h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Referring to an earlier post about morality... I've always (as far as I can recall) loved talking about personal philosophy. It turns out that there's a name for my understanding of morality.

Too bad I can't remember it. Moral objectivism? Yeah, something like that.

So here goes:

1. Murder is absolutely, objectively wrong. But what does the word "murder" mean? If a state carries out a death penalty, is that murder? What about killing someone who is violently assaulting you? Or travelling back in time to kill Stalin before he causes the deaths of millions of Russians? Murder is wrong, but it's the semantics of the word that we can't all agree on.

2. If something can be objectively morally wrong, then there is such a thing as "absolute morality".

3. Make pretend "stabbing" motions with your best stabbing hand. That action had no moral value, good or bad. It's just waving your fist around. But put a knife in your hand, and a person in front of you, and suddenly it's a completely different thing. So an action can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances. To me, that (while it's a bit unusual) is a good example of subjective morality.

Morality has both absolute and subjective components. But you don't need an invisible superhero from the sky to tell you that. So why would you realistically think that a god/pantheon/whatever could possibly be the sole source of morality?

Oooh! People have started posting here! Good stuff.

Re: The need to analyse everything from a rational perspective...yes and no. From the atheist perspective, such questions as 'What is the meaning of life?' are non issues. We are not fulfilling the grand scheme of an external creator. There's no single 'big picture' which we can grasp inside our tiny heads. So such things aren't wortwile topics of any kind of debate. On the other hand...'What makes a flower pretty?' Well...*in principle* we can analyse what makes certain things pleasurable or vice versa. It's a matter of evolutionary biology/psychology and culture. Such debates are damned interesting. No, they don't necessarily make the flower any prettier. On the other hand...understanding where we're coming from can be a useful tool for rational discourse. How are are arguments shaped by biology and experience? Which opinions can we change, and which are just too central to our being?

Which brings us on to...why do we need to challenge. Well, we don't up to the point where religious/spiritual beliefs elide with wider views on life and how it is to be conducted. Secularism and rationalism have to be the starting point for any discussion which brings together two belief systems. Coincidentally, I came across this article at the weekend which explains so much better than I can why we atheist fundamentalists have to stand up for liberal democracy: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1547835,00.html

And then, yes, there are those spiritualists who look down on the atheist as lacking something. I'd like a definition of *what* I'm lacking. Moral direction? (I'll give as good as I get on that one.) Artistic appreciation? What? Myself...I can't see why any parent would put their child's well-being in the hands of the religious!

(Rev Nick, earlier)
>>So far, the tone of this thread is the most civil I have yet seen on hootoo, when it comes to anything religion.

Damn! We'll have to fix that!

I'm sure if the right folks toddle in, it will get quite heated.

I think you missed my point with the reference to a flower or a pretty girl. In my world of electronics, many things must be analyzed, dissected, rationalized and simply beaten to death with logic. And then there are other things in life that I don't see a need to pick apart, study, and then either keep or discard, depending on the studies. If I find a movie hillarious, I'm so happy for the respite from so much of the day's woes, that I don't see a need to determine WHY I found it funny.

So in that direction, I'd rather have left my daughter with a person who has religious beliefs and a sense of life, than someone who does little but rationalize everything. That latter option sounds about as comforting and nurturing as playing with a slip-stick.

Oh, agreed...logic isn't the whole of life. That is, there's little mileage to be gained in trying to analyse our *entire* consciousness within a logical framework...even though it could be done. In principle. For example, the 'Phwoarr!' reaction on seeing a nicely turned ankle (or something ). Now, one *could* understand that in terms of psychological processes. And those processes would be governed by neurology, which is biological result of evolutionary processes, which is based on our reproductive imperative, which our down to DNA chemistry, which is a matter of ion exchange between organic molecules, which ias a matter of the energy levels of sub-atomic particles...and so on. But it's a long way from a leaping electron to 'Phwoarr'.

HOWEVER...that's not to say that these things can be understood 'by other means'. Omphaloscepticism or spirituality are simply not options. We know there are neurones, DNA, electrons, etc. There aren't souls or spirits.

Ah. So some concrete form of science has finally and conclusively proven that <> , ... I must have missed the news release.

Oh dear! We're not going to fall down the old rabbit hole 'Ah but there's no conclusive proof that souls/spirits/gods/whatever' don't exist are we?

OK - I'll rephrase that for the epistemologically pedantic. There's no empirical evidence that they exist. Therefore there's no reason to include them within our considerations. In principle, I'm happy to keep an open mind. In practice...show me the photos. This is Atheist Fundamentalism, after all. So no need to go there. Been there. Done that. Gnawed holes in the T-shirt.

As David Hume said, near the end of his life, when asked if he was certain there was no afterlife 'Tis possible that a coal on the fire may not burn.'

Nawww, I was just being a bit of a smart-arse, picking up on such a flatly stated assertion. This world being as weird and whacky as it is, I'd guess that there is as good a chance that there IS a soul, as there is that no such thing exists.

I expect that I'll likely have a definitive answer in another 40 - 50 years. Unfortunately, being dead then, I won't be passing on too many answers to anyone else.

Getting back to atheist morality, following on from ChrisTOTG...

Surely subjective morality doesn't work, though. 'It feels right'. Sure, being charitable and not killing people just 'feel right' to some people. But then...certain religious types might argue against, say, homosexuality because 'it doesn't feel right'. Or they may feel it right to crash airliners into towers. Etc. etc. I suggest that the religious don't think 'Sure, X feels right...but on the other hand my big book says not.' Rather they use their big books to justify subjective views on morality.

But, then, 'Objective' morality. Why does it matter if you kill someone? (inna rhetorical/devil's advocate stylee)

Well it matters to the person you kill, right? And all their contacts.

Implicit in the word 'matter' is somebody that it matters to.

And it matters to us all, makes us safer, that killing people is agreed to be wrong and that killers get locked up.

Perhaps you could rephrase your question in 'matters to x' terms?

Well...it was a rhetorical question.

My take is that morality isn't some sort of esoteric, mystical thing. It's a matter of mutual agreement, thus firmly within the realm of rational debate.

For example...we can postulate alternate forms of non-religious morality. Fortunately the unspeakable Ayn Rand has done this for us already. She believes that the world can divided between 'Antagonists' and 'Parasites'. The antagonists are individualists who get things done. Parasites are collectivists who live on the welath created by the antagonists. Rand believed it was a moral imperative that antagonists should serve only their own interests. Now, I can argue that this is utter nonsense on many, many grounds. Not least of these is 'But what if I'm a parasite?' The point is, though, that I can argue rationally and oppose this neo-con tosh politically.

Similarly murder. I don't want to be killed. you don't ant to be killed. Hopefully others don't want us killed. We can collectively oppose those who wish to kill. This is called 'civilisation.'

There remains a danger, though. What if most people in a civilsation agree things which are unsatisfactory to a minority? Hitler was democratically elected...etc. etc. Well, within a liberal civilisation, we have to struggle for what we believe to be right. Not very satisfactory, but the best we have.

Just a very brief side-step, if I may. Is it also your opinion, (as many on this site seem to have,) that "most" persons with religious beliefs feel it acceptable to kill in the name of their religion? That may very well have been the case any number of years ago, when the religious leaders were also the policitical leaders. But I would think it's hardly the case in the majority of today's world.

No. For every (third or fourth) rabid Bush-ite, there is a perfectly peaceable Quaker.

In fact, I think that if we really want to make a strong argument against religion, we have to argue not against its worst manifestations, but against its fluffier aspects. My argument against 'good' religion is that it provides no sensible challenge to the murderous kind. It's one illogicality against another. Take your pick.

If that means there is only one sane person to every 3 or 4 murderous believers, I'd really better watch my back. Because there are an awful lot of practicing Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and pretty much any other faith you can name, in Canada. Many of whom step forward to denounce the extremists within their particular communities.

I was specifically comparing right-wing US Christians vs Quakers. In fact...I'm sure I understated the proportions. No, indeed, there are many peaceable religious folk. My point is that their delusions provide no rational basis for argument against other delusions.

'My intepretation of [insert scripture of your choice] is that we shouldn't kill.] vs 'Well, my reading is that we should.'

Who's to choose? What's God saying on the matter?

>In fact, I think that if we really want to make a strong argument against religion, we have to argue not against its worst manifestations, but against its fluffier aspects. My argument against 'good' religion is that it provides no sensible challenge to the murderous kind. It's one illogicality against another. Take your pick.<

I agree wholeheartedly. Although even a great number of the "fluffier" religious folk, when they see horrible atrocities committed in the name of "god" or religion, just kind of silently shake their heads with that "but for the grace of god" kind of crap. Or attribute terrible things done in the name of religion to "sin", i.e. stating on a TV newsmagazine interview that the deaths of thousands due to someone crashing a plane or two into a tower or two is due to society allowing homosexuals and abortionists to run amok. That kind of insinuation makes me sick. Even if I did believe in some kind of intelligent design or divine force (which I don't), I certainly wouldn't believe in a god who made his followers so hateful.

But it's true that "fluffier" religion is as illogical as the more murderous kind. In fact, IMO, it's even more so. At least when dealing with murderous zealots, I can accept that there's either some kind of sociopathy involved, or at least we're talking about someone operating on a very basic level with a very misguided survival instinct. But the sort of lukewarm, wishy-washy delusions involved in the fluffier asoects of religion make no sense whatsoever to me. What's the point?

In the "tut, tut, that coulda been me" responses to horrific things, how does the reaction of "fluffy religiousts" differ from the less vocal, but majority, of atheists, agnostics or 'rational debaters' (which seem to be almost as fanatical at times)?

Since when was Hitler democratically elected? But I take your point - this is the problem with the idea of things being 'made good' by agreement.

Anyway, yes Ayn Rand is a good (choke) example to take.

I would sum up Randism in the logically inconsistent statement 'Good is Bad'. She says that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the effects of our actions on other people.

This for me defines amorality. The morality of an action is determined precisely by its effects on other people. I don't see how a majority decision has any effect on the judgement. Governments may introduce social contracts, and breaking social contracts may have consequences. But that is a fairly limited sphere.

A prevailing consensus may change the perception of the consequences of an action - it may for example think that genital mutilation of children is beneficial rather than harmful. But I think disagreement on that kind of issue is susceptible to a reasonably objective scientific assessment of costs and benefits.

Of course that is not a value-free assessment, you could ask what makes life good and death bad, pleasure good and pain bad, and so on. And what I would say to you is that by instinctively comparing life and death, pleasure and pain, love and hate, etc, that we learn as children what 'good' and 'bad' mean. Before religious crazies get at any of us and start twisting them into religious concepts.

So where am I being subjective? Of course others may disagree with my definitions of good and bad, but that just means that they are talking about different ideas using the same words.

>how does the reaction of "fluffy religiousts" differ from the less vocal, but majority, of atheists, agnostics or 'rational debaters' (which seem to be almost as fanatical at times)?<

I can only speak for myself, but in *my* case, the idea that "well bad things happen to good people because we're all being punished for that 'original sin'", or any of that kind of nonsense. I don't think that people are dying by the millions from a disease like AIDS, to punish humanity for engaging in biologically normal sexual practices, which some religious whacko deems immoral. And so forth. Need I provide more examples?