How is atheist morality not Social Darwinism?

Post Reply New Topic

Atheism has nothing to do with morality plain and simple.

Sense of morality is something individuals have regardless on belief system or lack of.

Social Darwinism, has little to do with Darwin's concepts. In fact survival of the fittest is probably one of the most misunderstood concept especially the"fittest" part. Evolutionary science has actually moved on since Darwin believe it or not.

Our survival strategy as a species is actually dependent to a wide range of different sort to people. Even those that would be the elite, they would not stay that way without others.

By far the biggest factor in survival is adaptability, However we still get oddities like Pandas, becuase there is nothing predating them.

However they is good chance the would go extinct in the wild on there own accord, and some naturalist have argue we should let them, not because of social Darwinism, but becuase the benefit of panda conservation are quite limited, and the benefit of conserving other animals and ecosystem are more beneficial, given the huge amount o money spent on Panda related conservation.

Extinction is natural but it not a moral argument. Morality is something that was required when our group behavior evolved into proton-societies.

Extinction does not think, it does not decide. Evolution does not think, it does not decide. Neither are an entity, both are the in the present.

In my own life, I follow the modernized, abbreviated version of the Hippocratic Oath- "First do no harm". I'm not a doctor but this simple rule is applicable to many situations which call for moral thought. (The original version has the physician swearing the oath in the name of Apollo and a couple other gods associated with healing and as an atheist I'm not swearing anything to Apollo or anyone else). This isn't an official philosophy but it works for me.

.
Except that's not the nature of evolution. "Fittest" has nothing to do with strength- it's fitting into an enviromental niche. Enviromental niches change and the life forms that change with them go forward into the future rather than dying out. Or if a particular niche doesn't change, then they don't change. Dinosaurs were arguably quite a lot stronger than the little mammals that were underfoot when dinosaurs roamed the earth. But then the enviroment changed drastically because of that asteroid and the mammals were better fit for it than the biggest dinosaurs and so the mammals got to expand while the dinosaurs contracted. But it has nothing to do with strength.

One could argue that children born with birth defects that would kill them if not for medical intervention should just be left to die. That's where the Hippocratic oath comes in handy as a guide- don't let them die if you can save them. And then there's also 'help your fellow man' which you put upthread as being religious but it really isn't. Although some gods (like Apollo, apparently) instruct us to help your fellow man, it's possible and even easy to follow that course without being ordered to by a deity. As trollcatman said upthread, observing violent death as a fact doesn't mean you like that violent death and rejoice in it.



One can believe in a purpose for humans without saying that God created that purpose. We humans can create our own purpose just like we can decide on our own to help our fellow man. These things that you are ascribing to religion don't have to come from religion. We are perfectly capable of doing it on our own without being ordered to by God.



All morality is made up. We humans made it up, every last bit, even the parts that get attributed to God/various gods. Everything that humans say came from God actually came from humans. We made it up.

If you want to ask questions about meta-ethics, don't frame them as an attack on atheism or you'll get defensive responses.

Essentially, I believe you are asking "can reason tell us what is right and wrong?"

In a nutshell, no, it probably can't.

BUT

We can make some less irrational leaps of faith than just appealing to God, and it is better to use these than going with something written down 4000 years ago.

For example, we could make the leap of faith that causing pleasure is good and causing pain is wrong, therefore the right action is that which maximises pleasure and minimises pain. This is a grossly simplified version of the ethical theory known as utilitarianism.

Alternatively, we could make the leap that says treating people as a means to an end is wrong. This is Kantian ethics.

I could go on - there are many types of utilitarianism, for example, or we could look at virtue ethics...

We don't actually have any evidence that inflicting pain or treating someone as a means to an end is wrong, but they are fairly reasonable propositions that are backed up by evidence (for example, the things that we consider "wrong" generally do both these things).

This is still very much an open question (though not one that is particularly hot right now - most of the great thinking in it happened in a few decades post-war by the likes of G.E. Moore, C.L. Stevenson, and A.J. Ayer), but it is one that has nothing to do with God, Social Darwinism, or actually being moral.

Religious people believe GOD morality is objective morality, and as was noted above, atheist believe in a subjective morality. So, there is a distinction.

I don't agree with your assertion though. Many people don't have any morals. I know sociopaths who are atheists that live their lives with the belief that there is no morality and no consequence. We are just evolved , purposeless animals and there is no afterlife so enjoy your life the best you can.

I would think all atheists would agree that subjective morality are lies that the atheists chooses to believe in, but knows deep down that it is all made up?

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 09 Aug 2014, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No. I was wondering if atheists lie to themselves when they pick out a subjective morality ? They apparently believe that humans are purposeless, randomly evolved animals. So, when choosing a morality then they must know in the back of their minds that it is just some lies they tell themselves to function in the world?

I created this thread, because I get perplexed, I see atheist argue against "Social Darwinism" on WP on the basis of ethics. However, if morality is just "made up" as others have stated above, then there is no moral basis. There is nothing morally wrong with cutting off welfare to the poor (labeled "Social Darwinism"). So, per the initial question, I wonder what reasoning, what philosophy is being appealed to argue against Social Darwinism when no basis for morality has been established.

I don't think I attacked atheism. I fairly listed out pro/con philosophies.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 09 Aug 2014, 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The golden rule is a widespread concept and is found in pre-christian greek philosophy as well. You can claim ownership for religion but I'll class that as dishonesty.

In my initial post, I listed it independently of religion. The wiki page agrees with you.

Ok, well the first argument is to contest the way the argument is framed. Who says that religion itself is moral or objective? Possibly people who've never read the bible or other such books themselves. Having read it I certainly won't concede it's more than the ravings of ignorant and savage hill folk.

I'd say ultimately no intellectual framework is required. The bible is just a concept pointed to by people who generally don't read it. They know nothing. People with no time for either intellectual justification or religious garbage live perfectly moral lives every single day. And to even get to the point where insane ramblings could be chiseled into stone or scribbled on parchment people had to survive as social animals. We are that way by nature of our evolutionary history. We aren't tigers and would have died out without cooperation.

As for picking a subjective morality to layer on top of our natural social inclinations, well, everyone does that to some degree. The mentally weakest will let others choose for them. That's why geography usually determines your religious faith. It's the default. And yet the prisons are still full of believers. The magic of calling it "objective" doesnt seem to be making the carpet fly.

I say that everyone is playing the same subjective game. Some just can't be honest about it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjermDZ1qfI[/youtube]

Some religious people choose to abuse language. A statement is held to be objectively true if it corresponds to observable reality. The concept of objectivity is that reality is what it is, independent of anybody's wishes or feelings, and that man is capable of perceiving aspects of reality via the senses. Existence exists; consciousness is conscious.

The laws of mathematics and physics are "made up," every bit of them, but that does not imply that they are subjective. Newton didn't say, "I had a vision last night and Zeus told me that f=ma, therefore it must be true." Nor did he rely on his gut feelings, or take a poll of the local peasants. He based his findings on observation and logic, and published his reasoning, so that others could confirm or challenge his conclusions (and eventually ascertain in what contexts they apply and in which they break down). This is objectivity.

Since the existence of a deity cannot be objectively proven, an ethical system which boils down to 'God wills it' cannot be objective. For an individual to say, "I had a revelation and God told me we should all do X; now let's write it down in a book and all obey God's will" is no different from him saying "I feel in my gut that we should all do X." Not only are such claims subjective, they are arbitrary.



Some do. There are ethical theories which boil everything down to pleasure vs. pain, or the Will of the People, or which assert that moral pronouncements are no more than emotional ejaculations. (One of the latter school infamously stated that saying 'Murder is bad' is no different from saying 'Murder, boo.')

But why should this have to be? Since morality is intended as a guide for man's choices and actions in the real world, shouldn't we seek a moral code which is rooted as much as possible in objective reality? I wouldn't live in a house whose builder had a gut feeling that the ceilings should be just four feet high, and I hope you wouldn't live in one whose builder claimed he had had a divine revelation that rafters made of cream cheese would support the roof just fine. There is room for subjective taste in the design of a house, but the central theme has to be its intended purpose (a residence for humans) and the designer has to take into account the objective nature of humans and of the materials involved. Shouldn't our choices and actions be likewise grounded in reality?

That is a both a stawman against me, and implied logical fallacy linking sociopathy with atheism. You are not the only person to hypothesize that lack of belief in the after life leads to increased chance of sociopathic/narcissistic event like spree killing. However there is no evidence to back this up, in fact the plenty of counter example where belief system a played a role in those event.

Also you are speaking for all religious people. There are plenty of religious people that believe that we are responsible for our own moral compass.

It may actually be true, playing devil advocate, that sociopaths may not believe in god truly even if they pretend to. But there is not evidence to back up an increased in secularism or atheism will lead to more of these events.

Hitler used the third Reich to his advantage and they believed in some bizarre things. It was Himler who was really into the mysticism and provided he core ideology. So it is clear that Sociopaths really do understand the power of faith and how to manipulate it to their advantage, and that relying on others for your moral compass has some serious disadvantages.

Civilization works out better when the people in it have more of a sense of community which social darwanism does not provide. Also it is sort of pseudo-survival of the fittest since it seems most people associate it with financial hierarchy, as in those with more wealth/success are the 'fittest' while people on the lower end of the income scale are less 'fit'.

Or I guess in some societies they just go straight up eugenics and want to eliminate anyone with physical/mental disabilties to somehow purify human genetics to perfection. But yeah I do not think one needs to follow a religion or belive in god to have reasons why they don't agree with social Darwinism perspectives.

Subjective morality are not lies. They are subjective beliefs. I cannot verify that suffering in other people is bad, but I believe it is. Is that a lie? A good thing about subjective morals is that they are up for debate. Ethics is a field of study. And because I believe we were not born with a purpose does mean that humans cannot choose their own purpose. I do believe that deep down our ethics are "made up", but I see it as a good thing. Part of our ethics is probably biological though.

I also disagree that many people don't have any morals: they simply have different morals than you do. Even the murderous ISIS dudes have morals, they are just horrible morals (in the view of most other people). And they could claim objective morals (their version of the Islamic God).
And the people who believe in objective morality also cannot verify it, they just choose believe in one of the many gods that humans believe in.

Sure. However, the Ten Commandments seems reasonably interpreted as an objective morality, because supposedly they came directly from GOD, and not human opinion.



Sure.



Sure. However, as ASD people perhaps we are more inclined to examine what others do not.



Apparently true.

Researched: Atheists made up 0.2% of the US prison population, according to the below source.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... z39yqJb7Gn



Just because they willfully disregard GOD's laws doesn't mean that they don't view them as objective.

This is nothing to do with objectivity. Just becuase you use the word objective, doesn't make it objective or that you know what it means.

There is nothing objective in the statement that it is objective, because it supposedly came from God. In fact that is decidedly not objective.

This is a completely false premise you are arguing under.

When people talk of objective morality they just mean that the morals came from a higher power and are therefore not up for debate. It does not mean that it somehow proves that the higher power exists. It's just the distinction between man-made morality and given-from-above morality.