Regarding the Development of Morality in a Godless Universe

[ieyeasu]

As an atheist, I'm constantly out there, hunting other boards, trying to disprove others miscalculations about the universe in general. I've run into a difficulty here (http://genmay.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186694). In short, I'm not sure as to where I believe morals and such developed in the atheist's universe. I have some very vague ideas concerning biology, but I don't know where to start looking into that.

Ideas?

[Vorkosigan]

Try evolutionary psychology. There's quite a bit on the evolution of moral behavior.

Start with The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture

Vorkosigan

[wiploc]

Originally posted by ieyeasu
In short, I'm not sure as to where I believe morals and such developed in the atheist's universe.

Just keep in mind that they can't justify morals any better than you can. Every move they make to attack atheist morals works equally well when turned back against them. If you are unsure of this, just advance any Christian moral argument of concern. I'll turn it on its head for you.

Once you see that theism doesn't produce a more logical morality, the only things left to consider are the appeal of the precepts and the outcomes.

Let's look at the precepts: If you say you are opposed to rape because it hurts women, is that in any way inferior to, say, William Lane Craig's line that he has nothing against rape himself, and only avoids it because he is just following instructions like an extermination camp guard? If the choice is between wanting to follow orders and not wanting to hurt people, you have no reason to be defensive about the appeal of your moral precepts.

Let's look at the outcomes: Do you notice Christians to actually be more moral, truthful, and kind than atheists? Not bloody likely.

If they don't have better logic, more appealing precepts, or actual better behavior than atheists, then Christians have no sense in which they can claim their religion gives them a leg up on morality.

crc

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Try evolutionary psychology. There's quite a bit on the evolution of moral behavior.

Start with The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture

Vorkosigan

It's all bogus, completely ignoring the logical distinction between 'is' and 'ought'. But it does exist.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by ieyeasu
In short, I'm not sure as to where I believe morals and such developed in the atheist's universe. I have some very vague ideas concerning biology, but I don't know where to start looking into that.

Uggh and a bunch of his tribemates are sitting by the fire. They've been fighting amongst each other.

"Fighting not good," says Uggh. "We make rules. We agree to live by rules. No more fight."

Uggh proposes some rules. Gagg does not agree. Gagg tries to explain why his rules make no more fight better than Uggh's rules.

Gagg and Uggh get into a fight.

Gagg decides that living with Uggh's bad rules is better than fighting. Yet, still, every chance he gets, Gagg points out why Uggh's rules are bad rules and why Gagg's rules are better.

The quality of the rules are not taken as merely a matter of opinion. Some rules clearly are better at 'no more fight' than other rules -- or better at avoiding the other things that people don't like (pain, death) -- or bringing about things that people do like (a more successful hunt, health).

So when Maal over there says morality is just a matter of opinion, somebody should slap him up side the head and tell him to shut up. If Maal can't see 'no more fight' as a good thing, perhaps Maal shouldn't be in this tribe any more. Perhaps Maal should go out and try living by himself.

And when Bawg says that Nature writes the best rules within us (biology), Bawg needs to be reminded that the rules Nature writes within us are not rules that we do or even can meaningfully argue about. The debate, between Uggh and Bawg are about the rules we can choose, and which are best -- not the rules that nature has chosen for us.

[Excidius]

You should ask Christians why it is that some animals that don't believe in God still display morality. For example, Chimpanzees live in tribes in which there is some semblance of law and order. Dolphins live in pods where they work together cooperatively, and help and assist one another. Even non-social creatures like Sparrows will show affection for their young. I think it's a strong case that morality has at least some of its roots in biological evolution. Again, none of these creatures derived their morality from any god.

[Westmiller]

Originally posted by ieyeasu
In short, I'm not sure as to where I believe morals and such developed in the atheist's universe.
Try Hammurabi or Solon as pre-Christian law-givers.
If you're looking for a modern epistemology of ethics and morals, take a shot at atheist Ayn Rand. Objectivism has some axioms, but no dependence on any religious foundations.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Excidius
You should ask Christians why it is that some animals that don't believe in God still display morality. For example, Chimpanzees live in tribes in which there is some semblance of law and order. Dolphins live in pods where they work together cooperatively, and help and assist one another. Even non-social creatures like Sparrows will show affection for their young. I think it's a strong case that morality has at least some of its roots in biological evolution. Again, none of these creatures derived their morality from any god.

I'm not sure that it is legitimate to call some of this 'morality'.

After all, ants also cooperate; are we going to say that there is a moral code among ants as to what to do? And bees and flowers also live in a cooperative relationship. Are rights and duties a part of this relationship?

"Cooperation" does not imply "Morality"

What is missing is that morality requires an element of choice. If there is cooperation without choice -- as there is with bees and flowers, and the members of an ant colony, then it is a mistake to say that anything like 'morality' can be found there. So, in order to prove that the cooperation found in dolphin pods, sparrows, and chimpanzees count as a type of moral system -- as distinguished from ant colonies and flowers -- you must show that they cooperation by choice, and not by the dictates of nature.