The Golden Rule: Natural way of thinking

[magnifier661]

I always wonder how an Atheist believes that morality is a natural trait. I'm not discounting they have morality, but the "moral compass" seems a bit contradictory if you believe in the "natural world".

Does the sun have no problem wiping out all existence to consume its planets to stay burning?

Regardless, this is a battle in my logical thinking. I mean if your existence is only for the short time you have on this planet, then why not do whatever it takes to destroy, consume, kill or whatever to give yourself advantage in anything in life.

Why would it be wrong if one cheats to get better grades on a test? I mean we are instinctively trying to survive right?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
http://www.sciencechannel.com/life-earth-science/10-cultures-that-practiced-human-sacrifice.htm

 

[magnifier661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
http://www.sciencechannel.com/life-earth-science/10-cultures-that-practiced-human-sacrifice.htm

Your references of man, regardless of religion, has used killing as a form to "get closer to God", which would in turn, give them an upper hand to other humans?

So you support that it is okay to advance through any means naturally?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think that anyone who thinks the golden rule is THE natural way of thinking needs to read those links.

And rethink that premise.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Your references of man, regardless of religion, has used killing as a form to "get closer to God", which would in turn, give them an upper hand to other humans?

So you support that it is okay to advance through any means naturally?

Can we have even three posts in a thread without horrific logical fallacies?

 

[magnifier661]

I think that anyone who thinks the golden rule is THE natural way of thinking needs to read those links.

And rethink that premise.

Oh well, I figured the owner of this site would stay on topic. So you weren't replying to the question, just giving a dig on theism? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[magnifier661]

Can we have even three posts in a thread without horrific logical fallacies?

Well since Denny responded, I would have assumed that it was to topic. I was just trying to see how it would fit in with the OP

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I always wonder how an Atheist believes that morality is a natural trait. I'm not discounting they have morality, but the "moral compass" seems a bit contradictory if you believe in the "natural world".

Does the sun have no problem wiping out all existence to consume its planets to stay burning?

Regardless, this is a battle in my logical thinking. I mean if your existence is only for the short time you have on this planet, then why not do whatever it takes to destroy, consume, kill or whatever to give yourself advantage in anything in life.

Why would it be wrong if one cheats to get better grades on a test? I mean we are instinctively trying to survive right?

It's a question of individualism versus humanism, or stated in relation to your final paragraph, acting in self-interest or species-interest. The golden rule may not necessarily be best for maximizing self-interest, but it generally is a good axiom for the best interests of humanity as a whole. It is not unnatural for a member of any species to act in such a manner.

 

[donkiez]

To assume that religion is a requirement for morality is kind of insulting to non religious folks.

I feel that if you are only being moral with the hopes of some reward, isn't that kind of disingenuous.

I look at morality more as a social feature. For instance I can believe in anything I want and still not want to kill or rape someone, because I know that is not right and I care for my fellow human beings and how something like that would effect both of us. Not because God told me it was bad.

 

[magnifier661]

It's a question of individualism versus humanism, or stated in relation to your final paragraph, acting in self-interest or species-interest. The golden rule may not necessarily be best for maximizing self-interest, but it generally is a good axiom for the best interests of humanity as a whole. It is not unnatural for a member of any species to act in such a manner.

That makes a lot of sense. So society could have instilled this "golden rule" for the betterment of their species? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Denny Crane]

To assume that religion is a requirement for morality is kind of insulting to non religious folks.

I feel that if you are only being moral with the hopes of some reward, isn't that kind of disingenuous.

I look at morality more as a social feature. For instance I can believe in anything I want and still not want to kill or rape someone, because I know that is not right and I care for my fellow human beings and how something like that would effect both of us. Not because God told me it was bad.

1500 christians killed in Iraq but nobody cares. Golden Rule in action.

Rwanda.
Nazi Germany.
Christians fed to the lions.
Gladiators.

You're right it's a societal thing.

 

[crowTrobot]

I always wonder how an Atheist believes that morality is a natural trait.

Atheists believe a wide range of things about morality so you can't really expect one response to this question.

Some like Sam Harris believe in an evolutionary "fitness landscape", where whatever best furthers human well being and reduces suffering constitutes an objectively real moral direction.

Some super deep thinking atheists (and a few theists) believe moral axioms exist Platonically - that is there exists an objectively real moral standard that is simply a feature of reality independent from the existence of anything else - independent of human minds, any type of God, or even of matter itself. I personally have been considering this for a couple decades now and have never been able to grasp how it could be meaningful, and I've sort of come to the conclusion it most likely isn't. But some really smart people (Penrose etc.) believe it's true so it's something to at least take seriously as a proposal.

MOST self-professing atheists will say in one way or another that morality exists, but is subjective. That is moral standards vary from time to time and place to place and are real, but essentially just variable human inventions.

I myself have noticed when I pay attention to other people talking about morality that most of the time they are just referencing how certain behavior makes them feel, rather than mentally referencing a moral standard they believe exists independently from their feelings. So that makes me at least a part-time moral non-cognitivist.

 

[magnifier661]

To assume that religion is a requirement for morality is kind of insulting to non religious folks.

I feel that if you are only being moral with the hopes of some reward, isn't that kind of disingenuous.

I look at morality more as a social feature. For instance I can believe in anything I want and still not want to kill or rape someone, because I know that is not right and I care for my fellow human beings and how something like that would effect both of us. Not because God told me it was bad.

With my previous discussions, I could understand you believe the motives maybe for theism. That is actually not the case. We can throw any theism out the window in this thread and just discuss this topic and the atheist perspective.

 

[crowTrobot]

I mean if your existence is only for the short time you have on this planet, then why not do whatever it takes to destroy, consume, kill or whatever to give yourself advantage in anything in life.

Maybe following the golden rule IS what gives you the best advantage in life.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That makes a lot of sense. So society could have instilled this "golden rule" for the betterment of their species? Is that what you are saying?

Not that society installed it per se, but that understanding of the concept's could have evolved naturally. Many pack animals behave in a similar manner. Although one might argue that's more an example of a "needs of the many" philosophy rather than the golden rule.

 

[magnifier661]

Atheists believe a wide range of things about morality so you can't really expect one response to this question.

Some like Sam Harris believe in an evolutionary "fitness landscape", where whatever best furthers human well being and reduces suffering constitutes an objectively real moral direction.

Some super deep thinking atheists (and a few theists) believe moral axioms exist Platonically - that is there exists an objectively real moral standard that is simply a feature of reality independent from the existence of anything else - independent of human minds, any type of God, or even of matter itself. I personally have been considering this for a couple decades now and have never been able to grasp how it could be meaningful, and I've sort of come to the conclusion it most likely isn't. But some really smart people (Penrose etc.) believe it's true so it's something to at least take seriously as a proposal.

MOST self-professing atheists will say in one way or another that morality exists, but is subjective. That is moral standards vary from time to time and place to place and are real, but essentially just variable human inventions.

I myself have noticed when I pay attention to other people talking about morality that most of the time they are just referencing how certain behavior makes them feel, rather than mentally referencing a moral standard they believe exists independently from their feelings. So that makes me at least a part-time moral non-cognitivist.

I actually liked "Sam Harris's" view on morality, but still had so many holes.

This part of your response interests me...

Some super deep thinking atheists (and a few theists) believe moral axioms exist Platonically - that is there exists an objectively real moral standard that is simply a feature of reality independent from the existence of anything else - independent of human minds, any type of God, or even of matter itself. I personally have been considering this for a couple decades now and have never been able to grasp how it could be meaningful, and I've sort of come to the conclusion it most likely isn't. But some really smart people (Penrose etc.) believe it's true so it's something to at least take seriously as a proposal.

Could you go a little deeper in this subject?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

As I understand it, morality is a social construct with some biological underpinnings (protect your family, protect your friends, protect the pack). As an atheist, I view religion as a social construct with some biological underpinnings (the need to see patterns in incoming stimuli to survive). It makes sense to me that they would be taught arm in arm, because they are both ways of creating and maintaining a social order in groups that go beyond family and friends. However, I know you can have secular morality, even teaching commandments without teaching "the God parts."

 

[magnifier661]

Maybe following the golden rule IS what gives you the best advantage in life.

That's my battle though. Like who decides this golden rule? There are countless examples throughout history of societies contradicting their moral compass.

I mean at what point do we agree on which rule is "golden"?

 

[magnifier661]

As I understand it, morality is a social construct with some biological underpinnings (protect your family, protect your friends, protect the pack). As an atheist, I view religion as a social construct with some biological underpinnings (the need to see patterns in incoming stimuli to survive). It makes sense to me that they would be taught arm in arm, because they are both ways of creating and maintaining a social order in groups that go beyond family and friends. However, I know you can have secular morality, even teaching commandments without teaching "the God parts."

Yes I do agree that an atheist could take some philosophy from religious texts and adopt it into their own compass, without having to believe in God.

It would be in the same way a Christian could agree with an atheistic philosophy without having to agree with their entire philosophy.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I mean at what point do we agree on which rule is "golden"?

Well, that's based on the "other" golden rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

 

[magnifier661]

Well, that's based on the "other" golden rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

Insert drum roll here! Hahaha

 

[crowTrobot]

Could you go a little deeper in this subject?

Not very well, since as noted I don't understand how it can be meaningful (how can an action can have an objectively real metaphysical prescriptive property?)

If it helps, moral realists generally believe the same thing about numbers & mathematical axioms and sometimes other irreducible concepts like logical axioms - they simply exist as a part of reality independent from our minds (and/or the mind of God). Very complicated subject, a lot of it over my head.

 

[Eastoff]

That makes a lot of sense. So society could have instilled this "golden rule" for the betterment of their species? Is that what you are saying?

It's not just for the better of society/species. The only time it makes sense to do anything you want, is when you know you can get away with it all of the time. If you have rules and obey the rules, and everyone else obeys the rules, you can expect to live longer because there are far more Eastoff's who would die by the hands of the few Lebron James physical freaks.

 

[crowTrobot]

I mean at what point do we agree on which rule is "golden"?

I was just responding to your question about why atheists don't try to get away with whatever they can at the expense of others. It may actually be more beneficial to treat others as you would want to be treated, both in terms of survival benefits and, in particular, psychologically.

 

[magnifier661]

Not very well, since as noted I don't understand how it can be meaningful (how can an action can have an objectively real metaphysical prescriptive property?)

If it helps, moral realists generally believe the same thing about numbers & mathematical axioms and sometimes other irreducible concepts like logical axioms - they simply exist as a part of reality independent from our minds (and/or the mind of God). Very complicated subject, a lot of it over my head.

I think that's why it really interests me. I like learning, and this is a crazy idea.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If it helps, moral realists generally believe the same thing about numbers & mathematical axioms and sometimes other irreducible concepts like logical axioms - they simply exist as a part of reality independent from our minds (and/or the mind of God).

So in other words, notions like the golden rule weren't conceived by man, they simply always existed prior to man "discovering" them?

 

[donkiez]

1500 christians killed in Iraq but nobody cares. Golden Rule in action.

Rwanda.
Nazi Germany.
Christians fed to the lions.
Gladiators.

You're right it's a societal thing.

because all of those are modern functioning societies? I would argue that the Romans were operating on the morals of the day and Rwanda and Nazi Germany are examples of hijacked societies or break downs in societies.

 

[magnifier661]

It's not just for the better of society/species. The only time it makes sense to do anything you want, is when you know you can get away with it all of the time. If you have rules and obey the rules, and everyone else obeys the rules, you can expect to live longer because there are far more Eastoff's who would die by the hands of the few Lebron James physical freaks.

But my battle isn't "Because we need laws to survive" doesn't give solid reasoning, nor does it answer how evolving now works without genetic reasoning. Like is this trait carried from mother to son, to grandchild and so on?

And I go back to the "Well who makes these rules and are they really looking out for our interest?"

 

[magnifier661]

So in other words, notions like the golden rule weren't conceived by man, they simply always existed prior to man "discovering" them?

That's what I got from it too. Sounds interesting actually.

 

[Denny Crane]

because all of those are modern functioning societies? I would argue that the Romans were operating on the morals of the day and Rwanda and Nazi Germany are examples of hijacked societies or break downs in societies.

Obviously societal morals depend on the society and the times.

At one point, this society banned alcohol.

In Roman times, they certainly did to others what they would not want done to themselves. They thrived, too.

The Mayans played sports games and the losing team was routinely killed. I don't see any golden rule in that.

Rwanda was a case where there was no real society anymore; the one they had broke down. The result wasn't golden rule in action, but what looks to me to be Man's true nature.

It is that we reason, and that if I don't kill you/you won't kill me is a fair trade, that we generally (in the West) don't act like the Rwandans.