Where do atheists get their morality?

[YukonGlocker]

Right here:

​

You said you think I'm just guessing. That appears to be your sense of where my reasoning is coming from. So, go ahead and tell me if you think I'm wrong - you haven't so far - and fill me in on what you think is right. My 'logic' is the understanding of what I have read corroberated by observation. What's yours?

You claim I have no understanding of the etiology of sociopathy, ergo, you must have some understanding of the etiology of sociopathy in order to make the claim that I don't - or are you just guessing?

Can you refute this?

​

Woody

I'm sorry if you took that as me questioning your credibility...that wasn't my intention. To bring this back on topic, my intention is to figure our how you reason that either (a) the MMPI, and/or (b) Skinner's work, sheds light on whether or not we are born with a conscience or morality.

 

[henschman]

Well, I certainly don't get my morality from any philosophy which holds that human beings are universally evil for not being that which they cannot possibly be -- condemning man for failing to be not-man, as it were. And I don't ascribe to the idea that the paragon of morality is a creator who makes a flawed creation and then blames it for being flawed.

Morality concerns itself with "shoulding"... what should a man do? But to answer that, we have to concern ourselves with "being" -- what is the nature of man? It would make no sense to judge man by any standards other than those applicable to man... not rocks, or dolphins, or theoretical omnipotent, omnipresent beings. So what is man? Man is, first and foremost, an individual. You are in this all alone. You are the only one inside your head, and you are the only one who can direct your conscious actions. Man is also an organism -- he has survival requirements, and is influenced by chemicals, hormones, and emotions. However, man is unique among organisms in the power of his volitional consciousness. Man does not have any in-born survival skills -- rather, his only tool for survival is his mind. In order to survive, he must learn the requirements for his own survival, and direct his actions in accordance with those requirements.

More than just volitional consciousness, man is also capable of conceptual thought -- putting like things into categories, holding them in his mind, and referring to them to make sense of reality. One concept that all conceptually-thinking people have, whether they know it or not, is the concept of Self -- the abstracted idea of one's own life, consisting of one's knowledge of one's thoughts, decisions, and actions. Every thought, decision, and action is taken first by the Self, upon the Self -- it is recorded in the individual's consciousness as part of his own idea of who he is. Another of man's survival mechanisms is his ability to form a system of values -- a hierarchy of preferences. This value hierarchy is reinforced by an internal reward/punishment system that gives him a feeling of joy when he acts in accordance with values, and anguish when he acts against his values. Man's overall sense of joy or anguish is largely dependent on how much value he places on his Self -- how consistent his concept of his own life is with his values.

Now back to the question of what a man should do. I believe he should live a life of joy. After all, the only alternatives are either not living at all, or living a life of something less than joy. To live a life of joy, a man should choose values which are consistent with the conditions for his own survival. Anything less would lead to a very frustrating existence indeed. But man should aspire to do more than just survive -- he should strive to prosper. There are many more sources of joy to be found to enrich one's life beyond the necessities of survival. Above all else, a man should live in a way that leads him to love his Self as much as possible. Not much joy is possible to a man who does not love his Self.

But man chooses what to value -- and as one will no doubt notice if one observes the current state of humanity, it is absolutely possible for man to set his system of values against the requirements for his own life and prosperity, and against his Self, as with the many philosophies of "other-ism" which hold that a man should always put the interests of others before his own. This sort of value system leads to a frustrated existence in which the result of following one's chosen values are ruin and ultimately death, and in which actions taken to benefit one's own life lead to terrible feelings of guilt. No wonder the followers of such philosophies believe that reality is such a terrible state of affairs, and look forward to some alternate form of existence in which the laws of reality do not apply. Their philosophy is, quite simply, not in accordance with the nature of reality. It is a testament to the noble strength of man's survival instincts that most people who ascribe to such philosophies are not capable of fully living up to them, and do not follow them to their logical conclusion -- the graveyard. However, a life of guilt and anguish is no way for a man to live.

Immense joy and beauty is possible to a man in this one sacred, irreplaceable life of his, and it is morally right for him to seize as much of it as he possibly can in the time that he has.

 

[DrinkYourMilkshake]

I still don't get what it matters.

There are good people, there are bad people. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever in each.

As the old adage goes... Respect me, I respect you. Disrespect me... F**k you.

 

[Okey-Dokey]

Thankfully I haven't read this entire thread. All humans are inherently good. It takes influence to become evil or continue the path of good. I have a very odd view of religion. God exists but I also believe that mankind has God 100% completely wrong. Most religions and most books on the matter are written by man to control other men or to take their belongings. A truly good person does good things without expecting anything in return which is 180 degrees away from most organized religions.

 

[Cinaet]

Cosmopolitan magazine? Brangelina? Bob Stoops? The next door neighbor? Who knows. I think that's where the "blown about by every wind of doctrine" thing comes into play.

 

[twoguns?]

Simple, from God.

But Thank You hensch, that was very....well explained...

 

[IndVet]

Considering all the things God has done for mankind, I'm glad somebody thought of inventing him!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm sorry if you took that as me questioning your credibility...that wasn't my intention. To bring this back on topic, my intention is to figure our how you reason that either (a) the MMPI, and/or (b) Skinner's work, sheds light on whether or not we are born with a conscience or morality.

As I mentioned earlier, the MMPI will only expose whether or not someone is a sociopath(or exhibits any of a number of other traits), not the why. Anyone can practice good moral behavior and it appears to be well understood here that good moral behavior is learned. Even a sociopath can learn what is expected of a good moral person. A conscience is a different thing altogether. Bonding appears to be the starting point. There are actual chemicals produced in the bonding process:

There is evidence in a variety of species that the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin are involved in the bonding process, and in other forms of prosocial and reproductive behavior. Both chemicals facilitate pair bonding and maternal behavior in experiments on laboratory animals. In humans, there is evidence that oxytocin and vasopressin are released during labor and breastfeeding, and that these events are associated with maternal bonding. According to one model, social isolation leads to stress, which is associated with activity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the release of cortisol. Positive social interaction is associated with increased oxytocin. This leads to bonding, which is also associated with higher levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, and reduced stress and stress-related hormones.[17]

Oxytocin is associated with higher levels of trust in laboratory studies on humans. It has been called the "cuddle chemical" for its role in facilitating trust and attachment.[18] In the reward centers of the limbic system, the neurotransmitter dopamine may interact with oxytocin and further increase the likelihood of bonding. One team of researchers has argued that oxytocin only plays a secondary role in affiliation, and that endogenous opiates play the central role. According to this model, affiliation is a function of the brain systems underlying reward and memory formation.[19]

Because the vast majority of this research has been done on animals—and the majority of that on rodents—these findings must be taken with caution when applied to humans. One of the few studies that looked at the influence of hormones on human bonding compared participants who had recently fallen in love with a control group. There were no differences for most of the hormones measured, including LH, estradiol, progesterone, DHEAS, and androstenedione. Testosterone and FSH were lower in men who had recently fallen in love, and there was also a difference in blood cortisol for both sexes, with higher levels in the group that was in love. These differences disappeared after 12–28 months and may reflect the temporary stress and arousal of a new relationship.[20]

Though I excerpted the above from Wikipedia(some consider it an unreliable source for many things), the research does show how bonding takes place. Having the feelings these chemicals produce - or the chemicals these feeling produce - seems to be the key. As far as I'm concerned, that is plenty of evidence that a conscience is developed rather than something you are born with(though some of the chemicals are transferred mother-to-baby in the womb).

Skinner and many of his ilk have experimented with child development and have shown how interaction with others and certain stimuli appears to have an effect on personalities. Good interactions seem to be the key to developing a conscience(awareness of, and consideration for, others). Lack of interaction or bad interaction seems to produce the lack of awareness of other's feelings, and little to no regard for any life other than their own.

All I see is without bonding, a conscience won't develop. Ergo, it's not something you are born with, you are only born with the ability to have a conscience developed. It's a segment, or a cluster, on our hard drive that will get used for something else if it isn't programed with its intended bits and bytes in the time allotted.

That's about the extent of my understanding of a conscience. I hope that is enough for you to understand why I believe people are not born with a conscience.

Woody

 

[twoguns?]

"a sociopath(or exhibits any of a number of other traits), not the why. Anyone can practice good moral behavior and it appears to be well understood here that good moral behavior is learned."

The problem is that good morals change, whats moral today was considered "insane" in past generations.
The sociopath's morals dont change, because they dont care.
And thats OK because God does care...

 

[sukivel]

I still don't get what it matters.

There are good people, there are bad people. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever in each.

As the old adage goes... Respect me, I respect you. Disrespect me... F**k you.

This quote could conclude this thread...