Moral Responsibility

beliefnet

Again ... "Religions" don't kill ... PEOPLE kill ...
teilhard

... often in the name of god.

You are correct, religions don't kill people. Atheism doesn't kill people. People driven by ideology DO kill people. How humans manage their ideology is the crucial element. I'd suggest that ideologies that have irrational and unrealistic elements are more tempting. Religious ideologies have a built-in authority of god, and humans can use that "authority" to defer all sorts of moral accountability. Of course political authority can do the same thing for a person. The crux is a failure of personal and independent moral accountability. Any time a person has an ideology to absorb accountability the more tempting immorality can be.

This is why non-theism is an advantage to one's own moral sense: there is no ideology to justify moral ambiguity. The sole responsibility is on the self, and the self must account.
F1fan

Sometimes a king or a priest or a despot finds it necessary to do things he wouldn't do as a person. This is the ultimate rejection of personal responsibility.
This is unfortunately a rejection of ones humanity as each human is ultimately responsible for everything hesh does. It cannot be laid off on a state, a God, or an ideal.

On Atheism

Comment on Philosophy Talk
Atheism is not a definition of anybody's life. Atheism is simply an answer to "Do you believe?" or "Are you saved?"
Atheists get their meaning, purpose, morals and ethics the same place God does. From the tribe they belong to. Modern tribes are more diffused and amorphous than traditional tribes, but we know who we are.
The afterlife is a con game that has no meaning for most atheists, even a theist like Forrest Church recognizes that the best we can do is live a life worth dying for. After that, who knows, and who cares. Any afterlife mediator that doesn't look at that life that was worth dying for isn't worth worrying about.

The Biology of Ethics

The Biology of Ethics - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education: "Churchland, professor emerita of philosophy at the University of California at San Diego, has been best known for her work on the nature of consciousness. But now, with a new book, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality (Princeton University Press), she is taking her perspective into fresh terrain: ethics. And the story she tells about morality is, as you'd expect, heavily biological, emphasizing the role of the peptide oxytocin, as well as related neurochemicals.

Oxytocin's primary purpose appears to be in solidifying the bond between mother and infant, but Churchland argues—drawing on the work of biologists—that there are significant spillover effects: Bonds of empathy lubricated by oxytocin expand to include, first, more distant kin and then other members of one's in-group. (Another neurochemical, aregenine vasopressin, plays a related role, as do endogenous opiates, which reinforce the appeal of cooperation by making it feel good.)"

Moral Evil

....Athiest, never dear... - Beliefnet

You went a few words too far. Slavery was abolished because it was a moral evil. Moral evil. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. A very few religious people saw through the biblical blessings justifying slavery and recognized it for the moral evil it was. It never was or could be considered a sin under any biblical or Christian definition of sin.

Sin is a Christian concept involving a human relationship to God. It has nothing to do with human relationships with each other which are covered by the concept of morality not sin. Any person who does not accept Paul's rants about sin cannot sin. According to Paul in Romans 1:18-23 humans although they knew God they glorified Him not as God. ...and for this cause God gave them up to vile afflictions, that is made them sin. If they knew not God they could not sin. They could be immoral, as immorality is a hateful act or even a hateful statement against another human. Whether it is sin or not makes no difference.

May 7, 2011 -- 2:24PM, wrote:

remember too it was the Church first in England through the leadership of Wilberforce that abolished Slavery there, then here in America here too through the spark ignited by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Toms Cabin. Slavery was abolished because it was a moral evil it was saw for what it was --------> Sin

Atheism, among those who know is a sinful condition.
Leight

Tribal Moral Law

atheism is NOT a "worldview" - Beliefnet

All moral law is ultimately the mores of the tribe. That which allows the face group of the tribe to function. The tribe may adopt a moral law giver in the form of a shaman or imaginary super shaman, but either will of necessity codify the mores of the tribe: Be nice to members of the tribe, protect the children of the tribe, respect the leaders of the tribe and protect the traditions and lore of the tribe.

In the modern world tribes are larger than a face group, and dispersed among other tribes in the society, but have common tribal values. Some are built around a religious tradition, others are built around business traditions, and another is based around the traditions of the university community. The university communities are typically split into the scholars and the warriors, and loyalties to each group carry beyond the campus with the warriors transferring loyalties to professional warrior teams, either sport or military.

The above is grossly stereotyped of necessity, there are major differences within each 'tribe.' Religious groups in particular are split into smaller and smaller groups some as small as a parish, each with its own mores and most with it's own higher moral law giver providing an absolute higher moral law for the tribe. Of course it is too much to expect that these absolute higher moral law agree on much of anything except that they are right and all the other absolute higher moral law givers are wrong.

It should be noted that there are atheists in most of the tribes, and the atheists generally adopt the world view of the tribe with the exception that the absolute higher moral law giver, if there is one, is an imaginary myth.

Morals of the Tribe.

The 'existence' of gods - Beliefnet

They both are talking about morality. The real issue is where Ken gets his preferences and cptpith gets his empathy basis for good and evil. And for that matter where you get your 'God says'

Humans are basically tribal animals. Tribes these days are distributed in the larger society. But within the tribe morality, that is, what is right and wrong is as rigid and strict as the 10 Commandments, although less frequently violated. 'Aunt Matilda' tells mom and dad which fork to use, who may screw whom, and who may own whom, and all of the other rights and wrongs of the tribe. Mom and Dad in turn make sure the children from the time they are old enough to play with other children internalize these rules with their pablum. 'Aunt Matilda' has lots of help, other relatives, teachers, mentors, authority figures all play a role in defining right and wrong for the tribe.

Your tribe throws God into the mix, but in general God's moral precepts are so archaic that even the most devout must pick and choose among them and interpret the ones they choose so heavily that in effect God's morality is the believer's personal preferences just like Ken's. I would bet that Ken's preferences are based on a modern educated tribe's morality, and that in fact they are more rigid than a believer's.

If the believer has chosen only the Second Great Commandment and discarded all the rest of the archaic moral precepts, they don't have much of an argument with cptpith, except maybe that God said so rather than the tribe dictates.

Tribal Issues

king of the universe(s) - Beliefnet

The basic human social unit has been the tribe or clan. Certainly tribes and clans competed for space and resources, just as religions and nations do today. But within the tribe or clan social compliance, that is being nice to one another, was absolute. A serious social error got you expelled from the tribe, and until very recently a lone human was a dead human. Even today, disfellowshipping or shunning can be a devastating experience that frequently leads to suicide or in some cases being killed. The social contract between the individual and the social group is critical to the survival of both. Even at the nation level an individual who violates the social contract no matter how powerful can be brought down by the tribe abetted by modern communication channels. See Nixon and Mubarak. There will be more. You got to be nice to your fellow tribespeople no matter how big the guns at your back are. Those guns are operated by members of the tribe.

Ethics

Perspectivism II - Beliefnet

That is your problem. There is no absolute basis of ethics with or without God. Ethics are determined by the society which supports them. In the modern world societies are distributed and coexist with radically different ethics. Conflict is inevitable and that is how humans sort out ethics. Conflict is largely ideological these days and hopefully it will stay that way but that is a relatively modern innovation based on relatively free flow of information about which ethical systems work and which don't. Even the HRCC is finding out that absolute ethics based on God is a good way to go broke in a hurry.

Ethics are fundamentally based on the genetic imperative of the survival of the herd. This means that ultimately the survival of every member of the herd is an ethical imperative no matter what the cost to the herd. This is why hundreds of firemen and other rescue workers ran into the twin towers on 9/11. This is why ski patrol people risk their lives to save an idiot who tried to ski an avalanche slope. Even the overpowering mass of the cerebral cortex can't override the lizard brain that says the herd must survive.

Very simple, by committing the perfect crime, you are resigning from the herd of humanity. Even if your lizard brain would let you violate the imperative that every member of the herd is critical, the next time you need a loaf of bread you will not be able to fulfill the social obligations of obtaining it. That is you have self identified as a criminal, and thereby forfeited the social contract of the normal purchase of the bread. You would have to steal it, and continue stealing. There is no going back to the herd they won't have you and you won't have them.

And what do you have besides you non-existent charisma to convince the herd to ignore your antisocial behavior. You have resigned from the herd by your previous hidden antisocial act that you got away with clean, remember? Even an AK-47 doesn't last long enough to protect you with out a crowd at your back. I suspect that the baker wouldn't need much but a call to 911 to get the nut out of his bakery.

While, as you note, force has been a basis for a short lived civilization usually with God at the back of the force manipulator, although political philosophy has been a more modern adaptation of God. The vuvuzelas aren't what they used to be. But the herd is not powerless, and it is taking less and less time for the ethos of the herd to trump the despot, God or no. As noted there is no absolute ethical absolute other than the herd maintaining its integrity. The weak, the stupid, and the infirm will be culled without any action by the herd or any member of it. But the culling will be done by the blind, pitiless indifference of the universe (thanks Richard Dawkins) regardless of any action or lack thereof by any member of the herd.

The herd as far as humankind is concerned is the tribe. Practically tribes must have leaders that ultimately rely on the support of the members of the tribe. Particularly when leaders have God at their back force may appear to be a controlling factor, and historically that has been pretty accurate. But force depends on controlling the information available to members of the tribe to that which the leader disseminates. It worked for a long time as long as most of the tribe was illiterate or functionally so. Or why fundamentalists are trying to gut the school systems. But as more and more humans are becoming aware of their place in the world and their ability to affect other tribes by their actions, the game is changing. The weapons of choice are information and economics in the modern world. I doubt any individual will amass much power when all of herm power toys are made in China, herm economy is financed by China's banks, and herm computers are controlled in Bangalore.

Morality and Relition

Antitheism? - Beliefnet

I might agree that religions can cause moral behavior if you are referring to the religious context as a social framework. I am skeptical that anyone does anything good or refrains from anything bad because that little vuvuzela in the fancy dress in the over decorated balcony told them God said so. They are moral because they are intelligent social animals and Mrs. Grundy at the coffee hour will gossip about them if they break the social contract. The only advantage of a religious social framework is that it is small and tight. That is the good news and the bad news. Immoral behavior promoted by the church can be just as important to Mrs Grundy as the moral issues of an intelligent social animal.

Lust, Commitment, and Morality

Question about Actions and Consequence - Beliefnet :

"The difficulty here is that unfortunately bullying is one of the social contract enforcement mechanisms. This does not excuse it, but it is up to the people who are establishing the social contract to insure that bigotry is not a part of it. I think in Tyler's [Clementi] case the bullying was independent of the nuanced definition of sexual immorality I was discussing. It was pure homophobic bigotry. The nature of the relationship other than the homosexuality was immaterial.

I think in Paul's moral teaching he was trying, clumsily, to differentiate between lust, that is sex for gratification only with sex in a committed relationship (marriage.) As an amusing aside it would be interesting to question Paul about the morality of the relationship between the Centurian and his pais.

I would find it a major advance in social morality if people did look down on others who have lustful sex, particularly heterosexual lustful sex, which I hope was clearly the point of my post. A few of the homosexuals I knew well enough in the NYC arts community to know their relationship status were in committed relationships and did in fact 'look down' on the gay bar scene.

'Tis a dream of course. Until the churches and other 'tight' communities are inclusive enough to provide relationship incubation for all, the bar scene will be well patronized by all gender preferences, lust is too powerful to be thwarted by Paul or any mortal."

I have often wondered if choirs would have any males at all if they weren't relationship incubators for gays. Or dance groups. I don't know about other arts groups, but those groups seem to have more than their demographic share of gays.

Morals without God?

Morals without God? - Beliefnet:

"How could [morality not follow current fashion.} Morality is the genetic propensity of an intelligent social animal to comply with the mores of the society of which hesh is a part. It actually does not follow current fashion, but follows the dictates of the individual's chosen society. It may be a church, it may be a gang, it may be an intelligently selected community of, for example, university educated people, or an industry or charitable consortium, etc. All are influenced by the integrated mores of the larger society, currently national, but regional differences are emerging at least in the USA."

Common Religious Morality

The Bright Line... - Beliefnet Community:

"There is no common religious conclusion on morality. Each ignorant man, noting the benefit of having a God at his back invented one, and the morals to go with it. That includes your Abrahamic preachers like Moses and Paul. Religious morality is not common or I should say common only in the sense of its trashiness, but each iteration of God has a different despicable moral standard that is only good for the tribe of the shaman, if that. Normally it is good only for the shaman, priest, preacher, pastor, minister, or whatever they choose to call themselves. They take a collection, toss it into the air for God to take his share, and they keep all that falls on the floor. This was called morality by that little vuvuzela in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony long before there were vuvuzelas, tinhorns, or shofars to blow at the marks in the pews."

Inherent Morality

The Bright Line... - Beliefnet:

it is 'The Point' consider this: before you or I or anyone ( indigenous tribes included), can take any action, we must first pause and consider the rightness or the wrongness of that action... we pre-read/re-read the law/morality affixed upon our conscience.... and we act upon the resolution of such thoughts (hopefully that which is right)... we take our self to court 'first', and then act.. we are so constructed, that like in the above exercise of defining a moral action with non moral components, it is logically and linguistically IMPOSSIBLE
Leight

Perhaps it is, however, it is only theists that are claiming that ANYONE is trying to make moral decisions without a moral framework. What you so consistently and valiantly ignore, time and time again, is that ETHICS and MORALITY are qualities inherent in all people. Those concepts were not invented by Christians, they were not handed down by any god, they are a valuable and necessary component of human survival, brought about by impersonal forces of survival and death. It really is that simple. Just because some religion thousands of years ago (and I'd wager it was one much older than yours) decided to USURP the concepts of morality and PRETEND that morality was only given by a god, that does not make it true in any way.

Morality is the evolutionary tool by which social animals (like humans, but not only humans) survive to provide the next generation. Morality is built upon empathy, and flavoured by an ability to understand consequences of one's actions. Those species that depend on their community to survive, will not survive long have no instinct for protecting and helping others as well as themselves. Thay instinct becomes 'morality' in animals with more brainspace than they really need.
cptspith

Tell Me of the God You Don't Believe In.

When You Say "God"... - Beliefnet:

"In the general sense, anything that is greater than, and superior to, an individual that an individual can commune with is not useful for me. I do not say it doesn't exist for a believer but I suspect it is an emergent property of a human mind after years of conditioning or, as the religious say, indoctrination.

I have yet to encounter an emergent God that I would wish to commune with, although there are many that I can learn from. I learn from the myths, stories, beliefs, rituals, and the related liturgy relating to them. Usually what not to do, and what is immoral that the gods try to justify: Genocide, misogyny, sexual sin, even misanthropy for at least one common God."

The concept of sexual sin is probably the most prevalent immorality in many religions. There is always something, usually nearly everything, that one can do with sexual parts that is sinful. These activities are all natural reward mechanisms for creating and preserving the pair bond. Shamans observe that pair bonding interferes with God bonding. So anything that improves the pair bond must be sinful. A properly pair bonded couple turns inward to the relationship first, and to the family and extended face group that they can effect and which effects them. Generally this extended face group will exclude God as they can never hope to be face to face with God.

Constrained Choice

Is the world intrinsically knowable? - Beliefnet

"The option to free will is constrained choice.

Believer or atheist, one can go months making choices that while theoretically can go either way are constrained. The constraint for believers comes from the little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony speaking for the local mores in the congregation or denomination. In the case of a non-believer the choice is constrained by their internalization of the mores of their chosen society.

If you really dig out the root of the constraint in either case it is the memory of a parent shaking herm finger and saying 'We don't do that!' The we is clearly defined in the child's mind as everybody in the child's world. Siblings, relatives, other caregivers, friends, and God if the parents are believers. In big things like unprovoked hitting, or little things like table manners, one simply has no free will to do what is contrary to a life time of doing 'What is right' and not doing 'We don't do that!'

As a thought experiment, at a formal dinner, say your daughter's wedding banquet, imagine yourself making the free will choice to pick up the bone of the steak and gnaw on it.

Go ahead. You have free will. Your daughter won't spoil the party by slapping you upside the head and shouting use your damn knife and fork.

Your spouse won't give you that look that says you are sleeping in the doghouse tonight. Hmm, since that is a very private communication hesh might, but your free will will let you ignore that.

So what is stopping you? You have free will! Go ahead. The best part of the steak is the taste of the bone."

Honor among thieves (and drug dealers)

When my children were young there was a park near our home that was divided by community tolerance into the drug dealer's half, and the community half. The main walkway down the middle of the park was in the community half, the grass/dirt at the edge of the walkway on their side was dealers turf. The community half had a children's playground close to the main walkway.

One evening on my way home a dealer solicited me from the area between the playground and the walk. I told him he was on the wrong side of the park and using street language to return to his side. He sneered "Whatchya going to do call a cop? I was a fairly athletic person and said "No, I am going to kick the living shit out of you right here." He glanced significantly at the other side of the park, and I said "They are laughing at you, right? If not they will be soon as I start kicking." Apparently they were. He didn't stick around to call my bet. Good thing too, my kids played in that park.

Moral Training.

moral training - Beliefnet :

"The law is a first approximation of what the larger society considers to be proper. It has nothing at all to do with morality. It is normally reasonable to comply with it if it does not conflict with a higher morality, that is one from the more important group that you consider to be your moral peers. The law is always the lowest common denominator and properly contains prohibitions that may not be appropriate for a modern society. It is up to those who find them inappropriate to change them. Some laws may be properly and discretely ignored if the effect is local to those ignoring them. Your pot and abortion examples are apt examples.

Other laws need to be challenged openly. Prop H8 as an example.

Ultimately though the only morality that is worth the name is that which keeps you from injuring others of your moral peers."

Moral Compass

moral training....stealing-right or wrong?Beliefnet:

"Rule 1 of any decent moral compass religious or otherwise, is, or should be 'There will be no victims of my behavior.' If you love your neighbors-all of them-even the ones you hate there can be no victims. The law is not a moral compass it is rules of behavior for those religious or otherwise that have none."

Moral Training

moral training....stealing-right or wrong? - Beliefnet:

"I suspect children learn morality the same way they learn language. The dominant social group has certain ways of doing things, just as they have a distinctive dialect. The child will learn 'our people don't do that' whoever 'Our people' are. If 'Our people fear God' the child will fear God. If 'Our people' play nicely with neighbors no matter what religion or color they are. the child will play nicely with all who play nicely. From the trivial, like manners, to the critical like 'Those are not good people' the child absorbs the morality of his group the same way hesh learns to speak the local dialect. Not because anyone teaches the child, but because the child naturally mimics the behavior of the important people in herm life. And by the way children will do what we do, not what we tell them to do.

This fitting in or mimicking the behavior of the dominant group continues well into adolescence and early adulthood. A military unit for example has considerably different mores from the cohort attending MIT, or the local community college."

Maturity in Theists and Atheists

What is an athiest? - Beliefnet

I realized why I think of a certain type of atheists this way, it is because they do remind me so much of fundamentalist Christians. But for the sake of argument I think I have come up with better terms to describe these types of atheists in relationship to other atheists and in relationship to their glaring similarity with fundamentalist Christians. Keep in mind I am not saying atheism is a religion. We all know it is not. These terms have nothing to do with age.

Mature Atheist/Mature Theist

1) They are mainly concerned with how they view the universe and do not understand why others want to change other people’s views.
2) They are comfortable with their views.
3) They like listening to others views.
4) They like or at least do not run away when new ideas which cause them cognitive dissidence. It gives them something to maul over.
5) They like people who challenge them.
6) They see a certain type of change as growth not as an indicator of being inconsistent.
7) They do not make changes lightly it is almost always a gradual change and it is never done out of fear.
8) If no one else thought like they did they would still not change their views because popularity of views is not important to them.
9) Their morality is like an invisible undershirt that is with them at all times. It is made up of hundreds of little pieces that have been sewn together. Each piece has been picked with great care. The welfare of not only their self but many others has been considered while picking each piece.
10) Their family, clubs, and friends are not picked because they share their views about the existence of God or the non-existence of God.

Immature Atheist/Immature Theist

1) They do not trust anyone that does not share their view. Be it that a god does not exist or that a God does exist.
2) They know they are correct.
3) They think that everyone would be better off thinking like them.
4) They feel distain for people who do not think like them.
5) Their mind is closed to others who do not think like them in debates.
6) They can not admit to others logical points even when they know they are logical.
7) They are fearful.
8) They think they know the truth and anyone that can not see that is ether stupid, brainwashed or angry.
9) They can not change therefore they can not grow because to them it would mean they were not correct before and they can not handle that.
10) They pick their family ,clubs and friends because they agree with them about God existing or not existing.

What do you think?

Shirley

As usual Shirley, you nailed it.

About the only thing you left out was that Mature Atheists and Mature Theists will be working comfortably together to build the Cosmopolitan society that is the only hope for the survival of the human race, as well as in most other useful human activities.

The moral undershirt in 9) is well described by Kwame Appiah in Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers.

I am sure maul is a spell-checker ambiguity in 4) but I love it. There is nothing more fun than mauling over cognitive dissonance. If you can't resolve it, just get a bigger maul.