Atheists moral code

[coffee]

If a religious say that atheists have no moral code, I would answer that yes we have and that uk law is our moral code and it formed by human. My point is is it a good answer? Would you answer any different?

[jaywhat]

I would certainly answer differently because the UK law - or any other law - is just not enough. However, I will leave it to others to be more explicit.

[grammar king]

Well, a moral code without religion is just one based on compassion. I would say the foundation of this is the Golden Rule, which is genetically coded into us through natural selection (because a society that cooperates is more likely to survive than one that doesn't). Read up on some sociobiology or evolutionary psychology for more details. Oh and here. Of course now that our morality is not just informed by our genes but also reason, we can form models in our brains of a good moral system (and demonstrate why it is better). Dennett writes about this in Darwin's Dangerous Idea (which I don't recommend unless you're really interested, it's far too dense).

So I would disagree that the UK law is our moral code, but I would agree that morality is a human construct.

[SoldierForTruth]

If a religious say that atheists have no moral code, I would answer that yes we have and that uk law is our moral code and it formed by human. My point is is it a good answer? Would you answer any different?

I personally would tell them that "Atheists" don't have any code at all. The only thing they share is the rejection of theism. To give "Atheists" a code would be like giving "Afairyists" a code. No it's not wise to declare oneself an "Atheist" to begin with. It says nothing of what the nonbeliever in question believes in, instead says only what they do not believe in.

[Alan C.]

Coffee you should watch this lecture. (excellent IMHO)

Dr. Andy Thomson gives a talk on morality at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 Conference in Burbank, California. Dr. Thomson uses Francis Collins' claim that morality is proof of God as a jumping-off point to discuss what we know about how morality works and where it came from.

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Some atheists have a moral code, or several moral codes, and some have none. And those that do have a code don't always act on it. And those that don't can live relatively blameless lives without one. The same is true of Christians.

The UK law is not a moral code; it's a legal one. Some laws have a moral basis, but some don't. Some are about prudence rather than morality.

Well, a moral code without religion is just one based on compassion. I would say the foundation of this is the Golden Rule, which is genetically coded into us through natural selection (because a society that cooperates is more likely to survive than one that doesn't). Read up on some sociobiology or evolutionary psychology for more details ...

Yes, but read with a critical eye. I would accept that compassion itself, rather than the Golden Rule, is "genetically coded into us through natural selection", because compassionate parents are more likely to raise offspring that survive to reproductive age, and through kin selection, because if we show compassion, or empathy, for our close kin we are increasing the chances of our shared genes surviving. I'm not sure about the group selection idea. Is a whole society really more likely to survive if its members are compassionate? I mean, if the compassion is directed just at members of that society, then yes, that would work. But if it's more general, and directed at outsiders, too, then if a compassionate society encountered a ruthless one, would you put money on the compassionate one surviving?

Anyway, back to the question. Fortunately, it's not necessary to have a moral code. Empathy alone can lead us to act in ways that most would consider virtuous, without us having a "moral code" to refer to when making decisions. Unfortunately, not all of us are particularly empathic or compassionate, and even those of us who are don't usually manage to keep it up all the time. So the Golden Rule in some form or other can act as a sort of reminder. But we can adopt other kinds of moral code that are much more complex, and quite different from each other. Perhaps entire philosophies like utilitarianism or Kantianism, neither of which require god-belief, or more probably some hybrid and evolving code of our own devising.

I would agree that morality is a human construct.

So would I. What else could it be?

Emma

[grammar king]

Yes, but read with a critical eye. I would accept that compassion itself, rather than the Golden Rule, is "genetically coded into us through natural selection", because compassionate parents are more likely to raise offspring that survive to reproductive age, and through kin selection, because if we show compassion, or empathy, for our close kin we are increasing the chances of our shared genes surviving. I'm not sure about the group selection idea. Is a whole society really more likely to survive if its members are compassionate? I mean, if the compassion is directed just at members of that society, then yes, that would work. But if it's more general, and directed at outsiders, too, then if a compassionate society encountered a ruthless one, would you put money on the compassionate one surviving?

Well in the evolution of our species, you'd live in a family tribe. So selection pressure makes you favour your own kin because it passes on your genes. But in practice everyone you lived with was your own kin, so what we're genetically coded to do is be compassionate to people. Compassionate societies are more likely to grow so it'd be considerably bigger than the ruthless one, and being compassionate is useful in group selection more often than being ruthless is (remember that we're talking when the human population was tiny, groups didn't encounter each other very often). Of course remember that this is just genetic coding, we can go against what we're 'programmed' to do, just as if pushed (really fricking hard) to do it, we could kill someone now.

I would agree that morality is a human construct.

So would I. What else could it be?

Emma

I've seen Maria plenty of times say that there could be an externally applied universal morality, but that whether there is or isn't is irrelevant.

[coffee]

Thank you all very much.

[jaywhat]

At least we aren't all talking out of our arses

[Gurdur]

Evolutionary biology by itself does not explain morals / ethics.

It is a truism to say that morals / ethics must have some kind of evolved biological basis.

That is like saying that planning and building skyscrapers has a kind of evolved biological basis. Of course that is true, burt it really doesn't get you very far at all, since the majority of humans do not plan and build skyscrapers.

Or going into space and visiting the Moon must have some kind of evolved biological basis. Again a truism, again unproductive.

It is very clear humans do not all share the same morals by far, despite sharing the same evolved biology. Look to human imagination, persuasion and individual conscience for describing genuine morality far better.

[Hundovir]

...burt it really doesn't get you very far at all...

Does a moustache help you get further?

[Paolo]

Evolutionary biology by itself does not explain morals / ethics.

It is a truism to say that morals / ethics must have some kind of evolved biological basis.

That is like saying that planning and building skyscrapers has a kind of evolved biological basis. Of course that is true, burt it really doesn't get you very far at all, since the majority of humans do not plan and build skyscrapers.

Or going into space and visiting the Moon must have some kind of evolved biological basis. Again a truism, again unproductive.

It is very clear humans do not all share the same morals by far, despite sharing the same evolved biology. Look to human imagination, persuasion and individual conscience for describing genuine morality far better.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. Morality is a layered and complex thing and I think that the majority of cultures share some important aspects of morality (not killing members of your own community, not stealing from members of your own community, that sort of thing). Interestingly it's these aspects of morality that have direct consequences in terms of stability of societies in all social animals. Of course, other aspects of morality are more variable (probably those shaped by human imagination, persuasion and individual conscience) but these are arguably less important than the more hard-wired aspects of morality that enable a society to function. Perhaps if society worried more about aspects of morality that makes a society work, rather than the superficial aspects that are stitched on at a cultural level, there would be less intolerance and conflict caused by morals that are not shared?

Evolutionary biology can provide guidance about which aspects of morality can enable a stable society (by comparison with other social organisms and by modelling) so it may well be more than a truism.

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Anyone seen this?

Emma

[grammar king]

Evolutionary biology by itself does not explain morals / ethics.

It is a truism to say that morals / ethics must have some kind of evolved biological basis.

That is like saying that planning and building skyscrapers has a kind of evolved biological basis. Of course that is true, burt it really doesn't get you very far at all, since the majority of humans do not plan and build skyscrapers.

Or going into space and visiting the Moon must have some kind of evolved biological basis. Again a truism, again unproductive.

It is very clear humans do not all share the same morals by far, despite sharing the same evolved biology. Look to human imagination, persuasion and individual conscience for describing genuine morality far better.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. Morality is a layered and complex thing and I think that the majority of cultures share some important aspects of morality (not killing members of your own community, not stealing from members of your own community, that sort of thing). Interestingly it's these aspects of morality that have direct consequences in terms of stability of societies in all social animals. Of course, other aspects of morality are more variable (probably those shaped by human imagination, persuasion and individual conscience) but these are arguably less important than the more hard-wired aspects of morality that enable a society to function. Perhaps if society worried more about aspects of morality that makes a society work, rather than the superficial aspects that are stitched on at a cultural level, there would be less intolerance and conflict caused by morals that are not shared?

Evolutionary biology can provide guidance about which aspects of morality can enable a stable society (by comparison with other social organisms and by modelling) so it may well be more than a truism.

Surely the trolley problems show that morality at least in some sense is universal and therefore probably the result of evolution.

[Paolo]

Anyone seen this?

Emma

Brilliant.

[Hundovir]

Excellent clip. There's an English version on Youtube as well. Apparently both dogs survived.

[Marian]

At least we aren't all talking out of our arses

[Gottard]

Anyone seen this?

Emma

Thanks Emma! This is food for thought

[Gurdur]

Evolutionary biology can provide guidance about which aspects of morality can enable a stable society (by comparison with other social organisms and by modelling) so it may well be more than a truism.

Let me know when it does. And let me know when evolutionary biology provides more guidance to enabling a stable human society than do already simple history, philosophy and literature (Brave New World, 1984, Leviathan, Hume, Locke, Rawls, etc.).

After all, evolutionary biology has so far only come up to around this standard, which seems mediocre and a Just So story, as well as being rather unhelpful.

Surely the trolley problems show that morality at least in some sense is universal and therefore probably the result of evolution.

Except different people answer the variants of the trolley problem differently. There is no universal answer. There are some universal bases, but no universal complete answers. Back to my previous post. BTW, sociopathy, anyone? Or is nationalizing the Royal Mail and all the UK train services completely and utterly ethical? Should that be done? Distinct lack of universal answers there to what is rather a simple question about the ethics of nationalisation.

Anyone seen this?

Conflation between cooperation, self-sacrifice on the one hand and a more meaningful ethic about "goodness". Humans are capable of far more than simple cooperation. Humans are also capable of inventing ethics, new ones, which dogs so far have shown no signs of. Back to my previous post.

Oh, and back to Hume and the is/should disconnect.

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Excellent clip. There's an English version on Youtube as well. Apparently both dogs survived.

Sadly not. According to another video clip, the dog that was hit didn't survive, and the rescuer dog was never found, despite a long search for him or her. (The reporter called it a "manhunt". Tch!)

Emma