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

Without theism, there can be no absolute ethics--ie an asumpsion that one thing is right and another is wrong--but there can be an arbritrary set of ethics agreed on by a group of people. Such rules must have some basis, but there is no reason to think that one system is better than others. Atheism does not preclude ethics, it just precludes the idea that one system of ethics can be superior to others.

--An atheist

Which means, presumably, that everything is relative. All that holds true is what is "good for me". Therefore who are we to condemn the murderer, the rapist, the thief, the exploiter of the poor? In short, anything goes.

A second point is that despite the ideal of us all holding our own individual ethical systems, these will often clash. I may decide that my personal rights infringe on yours (perhaps I decide I want to help myself to your car, for example). In such a case, we need to weigh the relative claims of the two of us. And this needs a meta-ethic. Without a meta-ethic society cannot function. Thus we are back at the absolutism problem again.

The writer of the article quite rightly points out that the only valid meta-ethic if one rejects theism is that which can be based on something rational. (Weigh in the irrational, e.g. "human rights", and you might as well choose theism). The only rational basis one can realistically posit is Darwinism which of couse points out:

* Survival of the fittest is paramount
* Humans are no more important than any other species
* Individual rights count for nothing, the species is supreme
* The key thing is to pass on the genes of the strongest

Apply this to an issue such as global poverty, and you end up with the conclusion that "they are weak, so let them all starve." As Dawkins has regularly admitted, Darwinism offers no explanation or grounds for altruism --- only that which benefits me (directly, or indirectly in the case of game theory) or my direct genetic relations has any merit. Helping a complete and utter stranger (e.g. by giving to Comic Relief) is pointless.

This I think is the conclusion of atheism. Why more atheists can't simply accept it and live with it is beyond me. Even the giants like Ayers and Russell more or less gave up at the end and admitted rationalistic atheism was a failure.

What an odd conclusion to draw, Andy. Try as I might, I can't wrest that meaning from the note you're replying to. Sorry.



Another unjustified conclusion? If one rejects theism, surely one is left with many possible bases for developing one's own ethical system, some of which may be characterised as 'rational'?

Darwinism may imply that , but surely this is because it takes an overview - at the level of species - in order to present its argument? I don't think the dominance of the species over the individual is a necessary part of Darwinism.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

THe lack of a rational meta-ethic is why humans need government. Since everyone can select their own esystem of ethics that benefits themselves, it is necesary to hve a government enforce some system of ethics "ie. laws"over everyone. Otherwise, everyone will end up fighting everyonr else.

Indeed! There are circumstances where society takes precedence over the individual ... *and* vice versa, of course!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

If individualism counts for nothing, why did we evolve a sense of it in the first place?

Individualism doesn't count for nothing. It just doesn't count for everything. Individualism is a very effective system for producing new ideas that can be helpfull to a group. You need a society to decide on the best ideas and enforce them, though, if people are to work in groups. Individualism is necesarry, its just that you need a society to make it work well. THat's why it evolved.

Besides, you can't BE an individual in the human sense without a society, (no language, no culture, no 'others' for comparison), anymore than you can have a society in the human sense without individuals.

I presume the theistic meta-ethic is the "do what you're told or you'll go to hell" that we're all familiar with? How is this any better than an internalised or instinctive "Be excellent to one another dudes, (You never know when you're going to need each others' help to survive.)?

Noggin

"Do what you're told or you'll go to hell" - I'm religious, but I don't believe in Divine punishment for misdeeds. My religion still has an ethical system unrelated to the Divine.

I guess that's a kind of halfway between, say, Christian ethical systems and a purely atheistic ethical system. Wiccan ethics aren't based on displeasure from the Goddess and God, but rather on the consequences of acting negatively as fundamental rules - which obviously don't work if certain things which aren't generally present in the beliefs of atheists aren't accepted.

<...internalised or instinctive "Be excellent to one another dudes...">

"internalised or instinctive"? D'you really think so, Noggin? I would see this as something reluctantly accepted because the alternative is much worse! I'm afraid I see humans as greedy, selfish, self-centred creatures that co-operate only if it benefits them personally. Awfully cynical, I know.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I thought government was an intrinsic aspect of a society.... The unavoidable friction between individualism and socialism is eased by governments, and the laws they make.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Thats my point-no human society weith more than perhaps 3 people can exist without soe form of govenment. THat isn't necesarily true for non-human inteligences, but, because humans are individuals, any society must have a government to exist. Once could imagince a society of organisms without government because they all rected the same way to any stimulus, but the organsims wouldn't be anything like humans

In oither words, government is intrinsic to Human society

Probably, yes, but consider an anarchic society: government in this case would be 'distributed', and it might appear that there was no government, in the same way as you described for non-humans.... In other words, I don't think government is an *unavoidable* consequence of a society, just a probable one.

[BTW, I'm not suggesting, or necessarily supporting, anarchy as a system of government! ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

True, but anarchic societies are unstable. Someone will eventually start to tack over, usually quickly. That was my pont about non-human societies. Ants, for example, are anarchic, but, since they all react in the same way to a stimulus, their societies can surviv. Socieal primates cannot form anarchic societies because in any group that associates enough to be called a society, someone will take over. In the long term, a government of some form will come into existance even if there isn't one at first.

...

Is this really true, or is it just anecdotal wisdom? [I ask in all seriousness - has there ever been an anarchy we can judge the system by? In theory, it seems to have some interesting possibilities.... ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I wouldn't go as far to compare possession of the same meta-ethic to identical reaction to stimuli. What about a collection of people who are members of the same religious group? (We've established that religions impose a meta-ethic; it doesn't matter to this example just WHAT that meta-ethic is.) Though they all possess the same meta-ethic, they'd react very differently to the same stimuli, because they're individual humans with their own responses.

I'm going to make some statements; dispute them or agree with them.
1. To live in harmony, people must have the same meta-ethic, or at least similar ones.
2. Religions impose meta-ethics, as do governments.

I'm out of time. Sorry, but I'll finish this post later. Please bear with me....

~Wes

As I am not a socialogist, historian, ect. I cannot say for certain that it is true. My basis is that I cannot think of any historical example of an anarchy that lasted long or of any social primate species with an anarchci society. I can also think of things that would make such a society unstable. I am open to counter examples.

I agree with 1, although I am not certain it is sufficient for them to ive in harmony. I think, though, that you if the meta-ethic is not enforced by a government, or religious leadership"ie. the pope" which is almost the same thing as governmwent, you will quickly find someone able and willing to circumvent or ignore the metaethic and take control, either by enforcing it, enforcing another, or being a dictator. In the lack of a government to enforce the meta-ethic, assuming it survives long enough, a government will spontaneously form.

Unless people reacted completely identically, I think that the metya-ethic would either break down, or a govenment would form, either to enforce it or to enforce something else. Another alternative would be if everyone had a need for consensus, but that is not humans are. Many people are willing to do what others may dislike if they think it is to their advantage.