A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can we move the discussion along at all?

Who do you fancy in the hurling?

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What you see, by and large, are the habits of thought promoted by religion - concepts of judging things as right or wrong, despite the basis of such judgment being dispensed with..................
I don't see clear shared values replacing those that were previously sourced from the RCC.

The mistake you are making is in assuming that ethical values come from religious commandments, whereas in fact it is the other way round.

Not only that, but the religious morals are often a corrupted version of their ethical equivalents.

Now you're going to say "where does objective morality come from, if not from a god?" and the answer lies in the evolution of co-operative behaviour. For example, in the Prisoners Dilemma you alluded to earlier, The Golden Rule is shown to be a failed strategy. This does not disprove the concept of evolutionary co-operative behaviour, as you suggested. It shows that the The Golden Rule, a basis for many world religions, and always a firm favourite for prophets and gurus trying to impress their fellow man, is mere pie in the sky. But the more successful tit-for-tat strategy is shown to have a hard moral currency. In the back of their minds people know this anyway. The USA has a strong army; it does not "turn the other cheek" if attacked, yet the army chaplains continue to preach their religious golden rules even while the army implements tit-for-tat instead.
Check out Hitchen's commentary on the 10 commandments, and then tell us whether this morality came from God, or did the commandments just come from a pre-existing Bronze Age goat herder's age notions of morality;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-63cTYJDCA

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

The mistake you are making is in assuming that ethical values come from religious commandments, whereas in fact it is the other way round. <...>

Now you're going to say "where does objective morality come from, if not from a god?" and the answer lies in the evolution of co-operative behaviour. <...> the more successful tit-for-tat strategy is shown to have a hard moral currency. <...>
Check out Hitchen's commentary on the 10 commandments<...>

I'm arguing from a perspective where it's all human invention, including the religious commandments. If people embedded their ethics in religions, which frequently seems to be the case, it suggests that religion gave them some value-added. I'm really just saying that if you want to act like Napoleon during the week and Audrey Hepburn at weekends, it probably helps if you believe you are Napoleon during the week and Audrey Hepburn at weekends. I'd suspect people actually don't disagree on this point.

Tit-for-tat has been suggested as a robust moral strategy - I think some have even suggested it's effectively how Islamic morals work. But contrast what a tit-for-tat strategy would be to the manifesto in the OP. I'd suggest that the manifesto is quite a distance from "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours; but if you mess with me, and I'll cut you a new asshole."

Hitch has never done if for me. Entertaining, yes, but he takes too many cheap shots. So I'll take my sample videos from something that doesn't claim to be more than entertainment - the ersatz Biblical quotation from "Pulp Fiction". (Combined running time less than the eight minutes of Hitch that I'll never get back.)

Here's Jules implementing a tit-for-tat moral strategy.

And here he is when he's discovering a need for altruism; some strange contraction where his self interest demands that he gives to someone who set out to rob him.

There's any amount of ways of interpreting Jules' change. But I think the pertinent thing is whether all moral strategies are tit-for-tat and, if so, why we apparently feel a need to present them as us being like Jules in the second clip, trying so hard to be the shepherd?

recedite

Neither of the Pulp Fiction examples is tit-for-tat, they are both christian morality straight from the bible, with all its contradictions.
The first example is righteous vengeance. Over the top, and somewhat arbitrary, in that the victim only has to be one of "them" and not one of "us" to deserve it.
The second example is the Golden Rule; treating the other as you would like to be treated yourself. It is also arbitrary, in that it applies whether he has earned good treatment or not.

In tit-for-tat the opening position is the same as the Golden Rule, but thereafter the responses depend on the other person.
If it was applied in the Pulp Fiction example there; when Jules was robbed, he would have "robbed back" the money, but not shot the other guy. From then on, it would be open to the other guy to re-engage with Jules in a positive way for their mutual benefit. No grudges, and always forgiveness after repentance.

Lucy8080

Dades,

wouldn't it be great if societies sanctioned themselves honestly even if it meant disgrace for the sake of honesty!

fingers crossed all.

if/when we see it....we may be bright enough to forgive because of the painful honesty.

from there we get to move on.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

Neither of the Pulp Fiction examples is tit-for-tat, they are both christian morality straight from the bible, with all its contradictions.

The first example is righteous vengeance. Over the top, and somewhat arbitrary, in that the victim only has to be one of "them" and not one of "us" to deserve it.

The second example is the Golden Rule; treating the other as you would like to be treated yourself. It is also arbitrary, in that it applies whether he has earned good treatment or not.

On the first example, you could interpret it as you suggest. However, as I’d see it, stealing from Marcellus = death is just the outcome, where Marcellus decides to respond. I won’t post it, but there’s later sequence where Bruce Willis wins a reprieve by saving Marcellus’ life.

On the second example, you’ll notice I’m not saying its tit-for-tat. However, neither is it Golden Rule. Jules isn’t treating someone in the way that he would like to be treated. He’s attempt to discover how to fulfill the requirements of divine law, to secure his own salvation. So he expects a payback – but, in a contraction, expecting that the payback will result from him being selfless. Golden Rule (to my mind) implies reciprocation. There’s no reciprocation in the relationship “you are the weak, … I am trying so hard to be the shepherd”.

I’d see a couple of points arising. If tit-for-tat is the form of morality favoured by natural selection, how did religion ever get a foothold?

And would you interpret the manifesto in the OP as tit-for-tat? I don’t, but maybe I’m wrong. I’d interpret the OP as suggesting good things could be achieved, if we just agreed to co-operate. I don’t see anything in particular about sanctions, and there’s at least some reference to compassion and to accepting that others have different life experiences, which would suggest (to me) that the aspiration would be to go beyond tit-for-tat; that we should accept the odd tit, because one tat tends to lead to another. What manifesto would be produced by natural selection?

Dades

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Dades,

wouldn't it be great if societies sanctioned themselves honestly even if it meant disgrace for the sake of honesty!

Uh, I guess!

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

neither is it Golden Rule. Jules isn’t treating someone in the way that he would like to be treated. He’s attempt to discover how to fulfill the requirements of divine law, to secure his own salvation. So he expects a payback..

Everyone would like to be treated well by others even when it is undeserved. But in reality it only tends to happen when the person on the giving position side thinks that by making the sacrifice in this life, they will get their reward in the next life.

how did religion ever get a foothold?

That is nothing to do with morality. It's to do with monkeys second guessing what other monkeys are thinking behind their back, and always being suspicious that whenever something happens, there is an intelligent design or an agent behind it, plotting and scheming against them.
Can't remember the word for it now, maybe someone else can help?

And would you interpret the manifesto in the OP as tit-for-tat?

Not necessarily, compassion goes a little beyond tit-for-tat, though is not incompatible with it, given that the opening position of tit-for-tat follows the golden rule. Reciprocity and justice are very much a central part of it though.

Draft Manifesto wrote:

Morality and ethics are products of our brains, part of the natural evolution of generations of living together as sentient beings. They are based on natural ideas such as compassion, reciprocity and justice.

We should seek to minimize suffering and maximize flourishing of sentient beings, and to treat ourselves and other sentient beings fairly and justly. We should challenge corruptions of natural morality and ethics, that are based on supernatural dogmas.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

Everyone would like to be treated well by others even when it is undeserved. But in reality it only tends to happen when the person on the giving position side thinks that by making the sacrifice in this life, they will get their reward in the next life.

That is nothing to do with morality. It's to do with monkeys second guessing what other monkeys are thinking behind their back, and always being suspicious that whenever something happens, there is an intelligent design or an agent behind it, plotting and scheming against them.
Can't remember the word for it now, maybe someone else can help?

Not necessarily, compassion goes a little beyond tit-for-tat, though is not incompatible with it, given that the opening position of tit-for-tat follows the golden rule. Reciprocity and justice are very much a central part of it though.

I'm not sure you're right about the Golden Rule - it does seem to imply reasonably immediate reciprocation in this life - its why you'll sometimes find atheists saying they subscribe. Think Karma - the idea of just putting the good out there, not worrying too much about mechanism, but having confidence it will come back to you.
I'm not sure your accounting for religion works, either. I know its not regarded as an historical account, but I'm mindful of how Frazer in "The Golden Bough" distinguishes between magic and religion. Magic he sees as similar to science - the idea that definite rules can be invoked to acheive certain ends. Religion, on the other hand, he sees as the outcome of people noticing that magic doesn't work reliably, and concluding that the mechanics are in the hand of some being that needs to be cajoled or praised or something. I'm not saying that's right - just that it suggests to me your accounting needs to be justified.
Going back to the OP manifesto, how might the core value of a tit-for-tat morality be stated?

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure you're right about the Golden Rule - it does seem to imply reasonably immediate reciprocation in this life - its why you'll sometimes find atheists saying they subscribe. Think Karma - the idea of just putting the good out there

Karma is a nice idea, but I don't believe in it.
Suppose you rob or swindle me somehow. If I follow the golden rule, I should still treat you well (continuing to behave in the way I would like someone to treat me) Its not really reciprocation because it is always one sided. Thats my understanding of it anyway. Some people might twist it slightly and say "if I robbed you I would expect to be robbed back, therefore that is OK" but that is not the golden rule IMO.
If I follow tit-for-tat, I will rob back from you, and you would know that in advance; I am obliged to teach you a lesson. That is reciprocation. It may not sound as nice as Karma, but it is more workable.

Jellicoe

recedite wrote: »

Karma is a nice idea, but I don't believe in it.
Suppose you rob or swindle me somehow. If I follow the golden rule, I should still treat you well (continuing to behave in the way I would like someone to treat me) Its not really reciprocation because it is always one sided. Thats my understanding of it anyway. Some people might twist it slightly and say "if I robbed you I would expect to be robbed back, therefore that is OK" but that is not the golden rule IMO.
If I follow tit-for-tat, I will rob back from you, and you would know that in advance; I am obliged to teach you a lesson. That is reciprocation. It may not sound as nice as Karma, but it is more workable.

Indeed and much more in line with evolution, i.e. survival of the fittest.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

Karma is a nice idea, but I don't believe in it.

And I'm not suggesting you should - I'm simply pointing out that many people don't connect it to reward in the afterlife.

recedite wrote: »

If I follow tit-for-tat, I will rob back from you, and you would know that in advance; I am obliged to teach you a lesson. That is reciprocation. It may not sound as nice as Karma, but it is more workable.

Grand; what I'm trying to edge towards, though, is how that would be phrased if we were using it as a basis for an ethical manifesto, as in some similar exercise to the OP.

Would it be "We agree that everyone should initially avoid causing offence to others, and subsequently reciprocate whatever treatment they receive from other people in return. If someone treats you well, you should treat them well in exact proportion. If someone is neutral towards you, you should treat them neutrally. If someone does you wrong, you should return the wrong in equal measure.

You must never ignore treatment you receive, by either failing to return a favour or failing to extract proportionate revenge for a wrong."

Would that be it? Is that what Michael should have at the centre of his atheist manifesto? (Feel free to offer an amended, or completely different, wording to the one I've put down.)

Lucy8080

lol @ i guess.

It might sound a bit "flowery" but, i wonder will Michael admit that members of atheist Ireland are not automatically ,by default, full of reason and logic....despite the claims of promoting reason and logic.

Maybe they will sanction themselves and lead the way for religions and other organisations to be honest about the difference between their claims and the reality of what we observe.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

wonder will Michael admit that members of atheist Ireland are not automatically ,by default, full of reason and logic....despite the claims of promoting reason and logic.

And I promote sailing from time to time, but I'm not full of sailing boats.

Lucy -- do you have anything positive to contribute to this or any other discussion? I'm asking, since your posts -- where they're not trying to take a slice off Michael Nugent -- are almost uniformly incoherent.

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

"We agree that everyone should initially avoid causing offence to others treat others well, ie as they would like to be treated themselves, and subsequently reciprocate whatever treatment they receive from other people in return. If someone treats you well, you should treat them well in exact proportion. If someone is neutral towards you, you should treat them neutrally. If someone does you wrong, you should withdraw co-operation or return the wrong in equal measure. If they repent and change their policy towards you, you should forgive and immediately re-instate the co-operation for mutual benefit.

You must should never ignore treatment you receive, by either failing to return a favour or failing to extract proportionate revenge for continuing to co-operate after a wrong."

Not bad, but I have replaced a few bits with my own underlined versions.

"Offence" is not usually something that is given, it is something that is taken. So "the right to be offended" does not exist, but at the same time incitement to hatred is something to be avoided. Which leads onto another important principle; One mans freedom extends only until it impinges on another's.

And then there is the one about minimising unnecessary suffering to sentient beings.

"Revenge" is not usually something constructive, although at times it could be a good deterrent and punishment. When I mentioned "robbing stuff back" it can be considered as "a lien" in legal terms, not a revenge.

As for what Michael would have at the centre of his manifesto, you'll have to ask him. He's not a shepherd, but he apparently has ideas to be a cat herder.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

As for what Michael would have at the centre of his manifesto, you'll have to ask him. He's not a shepherd, but he apparently has ideas to be a cat herder.

And, to be clear, I wasn't at all expecting you to lay it on the line to him - whatever he wants to put in his manifesto is fine.

I just thought it would be a useful exercise to try to set out how that might read.

recedite wrote: »

One mans freedom extends only until it impinges on another's.

Is this enough of a statement? If one person's freedom impinges on another, do they each just stop dead? Surely there needs to be something to suggest how such conflicts are resolved - your freedom ends here, but xyz social obligation takes over to guide ye both to a save landing.

If I was being Biblical, I'd be thinking of Solomon and the baby, and Joseph Heller's speculation in "God Knows" that Solomon was serious about cutting the kid in half. "He was trying to be fair, not shrewd".

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If one person's freedom impinges on another, do they each just stop dead? Surely there needs to be something to suggest how such conflicts are resolved -

No, we are talking about a set of ethical guiding principles here, not a set of rules and regulations.
If we were doing the latter, we'd need a special random one to promote cohesion of the group. Like having a particular haircut, maybe a mullet or something, or we cut off our foreskins (those that have them), or maybe a rule that we only eat pork every friday.

Lucy8080

hi rob,

Michael asked for feedback. If you want it to be entirely positive, ill duck out of this thread by request.

If you want it rounded..( which ,by default, will be to michaels benefit) maybe you will stop trying to protect him .

Many get a slice taken off their character round here rob,....why is michael special?

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

maybe you will stop trying to protect him

I am not "trying to protect" Michael who is perfectly well able to look after himself. I am trying to get you to stick to the forum charter by stopping your stream of unhelpful personal comments about him. The forum charter is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

Can you please read it before you post again in A+A.

Thanks.

Bloodwing

For me I guess it's more the heading of the proposed manifesto I see an issue with. "A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism", to me anyway, makes it sound like anyone who doesn't "sign up" to this manifesto somehow lacks ethics or is unethical. For me the best thing about being an atheist is the fact that I'm not constrained by any rules or conditions of any organisation, hence why I've never signed up to any of the atheist organisations or taken part in any of their events.

Personally I don't promote atheism over theism, if others choose to believe in gods well let them be, what i would promote is equality in terms of education and legislation and the removal of religious influence on our government.

If a manifesto needs to be drawn up I'd suggest changing the heading to "A draft Manifesto for the ethical promotion of atheism". I know it's not much of a change from the proposed one but I think it changes the impression it gives significantly. I still wouldn't "sign up" to it because as I said I'm not one for promoting atheism but at least it doesn't leave the impression that I'm somehow unethical in my form of atheism. I don't see any harm in having a manifesto containing guidelines for those that choose to go out and promote atheism because the aggressive/ mocking tone that some atheists and some theists use can certainly leave people with a negative opinion of all atheists or theists.

Hotblack Desiato

Neilos wrote: »

For me I guess it's more the heading of the proposed manifesto I see an issue with. "A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism", to me anyway, makes it sound like anyone who doesn't "sign up" to this manifesto somehow lacks ethics or is unethical.

^^^^ This. A thousand times this.

recedite

Neilos wrote: »

I see an issue with. "A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism", to me anyway, makes it sound like anyone who doesn't "sign up" to this manifesto somehow lacks ethics or is unethical.

Anyone who understands atheism already knows it has no stance on ethics. People who misunderstand atheism might assume atheists lack ethics, so a few atheists becoming ethical might be seen as an "improvement".

Neilos wrote: »

If a manifesto needs to be drawn up I'd suggest changing the heading to "A draft Manifesto for the ethical promotion of atheism".

"Ethical promotion" might mean restricting the spending of the atheist advertising budget to ethical promotional companies only.