Atheistsic Morality/Ethics

[hierochloe]

Let me start by saying I'm no philosophy scholar, apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding concepts. I've been thinking a lot on some things and I fear I am in over my head. Anyways I thought it might make for a decent discussion.

Has anyone ever noticed how many people will claim to believe there is NO omnipotent creator-being (atheism) and yet in the same sentence or the next also proclaim that they believe every man should treat their fellow man as they wish to be treated? Even to the point of quoting the golden rule out of biblical scripture virtually verbatim. Even if they don't subscribe to a version of Christian morality, they more often than not are quite lawful, good-hearted people. And for what? Which is to ask, how do they come to terms with that being that they have no inspiration to do such?

It also happens that I've also had the motivation recently to do some casual research into existentialism, browsing original works and analyses of fellas like Satre and Neitzche. Satre talks about something he calls [i]bad faith[/i], something into which which a person finds themself if they fail to follow a moral code that satisfies their conscience. It appears to be a constuct that a guy like him would use to explain why atheists would find it in themselves to borrow from Christian doctrines (or any other religious tenets for that matter). It seems to me the Neitzche presents the whole idea of atheistic existentialism in a more logical fashion, concetrating on escaping from the shackles of things like [i]bad faith[/i]? At least that's my impression. Maybe this whole thought is irrelevant to my post... I dunno. I suppose I'm hoping someone can tell me if I'm off on my conclusions as pertains to these thoughts in existentialism.

What continually amazes me is the capacity of people who claim to be atheist to apply a moral code to their life for which there is no need nor [i]REAL[/i] motivation. If there is no God and thereby no natural law (especially by an atheistic existentialist's perception of rteality), why impose some silly moral code like the golden rule on oneself? So, would it not make sense for the atheist that finds himself shackled by such an altruistic self-imposed morality to either challenge his submission to that morality or challenge his belief that their is no natural law? Maybe even consider that there may be something to the fact that he finds himself following the golden rule for no apparent reason?

Am I skipping tracks all over here or does any of this make sense? Does anyone else notice the contradiction here? If this phenemenom isn't just a figment of my own reality, could this be as simple as classic psychological denial?

[Justified Saint]

Well, it is a common argument to say that if there is no God then there is no point to morality, however I don't find that kind of reasoning always very convincing. There are other ethical theories one could use to justify morality that rests on a kind of intelligibility of their own without appealing to the existence of God (i.e. Kan't categorical imperative, utilitaranism, situational ethics etc.). Of course God is essential to understanding moral imperatives and values, but I don't think it necessarily follows from that that an atheist couldn't justify ethics without embodying a huge contradiction.

As for the golden rule, people like Nietzsche and Freud were usually very critical of the whole idea behind it. Likewise, such thinkers are very critical of a certain kind of morality without abdicating the responsibility one has towards others.

[Socrates]

Old debates on this topic [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36322"]HERE[/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=43908"]HERE[/url]

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1007562' date='Jun 17 2006, 08:58 PM']
Old debates on this topic [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36322"]HERE[/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=43908"]HERE[/url]
[/quote]
Most excellent. Thx.

[hierochloe]

Those threads made for good reading.

My thought at this point is that there IS potentially a critical contradiction in "atheistic morality". The exception is when this sort of objective morality is very specifically defined as something arising from our evolution as a species - in the same way that colonies of ants or bees have evolved a sort of social structure and set of rules (morality/ethics) that allows the species to function as a collective. This is the only way that a truly objective morality (meaning morality in a reality without God) makes any sense whatsoever. Anything else is just a rip-off of theistic morality.

The almost humorous irony to this is when one encounters a humanist atheist (or any other version that is not wholly self-serving) whom is highly critical of theistic religions yet is helplessly locked in an equivalent slavery to a morality that, unlike theistic morality, truly counts for very little or nothing to that person compared to what is possible in such a reality without God.

Without God, there is only the law of club and fang. In such a reality, I wholeheartedly agree with Nietzche when he claims that morality makes stupid. And if an atheist (or anyone else) threw that back in my face with a retort that claimed I was irrational, I could hunt him down and kill/murder him (without getting caught of course, thereby suffering no negative consequences to myself aside from perhaps ill-effects to my conscience, should it have been formed according to something that doesn't exist, like the Holy Spirit) - then it would suddenly make perfect, rational, logical sense, not to mention be quite a moral act.

Edited June 18, 2006 by hierochloe