Does atheism allow for good and evil?

[MustangSVT]

Bascially its all upto the person to decide what is Good and what is Evil.

Thant's the thing. Lets say there IS god and lets say the bible IS god's word.
Someone still has to read it and someone still has to decide what it means to them. Based on their knowledge and personal thoughts. That's where it becomes interesting again

So, it would be almost naive to say religious ppl will do only good and atheists cant.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
The title for this thread is asinine I'm an athiest and have no problems distinguishing between good and evil, and have many thoughts on the subject, but rather than babbling I'm sure you could do plenty of research into philosophy yourself and find out more than I could ever tell you. Nietzsche's The Gay Science iis a fun place to start.

You have no problem distinguishing what YOU BELIEVE to be good and evil. My version of good and evil may be completely contrary to yours. Which one of us is right?

 

[thraashman]

Good and evil evolved jsut as man evolved. Humans, much like many other species, evolved as a social species. A species dependent on others of it's own kind to survive. We are a pack animal. And any pack animal has a social structure that needs to be maintained to ensure survival. Since humans brains are far more advanced than other pack animals, our social structure evolved more advanced. Killing off another member of the pack is deplorable because it weakens the pack. We are not much more than a very advanced version of a wolf pack. And as the social order developed, certain acts became considered "evil". If good and evil were something God instilled in us, the ideas would be present from birth. But that's not so as it is quite easy to raise a child to be a murderer without a conscience.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

in my opinion, everyone3 must decie what is good and what is evil for themselves. governments enforce what has been decided what is right and wrong by the majorities. and the gods judge you on whether you followed what you thought was right. wheter you had te ability, courage or whatever it takes to stick to what you think no matter what. a great man once said "it is never dying in vain if you die for soething that is right". Ateism is a religon based on each of it's member beliefs with the sole consentual belief being tht there is no supreme being. So some do, some don't.

 

[Rio Rebel]

It's amazing how many people espouse relativist assumptions. Now, there's nothing wrong with being a relativist, but it's hardly "obvious" or "self-evident".

There have been some very powerful argument in favor of objective moral principles, and it does not refute them to simply cloak ourselves in this recent American view of "tolerance" where it's somehow offensive to believe that you could be right and someone else could be wrong.

If anyone it truly interested in the subject of objective moral principles, there are many rich philosophical writings on the subject, from Plato to Thomas Nagel. Here are a few off the top of my head:

Plato
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
G.E. Moore
Anthony Flew
J. L. Mackey
C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity starts with a very interesting discussion of moral objectivity)

And some recent philosophers who have contributed to the subject:
Alan Bloom
Ronald Dworkin
Thomas Nagel
And from an interestingly liberal bent, John Rawls

This is hardly an exhaustive list, just many of the authors who have influenced my thinking on the subject.

 

[skace]

The question is, who the hell ever thought good and evil originated from a belief in god? What kind of question is this topic? Does someone actually believe that athiests can't tell what is good and what is evil?

Canabalism can be both good and bad, that is why it is gray. If you are in a plane crash and people are dying from starvation, would you eat the dead to survive? Survival of the fittest. But, if you chose to eat people over other forms of food and hunted people like animals, then that would be evil. Since you would be basically hunting your own species (going against the pack / murder / etc).

If you want to bring up anything, go ahead. We can discuss an act and why it is good, evil, or a gray area. I am sure the reasoning for most things will not be "because god said so". Infact, that is the WORST reason. Anytime an act is defined as good or evil only because god said so, then you have flawed logic.

Besides, who invented god? man did. Who wrote the bible? man did. Who defines good and evil? man does. As far as the god that most people here probably believe in, why would he care about good and evil? He is all forgiving. All you have to do is believe in him and atone for your sins. Man is much more harsh than the catholic god is.

 

[tlam617]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Relatively, an individual can decide that something is good or evil. Kindness is good, violence is evil. But another individual can just as easily decide the exact opposite. Is the person who believes that killing is good and kindness is bad incorrect? Or just different?

A good thought BoberFett. Keep in mind that each individual is unique; hence, our beliefs and thoughts about secular matters would differ. A person who believes that killing is good and kindness is bad is just different. What is his rational for thinking the way he does?? Maybe he has had a bad , a very bad experience when he was little. Growing up, maybe he has learned that kindness is a weakness and that the only way to survive is to be cruel. This may be referenced to the ancient societies where kings and queens ruled harshly and killed by the dozens to secure their kingdom, set precedents and survie. It's called "ruling with an iron hand".

 

[tlam617]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Traditionally, good and evil are defined by religion. In Christianity, God is good, anything against God is evil.

If you believe that there is no supreme being to define good and evil, how do you define it? Is there such a thing? If the universe is just a series of chemical reactions and physics equations, how can there such a thing as good and evil.

If you believe that there is no supreme being to define good and evil, how do you define it?

If you are an athiest, then i guess it's safe to say that good and evil does not apply to you since you are not religious. The definition of good and evil depends on the individual him/herself. To me, good is doing the right thing when noone is watching. evil would be the opposite of good.

 

[Netopia]

But, if you chose to eat people over other forms of food and hunted people like animals, then that would be evil. Since you would be basically hunting your own species (going against the pack / murder / etc).

Absolutely not! If there is no God then there is not absolute Good/Evil. Perhaps I might feel that my taste for human flesh is more important than your continuing to breathe. While you might say this is evil, I might say that it's good... and tasty at that!

Please explain from an atheistic position why you think someone eating someone else is automatically evil if there is other food available.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

To me, good is doing the right thing when noone is watching. evil would be the opposite of good.

Your logic is cyclal. Good is doing the right thing... but what is the definintion of "right thing?" other than good... Since there's no God, there also isn't a "right thing" other than in each person's mind.

Joe

 

[Rio Rebel]

Speaking of cyclical, there's still that little problem that Socrates threw out there...

Is an act good because it's God's will? Or is it God's will because it is good?

If you say #2, then you are immediately admitting that the criteria for "good" is more than simply God's will. If you say #1, then it makes no sense to talk about God being "good", because it is just circular. Of course God is good - His will defines good - so it makes no sense to praise God for His "goodness".

If everything God did was detrimental to us, but it still met some master plan which placed a higher priority on other non-human beings, would it make any sense for us to refer to God as being "good"?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Absolutely not! If there is no God then there is not absolute Good/Evil. Perhaps I might feel that my taste for human flesh is more important than your continuing to breathe. While you might say this is evil, I might say that it's good... and tasty at that! Please explain from an atheistic position why you think someone eating someone else is automatically evil if there is other food available. Joe

Preserving the race > *. Need I say more?

God has nothing to do with this. Period. Unless god flew down to earth one day and told you, netopia, "don't kill people, it is wrong" then you have nothing to stand on. You read from the bible or other literature that the scriptures say such and such is wrong. But who were they written by? Yes, that is correct, man. So why do you continue bringing up god?

 

[Netopia]

Preserving the race > *. Need I say more?

Yes, you do. Suppose that there was someone who totally believed that the human race was in need of being eliminated and he had access to a bomb capable of doing it. If he perceived that it would be EVIL to allow the human race to continue and he could only do GOOD by destroying it, wouldn't he be right? If Good and Evil are mearly individual or group opinions, then one person's opinion is really no more or no less valid than anyone elses.

If you say vanilla is good and chocolate is evil and someone else says the exact opposite, is either or you actually right or wrong or is the whole notion of vanilla and chocolate being good or evil just silly? If it's just silly, then you are almost there... now just replace vanilla and chocolate with anything you like and that would be the model of good and evil in an atheistic universe... it's all just opinions.

Joe

RIO... I'm thinking about your question.

 

[skace]

Uh, ok, so instead of trying to change your view, why don't I ask how religion fits into your view? If it is all just silly opinions when viewed from atheism, it is all just silly opinions when viewed from religion. So what is the difference?

Example: I believe that the quickest route to heaven is suicide. You believe that suicide will get me sent straight to hell. Arn't these both just opinions? Neither of us actually knows what will happen. There is no proof backing either method. I can probably find passages that could be used in favor of either method. Or I could just form a new religion to make my method valid.

So really, before you try to tell me what is opinion and what isn't. Why don't you explain why it should be any different for one over the other. Why do you keep using the word atheism in every line when it isn't a necessary variable in the equation.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Traditionally, good and evil are defined by religion. In Christianity, God is good, anything against God is evil.

If you believe that there is no supreme being to define good and evil, how do you define it? Is there such a thing? If the universe is just a series of chemical reactions and physics equations, how can there such a thing as good and evil.

Relatively, an individual can decide that something is good or evil. Kindness is good, violence is evil. But another individual can just as easily decide the exact opposite. Is the person who believes that killing is good and kindness is bad incorrect? Or just different?

Traditionaly Good and Evil are decided collectivelly and are codified in culture. Religion is then adapted to fit the culturaly accepted views of good and evil. It's interesting to me that people always turn that around and say values derive from religion when they derive from the culture that then codifies them in the religion to make them official.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: BoberFett Traditionally, good and evil are defined by religion. In Christianity, God is good, anything against God is evil. If you believe that there is no supreme being to define good and evil, how do you define it? Is there such a thing? If the universe is just a series of chemical reactions and physics equations, how can there such a thing as good and evil. Relatively, an individual can decide that something is good or evil. Kindness is good, violence is evil. But another individual can just as easily decide the exact opposite. Is the person who believes that killing is good and kindness is bad incorrect? Or just different?

Traditionaly Good and Evil are decided collectivelly and are codified in culture. Religion is then adapted to fit the culturaly accepted views of good and evil. It's interesting to me that people always turn that around and say values derive from religion when they derive from the culture that then codifies them in the religion to make them official.

Thank you, I was trying to understand why they kept basing this around religion.

 

[Netopia]

If I've said that absolute good/evil require religion, I was wrong. Absolute good/evil require the existance of God.

So really, before you try to tell me what is opinion and what isn't. Why don't you explain why it should be any different for one over the other.

Because for absolute good/evil to exist, someone who has omnipotence must define what is good and what is evil in the first place. If they are absolute, then it really doesn't matter what you or I believe because the labeling of good or evil are not up to us. We may call something good or evil, but that doesn't actually make it good or evil, it only makes it our opinion. What makes it an absolute good or evil is that God has declared it so.

Think of it this way... instead of saying good/evil, let's say legal/illegal. Let's further agree that we live in a country where the government has said that speeding is a crime. You and I can argue all day about whether speeding is a crime or not, but regardless of what we think, a higher authority has already determined that it is in fact a crime. That's the theistic view, with the Government taking the place of God.

Now, OTOH, let's say we're on a dessert island with 500 people on it, there's no government, no commitees, no authority except brute force. Some say it is evil to eat coconuts on Tuesdays, while others say Tuesday is the best day and that it is good to eat them on Tuesdays. Then let's say that the group that thinks it's evil kills 50% of the other group and demands that all live according to the "it's evil to eat coconuts on Tuesday" rule. Given a couple of generations and some time for tradition, just about 100% of the people on the island believe that it is evil to eat coconuts on Tuesday..... but is it REALLY evil or just an opinion that is held by the majority and the strongest of a society? This is more the atheist view of good/evil where an action is good or evil based on what is accepted by the majority of the people. If a hundred years later the same society decided that it was good to eat coconuts on Tuesday, then they would look back on the previous culture and say that THEY were the evil ones!

Joe

 

[skace]

Ok so there is this magical being that exists that knows exactly what is good and evil... but we cannot communicate with it. How does that help the scenario?

Now, OTOH, let's say we're on a dessert island with 500 people on it, there's no government, no commitees, no authority except brute force. Some say it is evil to eat coconuts on Tuesdays, while others say Tuesday is the best day and that it is good to eat them on Tuesdays. Then let's say that the group that thinks it's evil kills 50% of the other group and demands that all live according to the "it's evil to eat coconuts on Tuesday" rule. Given a couple of generations and some time for tradition, just about 100% of the people on the island believe that it is evil to eat coconuts on Tuesday..... but is it REALLY evil or just an opinion that is held by the majority and the strongest of a society? This is more the atheist view of good/evil where an action is good or evil based on what is accepted by the majority of the people. If a hundred years later the same society decided that it was good to eat coconuts on Tuesday, then they would look back on the previous culture and say that THEY were the evil ones!

Actually, you defined more of a religious group of people. Who would not question what was laid out before them. Athiests would more likely question. An athiest would ask "Why is it bad to eat coconuts on Tuesday?" Athiests want proof and understanding.

I'm starting to believe that you have everything completely backwards.

 

[Netopia]

Sorry... we're just discussing the existance of good and evil, not the division of them!

Joe

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Sorry... we're just discussing the existance of good and evil, not the division of them! Joe

Right, but since we cannot communicate with such being, we do not know. That was my point. What if the being did not believe in the ideas of good and evil. See, since we do not know this being / whether it exists / it does not help the scenarios.

Anytime you throw an unproveable into an equation, you are just causing confusion.

 

[Netopia]

Actually, you defined more of a religious group of people. Who would not question what was laid out before them. Athiests would more likely question. An athiest would ask "Why is it bad to eat coconuts on Tuesday?" Athiests want proof and understanding.

But understanding doesn't mean anything. Atheists ran the Soviet Union, but that didn't mean that their morals were right, it just meant they had more power than the people under them and so they could enforce whatever morals they wanted. Stalin and Mao were both atheist (well.. they used to be) and yet they did things that an American atheist would say was "evil".

You said it sounded more like a religious group, but that's why I added in the people who later decided that the former people were wrong... they questioned things and decided to change what was defined ass good or evil.

Ok so there is this magical being that exists that knows exactly what is good and evil... but we cannot communicate with it.

Another place where we differ. I believe that God in fact DOES communicate to use through His Word and in some instances has already told us of things that are good and others that are evil. For the things He hasn't told us, we can assume that there is a "best" and we have to try to figure that out for ourselves based on the revelation He's already given us.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Is an act good because it's God's will? Or is it God's will because it is good?

An act is good because it's God's will. He could also do evil if He must, as is written in the Bible. Not the evil we would think of in today's terms though. Good and evil aren't opposites, the same way that heat and cold or light and dark aren't opposites. When something has less heat, we call it warm, or cool or cold... but "cold" isn't a thing, it's the absense of something (heat). In the same way, if something is less good, we might call it evil.

Something Athanasius (our version of him) told me. If a doctor cuts you with a knife to remove a cancer, he is committing violence against your flesh and creating pain in your life... but he is doing so in order to enact the most ultimate good on you by removing the cancer. In the same way, God might do what we, from our perspective would consider evil, even though He may be doing something for us (singularly or collectively) that is for our greater good. What He does could be called evil (like the surgeon invading with the knife) but it is infact part of a more complex good.

There... that confused things, didn't it?

Joe

 

[dullard]

I didn't read much of the thread, so I'm assuming this will be a lot of repeat material.

I am an athiest. Yet I have a set of morals - basically a set of rules that I deceided to live by. I feel that humans have a built in set of things that they don't want to have done to themselves. For example, the vast majority of us don't want to be murdered today. Thus part of my morals is to never murder another person. These morals do not require laws, society, religion, nor a supreme being - it is built in to us. This set of morals defines right and wrong to me.

Is my set of rights and wrongs one possible definition of good and evil? In my opinion, anyone who knowingly does things that he/she knows is wrong is doing evil deeds. Is the existance of a diety a necessity - is the diety required to tell us that doing things we know are wrong are evil? I'll let you answer that question.

Sure societies will differ. In America eating cows is fine but eating cats is considered wrong. Yet in other societies eating cows may be wrong but eating cats is ok. To me this doesn't fit my definition of right and wrong I discussed above - eating an animal isn't something that a human 'doesn't want to have done to themselves'. A particular society may say it is right or wrong by custom or by law - but that act does not fit my definition of right or wrong. So to me, eating is not good or evil.

 

[esun]

Good and evil are relative. You can't define an absolute good and evil as religion often does.

EDIT: I mean to an atheist this is the case. If no absolute goods and evils are define without religion, they must be relative. Yes it is a relative statement only if you assume the fact that there exists an absolute good and evil, which was not part of the original premise.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Good and evil are relative. You can't define an absolute good and evil as religion often does.

just another relativist assumption. No reason to accept that statement.

By the way, good and evil aren't relative. Dating at Auburn - THAT's relative!