ignorance". This is ultimately based on the 'fairness' intuition, and it prescribes a means of testing whether a proposed universal law is really fair or not.

So I would not say I subscribe to any particular system of ethics any more than I subscribe to a particular theory of quantum gravity; as the evidence changes, so the theory might change. Rather I subscribe to a method that is evidence based and can be applied to moral situations as they arise.

By contrast (and correct me if I'm wrong), theists seem to have a rule-based morality. Rules are handed down by God and people are expected to follow them. That will fit in quite well with the 'conservative' mindset - remember the loyalty and respect for authority? - but not so well with the liberal mindset if those rules violate values like fairness. Also, this system of morality is rather infantile, and I don't mean that in a disparaging sense. Kohlberg studied moral development of children and adults and identified six stages:

1. Obedience in the face of punishment
2. Self-interest
3. Conformity with peers
4. Law and order orientation
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles

Anyone who has had contact with children will probably recognize stages 1-3! Nearly all will reach stage 4 in their teens. But a lot of adults never get past stage 4, which is essentially "Listen to the Law because it is the Law"; in a nutshell, "might is right". This is basically where biblical ethics sits.

[naz]

Dec 1, 2009 3:09:51 GMT ydoaPs said:

I outlined the basic principle in this thread and argued that (a)theism cannot in itself provide a moral framework in this thread.

Understood. I'm not aksing what morality you derived from atheism. I am asking what your moral values are and what are they derived from.

[naz]

Dec 1, 2009 9:16:47 GMT dahduh said:

Nov 30, 2009 19:24:03 GMT naz said:

I'd like to enquire about the ethical beliefs of the atheists here. Could you all give a short summary of your beliefs with maybe some examples and reasons for them?

Also is there any system of ethics you subscribe to or is it just something more personal? Or a little of both?

Three things:

1. The fact that humans do have innate 'moral intuitions'. See e.g. Steven Pinker, Johnathan Haidt. These arose through evolution and provide us with the underlying values that define us to be 'human'.
2. These intuitions are further informed by our study of game theory, which tell us e.g. why altruism should exist, and why certain scenarios of reward and punishment are or are not effective.
3. Finally, we can take a step back and formulate an ethical philosophy based on ethical principles; this is quite analogous to what happens in physics, for example, in which general principles are recognized and re-applied. These principles can then be used to test the soundness of certain moral ideas, and to identify possible defects in moral reasoning.

So for example: Haidt identifies five major 'moral intuitions' which he labels fairness, nurture, loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. He finds that 'liberal' personalities value mostly the first two: fairness and nurture. 'Conservative' personalities value all five about equally. These findings are robust and appear to apply to every culture everywhere. This tells us a great deal as to why, for example, conservative types should find homosexuality abhorrent - it violates their 'purity' moral sense - and why liberals should think conservatives bigots for doing so - it violates the liberal's sense of 'fairness'.

Concerning game theory, an example is that cooperation quickly breaks down if freeloaders are allowed free reign; but if you allow people to 'punish' free-loaders, cooperation is quickly restored. Since cooperation is to everybody's benefit (freeloaders included), this provides ethical justification for punishing freeloaders.

As an example of ethical principles, take Rawls' "veil of ignorance". This is ultimately based on the 'fairness' intuition, and it prescribes a means of testing whether a proposed universal law is really fair or not.

So I would not say I subscribe to any particular system of ethics any more than I subscribe to a particular theory of quantum gravity; as the evidence changes, so the theory might change. Rather I subscribe to a method that is evidence based and can be applied to moral situations as they arise.

By contrast (and correct me if I'm wrong), theists seem to have a rule-based morality. Rules are handed down by God and people are expected to follow them. That will fit in quite well with the 'conservative' mindset - remember the loyalty and respect for authority? - but not so well with the liberal mindset if those rules violate values like fairness. Also, this system of morality is rather infantile, and I don't mean that in a disparaging sense. Kohlberg studied moral development of children and adults and identified six stages:

1. Obedience in the face of punishment
2. Self-interest
3. Conformity with peers
4. Law and order orientation
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles

Anyone who has had contact with children will probably recognize stages 1-3! Nearly all will reach stage 4 in their teens. But a lot of adults never get past stage 4, which is essentially "Listen to the Law because it is the Law"; in a nutshell, "might is right". This is basically where biblical ethics sits.

I was really looking more for your own personal ethics not how ethics may have arisen.

As far as the idea of theists following rules that may not always be the case. there is strong antinomian current within Christianity. For me it is not about rules per se but alternative perspectives: spiritual view vs. carnal.

[ydoaPs]

There's actually a neurological difference between liberals and conservatives regarding morality. Conservatives also think of morality as more rule based(10 commandments, for example) whereas liberals typically think of morality as more process-based(moral reasoning).

Dec 1, 2009 16:12:31 GMT naz said:

Dec 1, 2009 3:09:51 GMT ydoaPs said:

I outlined the basic principle in this thread and argued that (a)theism cannot in itself provide a moral framework in this thread.

I am asking what your moral values are and what are they derived from.

I gave a pretty basic example of the typical process in the linked thread.
It's really just a matter of what you ought to do if you want to maximize societal health and minimize suffering.

[dahduh]

Dec 1, 2009 20:40:55 GMT naz said:

I was really looking more for your own personal ethics not how ethics may have arisen.

As far as the idea of theists following rules that may not always be the case. there is strong antinomian current within Christianity. For me it is not about rules per se but alternative perspectives: spiritual view vs. carnal.

Those are my personal ethics. When I have to decide between right and wrong those are the things I look to.

Take antinomianism: is it an ethical position? Obviously no, since it explicitly elevates faith in predestination above consequences of acts. But that can't be the full story: why do some people think this is a good thing?

My guess is that such individuals have bought heavily into their particular in-group, with an emphasis on loyalty to this group's ideas above other moral intuitions. Such groups hang together by fostering a sense of mission and exclusivity, and perversely, possessing an odd ideal can actually improve things because attacks from outsiders help to cement the group. One of the most immoral things you could do would be to renounce the ideal, because it would be disloyal. Separating someone from such a group would require engaging other moral senses, like indignation at having been lied to.

As for "spiritual vs. carnal", you'll have to be more explicit!

[naz]

Those are my personal ethics. When I have to decide between right and wrong those are the things I look to.

Okay, sorry, I missed that. I'll have to read it again.

Take antinomianism: is it an ethical position? Obviously no, since it explicitly elevates faith in predestination above consequences of acts. But that can't be the full story: why do some people think this is a good thing?

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Judaism, as developed by the rabbis, was/is all about observance of law. Jesus came and said this emphasis was all wrong. Paul took that banner up and ran with it. "All things are lawful for me". The Gnostics took the antinomian spirit its full course.

My guess is that such individuals have bought heavily into their particular in-group, with an emphasis on loyalty to this group's ideas above other moral intuitions. Such groups hang together by fostering a sense of mission and exclusivity, and perversely, possessing an odd ideal can actually improve things because attacks from outsiders help to cement the group. One of the most immoral things you could do would be to renounce the ideal, because it would be disloyal. Separating someone from such a group would require engaging other moral senses, like indignation at having been lied to.

I think I agree.

As for "spiritual vs. carnal", you'll have to be more explicit!

The teachings of the NT are not about a new prescription for morality but rather inner transformation. Through this process one begins to see with spiritual rather than carnal eyes. As a result the world looks different and the perceptions of how to live in it change.

[syamtamchuk]

I have a simple ethical code with which I try to live my life.

Try to avoid unnecessary harm to others in all things.

Everything else is just derived from that.

[dahduh]

Dec 1, 2009 21:26:48 GMT naz said:

The teachings of the NT are not about a new prescription for morality but rather inner transformation. Through this process one begins to see with spiritual rather than carnal eyes. As a result the world looks different and the perceptions of how to live in it change.

With respect naz, I think you are looking for ways to salvage the new testament. I don't even know that "spiritual rather than carnal eyes" is meaningful.

Maybe the NT is just another book. An historically interesting book, with a bit of history and a bit of legend and a bit of confused philosophy. But just another book. You are reading so much into it that now it's mostly your own work.

[ydoaPs]

Dec 1, 2009 21:26:48 GMT naz said:

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Judaism, as developed by the rabbis, was/is all about observance of law. Jesus came and said this emphasis was all wrong.

That depends on the Gospel. Matthew is a VERY Jewish Gospel and has Jesus teaching salvation by works. In fact, Jesus as described by the author of Matthew even said to follow the letter of the Law(better even than the Pharisees) until He fulfills it when heaven and earth pass away.

The teachings of the NT are not about a new prescription for morality but rather inner transformation.

Which texts in the NT? Which NT?

[krusta]

I'm a big fan of the Wiccan creed, myself. "Do what you will, and harm no one". I ran into this during my deconversion in my late teens and early twenties, and it really stuck a chord. What I like about it is that it makes you really think about all the consequenses of your actions - big and small.

[naz]

With respect naz, I think you are looking for ways to salvage the new testament. I don't even know that "spiritual rather than carnal eyes" is meaningful.

Well, it is meaningful to me.

[naz]

Dec 1, 2009, 3:26pm, naz wrote:
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Judaism, as developed by the rabbis, was/is all about observance of law. Jesus came and said this emphasis was all wrong.

That depends on the Gospel. Matthew is a VERY Jewish Gospel and has Jesus teaching salvation by works. In fact, Jesus as described by the author of Matthew even said to follow the letter of the Law(better even than the Pharisees) until He fulfills it when heaven and earth pass away.

Yes, but his emphasis was on the heart and spirit of the Law, not the legalistic letter.

Quote:The teachings of the NT are not about a new prescription for morality but rather inner transformation.

Which texts in the NT? Which NT?

Despite any variations that is the basic message.

[dahduh]

Dec 3, 2009 16:24:06 GMT naz said:

With respect naz, I think you are looking for ways to salvage the new testament. I don't even know that "spiritual rather than carnal eyes" is meaningful.

Well, it is meaningful to me.

Would you care to explain?