Kindest Regards, Jaiket!
Thank you for your thoughtful response!
Jaiket said:
Possibly. Personally I don't think the term (*evil) is any less a human constuct (although a useful one) than god (to me a non-cognitive one).
OK, I can go with this for the moment.
As far as I know there is no god, there is no evil, there is no good, yet there is still morality, and there are undoubtedly actions I consider unethical.
If I may be so bold as to ask, where did you learn your morality? On a more philosophical note, where does morality come from?
My own morals are not based upon good and evil. My own ethical beliefs stem from a desire to protect humans and other animals from suffering, and the planet from becoming inhospitable to life.
OK, I am trying to follow... Is what you are describing "situational ethics?" What happens when in alleviating the suffering of one you create suffering for another? Is lying "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? Is murder "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? And who gets to define the desired outcome, each individual? What then happens when competing outcomes collide? Mill's Utilitarianism is not perfect, particularly when there is not a standard outcome for all to strive for.
No, I don't believe (*social) acceptance is the reason at all. Common benefit maybe. I also believe theists share the same motive to be law abiding.
Social acceptance is largely based on common benefit. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Mate with me, and I'll protect you. Of course theists, at least monotheists, and I would dare to say even non-theists such as Buddhists, have their moral laws. That is where formalized morality such as the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi come from.
I merely suggested that atheists conform because of social pressure to do so. In the absence of that social pressure, I cannot help but wonder just how moral an atheist can truly be?
As I understand it atheists are moral through mutual consent and convention whereas theists are moral through commandment and submission.
I suspect we are saying the same thing in different words. What is "mutual consent and convention" if not social and cultural acceptance?
Is morality note a code within itself? Why should it disappear with laws?
I cannot help but think I am misunderstood here. Law, in and of itself, is not the sum total of morality, nor is morality the sum total of law. Having said this, it is plainly evident by anthropological evidence, such as the Code of Hammurabi, that the earliest codified law was based on religious morality teachings. The further we go back beyond this, we enter a "chicken and egg" dilemma, which came first: religion or morality? I should qualify what I mean by religion here, in that I mean "awareness of 'God'." Here, "God" means "something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of."
It just doesn't follow that without god we'd all become immoral, unless morality was redefined to be entirely religious in nature, which would make atheists immoral by definition and there'd be no 'becoming' involved.
OK, now I see a fallacy of argument developing... Perhaps I can try to clarify. As Brian pointed out, there is an elemental morality displayed among herding and pack animals. Of course, it is easy to say that they can do this without "God," that it is strictly biology. I would argue otherwise, but my evidence is subjective. Coming back to humans, without "God" our morality would be no better than animals, in effect, a return to the cave. Animals do not perceive that "murder" applies even to adversaries, not just the pack. (I choose murder here as example, I hope it doesn't return to bite me in the butt...) Even within the pack, murder is an arbitrary designation, how many pack males will willingly kill newborns if given the opportunity? Even their own offspring? Now, humans are not immune from this, but on a percentage basis it is done with far less frequency. And unless the perpetrator is without conscience, (possible as a mental incapacity), the perp feels guilt. "He" knows he has done wrong, and the human pack (society) will insure he knows he did wrong. He knows by teaching, (indoctrination). And whether or not it is appreciated, by far the vast bulk of ethical indoctrination available to us as humans is religious in essence.
Therefore, I would posit that atheists are moral becasue of latent social conditioning and cultural indoctrination from religious sources. That they deny the sources is irrelevent.
I feel the need to further add, that religious people are no less obligated and bound, and I must add susceptible (sp?), to those very same cultural indoctrinations.
The only way to prove my conjecture would be if a society could be "raised" in a religious vaccuum, of which I must point out that no society of note and merit on the world stage has done so for any serious length of time. Those that have, are only in the last hundred years, and have never fully succeeded in removing religion from the masses.
In response I would like to know if you can answer Euthyphro's dilemma:
1.Is the holy loved by gods because it is holy? 2.Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?
For if morality is dictated by the gods all becomes moral if the gods say so. Yet if this is not the case the moral yardstick lies outwith the gods and perfectly within my reach as an atheist.
I do not presume to know the mind of God. In my mind, since God created all, God created that which is Holy.
And then one must ask what it is you mean by "Holy?" Many things held to be holy by men are to me inventions of men. Many, but not all. There are things separated by God to God. These things stand above and beyond men.
So, to answer your moral dichotomy of ethical dilemma, I cannot say I know. Of those things created by men, all men can reach. Of those things created by God, men continually strive to reach, and seem to get ever closer to reaching. But man, by his very nature, will never be completely and totally Holy. Not in this existence. And yet, as a Christian, I am taught there were three, not least of which is Jesus. So yes, I do feel some dilemma, that is not lost on me.
It does not negate my position that morality, as we as civilized humans understand the concept, is religious in essence. And that without some kind of "God" concept, we would not be able to see far enough to comprehend "good" and "evil." Our actions would be those of the moment, with no regard for consequences. That includes suffering animals and ecological disasters.
