Peaceful Atheist vs. Evil Atheist

Status
Not open for further replies.

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
Your assessment of animals as agents looks a bit circular.
After all, if humans are the only accepted acribers of rights (and that ascription is not undertaken by all people all the time), then it just goes to show that people are not necessarily particularly rational or consistant in ascribing rights.

Also of course, people are not necessarily assiduous about ascribing rights even to other people. For thousands of years it was considered perfectly obvious that slaves had only the rights ascribed to them by the non-enslaved. Reasons for this (such as enslaved people not being as capable of rational thought as non-enslaved people) were made up retroactively. So it seems circular to suggest that because only people acribe rights that these rights are invariably ascribed morally and appropriately and signify a completely correct assessment of those who get particular rights or not.

Hi Maxx,

Humans are the only ones who could grant rights to wolves. That's because, only moral agents can form them, so it's us or no-one. Wolves are incapable of forming their own reasoned, moral goals and lack the capacity to go beyond their sensory nature to exectue these goals. I gave an example before in regards to killing, but it could be anything. In wolf lingo,

"I'm angry, do I snarl at this other wolf? I could, but he might fight back, and he's bigger than me. I could just play along, do some subservient body language, and then when he turns his back jump him and go for his neck. But then again, he has two little pups. I think I'll do any way, and fool him by playing along."

The wolf will in fact behave instinctively. What's needed is proof of a consideration of moral alternatives, and a reflection on instinctive behaviour.

The problem of slavery isn't a problem, because I can say it's immoral and that people behaved immorally on this particular point for a thousand years. Kant's categorical imperative is a quick fix here, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." So then, I wouldn't want slavery to become a universal law. It would be illogical if everyone were out to enslave everyone else. Therefore, it's bad.

Of course, there are plenty of other arguments you could throw against it.
 
Last edited:

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Animals (some of them) can certainly reason and I have observed moral and deceptive animal behavior.

All psychological and innate systems are basically the same between all mammals including humans.

(But what would I know, I'm just a research psychologist who specializes in animal behavior.)
 

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
Have any research papers veinglory?

Edit: I should point out, the important point here is -

What's needed is proof of a consideration of moral alternatives, and a reflection on instinctive behaviour.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I use a different name, but can PM it too you if you are interested. I try to keep my real name and pen name from appearing on the same webpage....
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Hi Maxx,

Humans are the only ones who could grant rights to wolves. That's because, only moral agents can form them, so it's us or no-one. Wolves are incapable of forming their own reasoned, moral goals and lack the capacity to go beyond their sensory nature to exectue these goals. I gave an example before in regards to killing, but it could be anything. In wolf lingo,

"I'm angry, do I snarl at this other wolf? I could, but he might fight back, and he's bigger than me. I could just play along, do some subservient body language, and then when he turns his back jump him and go for his neck. But then again, he has two little pups. I think I'll do any way, and fool him by playing along."

The wolf will in fact behave instinctively. What's needed is proof of a consideration of moral alternatives, and a reflection on instinctive behaviour.

The problem of slavery isn't a problem, because I can say it's immoral and that people behaved immorally on this particular point for a thousand years. Kant's categorical imperative is a quick fix here, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." So then, I wouldn't want slavery to become a universal law. It would be illogical if we were all slaves. Therefore, it's bad.

Of course, there are plenty of other arguments you could throw against it.

The problem of slavery is a problem because Immanuel Kant is only one person and even if you and Immanuel just know its immoral, that doesn't obviate the thousands of years and millions of people who thought everything about slavery was perfectly moral. If people are wrong about slaves, they can equally be wrong about animals -- even you and Immanuel.
Moreover, you seem to think that anything that is instinctive cannot be moral, but in the neurosciences today it is becoming more and more clear that what is thought to be instinct (eg. wiring and blood flow in the brain) is involved in moral thinking. So it is perfectly possible for an animal to behave morally and instinctively at the same time and the same is true of people.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I still disagree with that interpretation. What is not moral is reflex or hard-wired behavior because it occurs without thought or choice and so the individuals morality does/cannot effect it.

Behavior can be informed by instinct and still be moral if the animal can alter the behavior by an act of will. If they can't, it isn't.

[cross posted with below]
 

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
Morality does involve a choice, without a choice a decision can't be moral. It's the same as saying a person with a lobotomy (maybe not a great example, but...) who runs into a hail of gunfire is brave. They're aren't brave, they just don't know the danger they're in. Brave implies a weighing up of the risks. So does a moral decision.

If someone jumps out of the crowd with a gun and I, jumping back in shock, knock it out of his hand, I haven't done a moral thing. It was just something that happened.

Also, your argument could be the same for everyone being wrong about animals too :tongue
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
I still disagree with that interpretation. What is not moral is reflex or hard-wired behavior because it occurs without thought or choice and so the individuals morality does/cannot effect it.

Behavior can be informed by instinct and still be moral if the animal can alter the behavior by an act of will. If they can't, it isn't.

[cross posted with below]

Morality does involve a choice, without a choice a decision can't be moral. It's the same as saying a person with a lobotomy (maybe not a great example, but...) who runs into a hail of gunfire is brave. They're aren't brave, they just don't know the danger they're in. Brave implies a weighing up of the risks. So does a moral decision.

If someone jumps out of the crowd with a gun and I, jumping back in shock, knock it out of his hand, I haven't done a moral thing. It was just something that happened.

Also, your argument could be the same for everyone being wrong about animals too :tongue

I don't get this act-of-will, lobotomized hail-of-gunfire business. You both seem to be insisting there has to be some hyper-rational moment where only a completely, fully informed, highly endangered perfect AI-programmed computer could make a real moral decision. I would say that is very misleading. For example, it implies that people who know actual dangers are always braver and more moral if they make the braver and more moral choice, which leaves out the possibility that they may be trained to suppress their natural responses (which would be to run away). So are trained people less moral because they have learned to suppress some of their responses? Or are they more moral because they act more like machines?

I think the only reasonably rational assessment of the basis of moral behavior is that it is partly instinctive and therefore something that people have in common with animals. The non-animalistic, machine-like response seems much less moral than the ill-informed bravery of the partially lobotomized hero who half-intentionally saves mankind from some poorly-understood threat from an evil genius.
 

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
Edit: Enough analogies

Ethics is concerned with doing the right thing. How can someone/thing know to do the right thing, if they don't know what the wrong thing is?
 
Last edited:

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I don't get this act-of-will, lobotomized hail-of-gunfire business. You both seem to be insisting there has to be some hyper-rational moment where only a completely, fully informed, highly endangered perfect AI-programmed computer could make a real moral decision..

I think you are reading in some assumptions that aren't there. All we are saying is that there has to be some involvement of will/choice/awareness for it to be moral. Otherwise morality could be said to be a quality of a plant or rock.

The degree of will required/displayed will of course vary. But if it is zero, the action is not in the moral sphere.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Edit: Enough analogies

Ethics is concerned with doing the right thing. How can someone/thing know to do the right thing, if they don't know what the wrong thing is?


You're assuming there is just one wrong thing and one right thing. Moral goodness is likely to come as a whole package. For example, a woman who has just weaned her own child may be able to nurse another child. But there are plenty of other factors -- does she respond to the other child? Does she still have enough milk? Is she getting enough food to take another child? A lot of that is purely instinctive and circumstantial and there is no big right thing and no big wrong thing and yet it is a moral picture if not a moral dilemma.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
I think you are reading in some assumptions that aren't there. All we are saying is that there has to be some involvement of will/choice/awareness for it to be moral. Otherwise morality could be said to be a quality of a plant or rock.

The degree of will required/displayed will of course vary. But if it is zero, the action is not in the moral sphere.

Right. Plants and rocks are not moral, but the more of a functioning nervous system a creature has, the more moral it might be. How much of a nervous system and how organic that system needs to be seems to be unclear. Ants for example, are moral enough to enslave other creatures, but not moral enough not to enslave other creatures. Wasps are moral enough to lay their eggs in paralyzed spiders, but not moral enough not to lay their eggs in paralyzed spiders. Computer AIs might be moral enough to knock guns out of the hands of madmen but not moral enough to be very worried about it.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
Ethics is concerned with doing the right thing. How can someone/thing know to do the right thing, if they don't know what the wrong thing is?

But what is the right thing? Is polygamy right or wrong? In some cultures, it is perfectly acceptable. In other cultures, it is a crime. Is it right or wrong to eat pork? Or for women to show their hair/ face in public as opposed to wearing a veil? Where do we stand on contraception, abortion, stem cell research? The Old Testament "Eye for an eye" or the New Testament "Turn the other cheek"? The death penalty? The US's right to bear arms - which does not have an equivalent in UK law?

I feel deeply comfortable in saying that the values that I have been brought up with (protestant, christian, democratic) are somehow better (or more right) than the values that millions of other people believe in right now, or have believed in before now.

For me, that shows that we choose at least some of our moral codes. Something is right because we consider it to be right. Society makes a conscious choice. In fact, our sense of morality is evolving as we speak. Compare our current ideas about decency and freedom of speech against the principles of the Lady Chatterley case. Or our views towards homosexuality compared with our parents' generations.

Take that thought to its logical conclusion, and we have to question whether there are any innate natural laws other than those which we have invented.

I don't see much difference with the so-called animal kingdom. Animals also develop their own rules for behaviour within a social group - things that they will do and things that they won't do. Some of these things demonstrate compassion for other animals and we might call them "good" behaviour. But for me that is too anthropomorphic. It's just behaviour.
 

Raventongue

little orphan anarchist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
7,137
Reaction score
999
Age
31
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Atheist morals- take a look at existentialism. Not that all existentialists are atheists are vice versa, but there are quite a few nowadays who believe life has no inherent meaning and you make your own meaning by doing what's good for everyone involved.

Hell, check out Hemingway. Even though I don't like the guy for other reasons (icky writing style, kinda boring, allegations of sexism difficult to prove or disprove) that's basically what A Farewell to Arms is supposed to be about. It's an atheist discovering why he should strive for justice and shizz, IIRC.
 

Pallandozi

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
41
Reaction score
2
Location
Cambridge, UK
What is he besides being an atheist? Why would atheist even be a big part of his motivation?

Perhaps he's a skeptic, with supernatural deities being just one of the things he's skeptical about?
 

Sage

Currently titleless
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
64,562
Reaction score
22,367
Age
43
Location
Cheering you all on!
This thread is >8 years old. Author has probably moved on from the question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.