Is Atheism Compatible with Natural Rights?

[sidestreet]

Hypothesis: The concept of morals (any morality) is due to the fact that it became useful at some point in our evolution. Same goes for religion (any faith). Both are natural, to that extent, but both must be flexible and so neither is absolute. Religion helps define the tribe and the moral code protects its individuals. Both concepts contribute to survival otherwise we wouldn’t be here to have this debate.

If you think of it like that then atheism is just another way to gather a tribe, with Dawkins and company as its would-be high priests. It’s simple, it’s exciting, it must be the one true (non-)religion with God/Science/insert your own motivator here on its side.

Supporting hypothesis: No scientific proof can exist that anyone moral code is superior to all others across all societies and over all time, nor can we prove the existence/non-existence of a suitably well abstracted god. Hence there’s an elephant in the corner, which is that is that we are products of evolution.

Is atheism incompatible with the concept of natural rights?

Absolutely not, as long as you add the rider “within the human species”.

Or is all that too rich for the blood?

 

[calculusrocks]

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

Seriously, nobody here has read Ayn Rand or has thought to mention Objectivism? Atlas Shrugged is a classic and hits on all of this and more. Here is an interview of Ayn Rand by Mike Wallace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

 

[magpies]

Joedawg says "There is nothing essentially 'bad' about the act of killing."

To me that is about as wrong as you can get... So do you care to explain a little more about what you mean joedawg? Or should I just wright you off as one of thouse people not to be alone in a dark room with.

 

[JoeDawg]

Joedawg says "There is nothing essentially 'bad' about the act of killing."

Killing is part of living.
We kill living things every day.

Germs and microbes
Plants for food
Animals for food.
Plants and animals for clothing

One of the basic acts of civilization is farming.
The first thing you do if you want to farm, is kill every living thing in the area you want to farm by ploughing. Then you plant one crop. Then you spend the rest of the growing season protecting your crop, using pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides and maybe a shotgun. Then at harvest time you kill everything you planted. And you don't even eat all of it, often you sell most of it to people who won't eat it either. Death is a commodity.

Now, that's just plants and other animals. Humans are different right? We're special.

We can legally kill in order to defend ourselves and others.
We can legally kill in times of war, whether its pure 'defense' or not.
We can legally kill human fetuses, we don't consider them fully human.
In quite a lot of places you can legally kill someone for revenge (capital punishment)
And in many places honor killings, mainly of females, are at least accepted.

The very reason we are so successful as a species, is because although we aren't the fastest or the strongest... in groups we are really good at killing. Its just natural.

Or should I just wright you off as one of thouse people not to be alone in a dark room with.

Feel free.

 

[skippy1729]

Is atheism incompatable with the concept of natural rights?

Most (or at least some) adherents to natural rights argue that human rights come from a god, or that there is an absolute morality that is the basis of natural rights. Atheists obviously do not believe in a god and most would probably not believe in an absolute morality. So how can an atheist justify the concept of natural rights?

Is there an objective moral order?

I decide that I have a right to exist. This is a subjective determination based on my instinct for survival. It is a subjective determination of a (usually) rational being. It is natural to extend this right to other (usually) rational beings provided they are not trying to kill me.

Many other (usually) rational beings come to the same subjective conclusion.

Is the right to existence now an objective moral truth for rational beings?

I think it is.

Skippy

 

[magpies]

I can't believe you would use the argument that because killing happens it isn't bad...

 

[DanP]

I can't believe you would use the argument that because killing happens it isn't bad...

Actually, from anything but an questionable ethic point of view, you can't say that homicide is a bad or a good thing. Homicide just happens. **Situations*** give the morality and ethic load.

We kill our enemy in wars (might not be moral, but my skin is 1000x more precious than his skin)

We kill convicted criminals in some legislation, we call it legal homicide, and IMO is OK to do that and pretty much moral ( I support the death penalty)

When the law wasn't omnipresent, sometimes, in rare cases, humans had to commit homicide to protect themselves. It still happens today sometimes. Is that so bad to protect your children, your women and your land ? I don't think so. It' moral.

 

[JoeDawg]

I can't believe you would use the argument that because killing happens it isn't bad...

I didn't make that argument.

I made the argument that killing is 'natural', and that there is nothing 'essentially bad' about killing.

I think killing is entirely appropriate under certain conditions, inappropriate under others, and regardless of my opinion about whether killing in general, or whether any particular killing is good or bad, killing is entirely 'natural'.

This is why the argument for 'natural rights' is problematic. Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be that way. It doesn't mean it ought not to be that way either.
You can't derive an ought from an is.

All 'rights' are given by groups to their members.
'Rights' are really just privileges that people consider important.

 

[TranquilFury]

Natural rights are those demands which you have the will to assert and the power to enforce (usually by proxy, as an organization of many will typically have more power than any of it's individual constituents.) If you lack either the will to assert, or the power to enforce a demand, but attain it anyway, that is a privilege. This is a reality in which might makes right, and any speculation on what 'ought' to be a natural right is wishful thinking. If you think something is your right, then you should be demanding it or gathering the power to enforce it.

 

[Leptos]

Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic beliefs. We have morals as a result of Evolution. Intelligent species generally exhibit innate morality which allows them to maintain a stable population. Religious texts were written by flawed humans, much like ourselves, except they had far less knowledge and understanding of the world around them than we do today.

 

[readaynrand]

Most (or at least some) adherents to natural rights argue that human rights come from a god, or that there is an absolute morality that is the basis of natural rights. Atheists obviously do not believe in a god and most would probably not believe in an absolute morality. So how can an atheist justify the concept of natural rights?

"We have rights because God says so" is a ridiculously bad argument.

I'm an atheist, and I do believe in absolute morality. Morality is a product of evolution, its purpose is to motivate us to act in accordance with our long term interests. Therefore, egoism is the foundation of morality.

 

[DaveC426913]

"We have rights because God says so" is a ridiculously bad argument.

Well, maybe things have changed in the year since that was written...

I'm an atheist, and I do believe in absolute morality. Morality is a product of evolution, its purpose is to motivate us to act in accordance with our long term interests. Therefore, egoism is the foundation of morality.

If that were its purpose, it would not manifest in the way it does. Evolutionarily, anyone who does not carry your genes is an enemy, competing with you for resources.

As civilized people, we choose to behave compassionately toward people that we know cannot possibly carry our genes. (And not just people but animals too might be part of one's moral code). We make a leap from "our gene pool" as our family to "the human race" as our family, (or even "all higher life"). But there's no evolutionary basis for being moral to the entire human race or higher life.

 

[apeiron]

Evolutionarily, anyone who does not carry your genes is an enemy, competing with you for resources.

This is not a biologically accurate statement. Darwinian fitness does involve a balance of competition and co-operation. And so it is no surprise to find that even at the level of the evolved human brain, there are broad instincts towards both paths, and the machinery to negotiate between them. So humans biologically are just as much about oxytocin as testosterone, for instance.

Human civilised behaviour - as a new level of language-based sociocultural evolution - still reflects this same basic competition~co-operation dynamic. So yes, there is a new level of the fitness game being played, but the basic logic remains the same. Success is defined holistically and is a fruitful balance of the two contrasting drives of competing and working together.

Science (the sciences of neurobiology and cultural anthropology) allow us to say morality does indeed have a natural basis. It is neither god-given, nor just a meaningless choice. There are strong systems principles by which morality can be modeled, explained and measured.

It was a nice surprise that a thinker like Elinor Ostrom - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom - won the 2009 Nobel for economics for taking a systems view of these kinds of things.

 

[DanP]

Well, maybe things have changed in the year since that was written...

As civilized people, we choose to behave compassionately toward people that we know cannot possibly carry our genes.

This type of altruism (non-reciprocal) towards nonkin may be just a form of Zahavian Handicap. Nothing more than showing off, engaging in resource costly behaviors to display your status and power.

But there's no evolutionary basis for being moral to the entire human race or higher life.

No, probably no. Some say that there is a basis for morality in evolution, but so far none has been able to produce any proof.

And our moral sense are too different from place to place. Morale is also clouded very easily by self-righteousness , gaps between convictions and justifications, and perception biases. Some actions also shifts in and out of the morally accepted behaviors in time.

Check this:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1909-39-muhammad-39-teddy-teacher-arrested

Surely, today, us westerners, won't give 40 lashes to a teacher who allow her class to name a bear Jesus. The ppl in the story certainly feel very comfortable to doit.

Does that makes us any better than them? I doubt so. Several hundred years ago, we , westerners, would have take a teacher and burn him at stake and feel very moral with the deed.

For all I know, in 100 years we may doit again, while the morals of the ppl who today lash ppl in name of gods may change.

 

[DaveC426913]

This type of altruism (non-reciprocal) towards nonkin may be just a form of Zahavian Handicap. Nothing more than showing off, engaging in resource costly behaviors to display your status and power.

Which might be true if it were the high-status and most powerful who were behaving compassionately. But it seems that this 'live and let live' and 'all creatures great and small' attitude transcends status levels. Often it is the poorest who are compassionate.

 

[DanP]

Which might be true if it were the high-status and most powerful who were behaving compassionately. But it seems that this 'live and let live' and 'all creatures great and small' attitude transcends status levels. Often it is the poorest who are compassionate.

Compassion doesn't equate self sacrifice. It's not enough to be "compassionate", it has to be a hit in resources. The poorest, more often than not, have nothing to give, nothing to loose.

Besides, we would have to quantify statistically from where the most resources come for helping the persons in need. My guess is that the significant fraction comes from persons in power and of significant status.

Live and let live is not a form of altruism. It's at most neutrality, don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

 

[apeiron]

Some say that there is a basis for morality in evolution, but so far none has been able to produce any proof.

Or perhaps it is a complex question with plenty of evidence which you have not been following particularly closely.

For instance, there is clear evidence for a neural basis to variations in behaviour.

What makes people act with kindness to a stranger they never expect to meet again? Why are some people more generous than others? Neuroeconomist Paul J. Zak of Claremont Graduate University has new research connecting oxytocin to trust and generosity.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107074321.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

Live and let live is not a form of altruism. It's at most neutrality, don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

In an world where it is easy to see everyone around you as threats and chase them away just on principle, LaLL would be much more than neutral; it would be an active attempt to push back to achieve some compassion.

 

[DanP]

For instance, there is clear evidence for a neural basis to variations in behaviour.

Yes. There is. Evolutionary psychologists got it right. Die hard social psychologists are wrong IMO, assigning too much in society and seeking too few in individual. (for the record, so is a die hard evolutionary psych)

Even explanations for altruism can be fit nicely in a evolutionary context. Behavioral endocrinology is taught at a lot of universities. Oxytocin might make a being more generous, testosterone may fuel status seeking behaviors and whatever else. It doesn't mean either of those make you "moral" or "immoral".

There is no proof that "morality" , whatever can be understand by that, for behaviors shift a lot in and out of what is considered "moral" at a place in space and time, is evolved.

I believe that our evolved behaviors are amoral, in the sense that social identity absent, they carry no moral load. It is IMO social constructs like the state organization, inter group commercial trade, law enforcement and military which make this world safer today then it was in the past. Not an evolved morality.

I believe this quote can be assigned to Robert Wright, and it is IMO pretty relevant to our evolved nature

“One of the reasons I don't want to bomb the Japanese is that they built my minivan.”

We kill each other with the same natural grace we are able to exhibit when cooperating with each other.

 

[DanP]

In an world where it is easy to see everyone around you as threats and chase them away just on principle, LaLL would be much more than neutral; it would be an active attempt to push back to achieve some compassion.

Hence a form of aggression ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Hence a form of aggression ?

Is this an attempt to be clever?

 

[apeiron]

Yes. There is. Evolutionary psychologists got it right. Die hard social psychologists are wrong IMO, assigning too much in society and seeking too few in individual. (for the record, so is a die hard evolutionary psych)

Without citations, it is impossible to know what you are talking about. This comment covers a few thousand authors.

There is no proof that "morality" , whatever can be understand by that, for behaviors shift a lot in and out of what is considered "moral" at a place in space and time, is evolved.

That is not something you have been able to substantiate.

My argument here is that moral behaviour = evolutionarily fit behaviour. And fit behaviour is about individuals striking a dynamic balance between locally competitive and globally co-operative actions. That is why social animals have large brains - to make complex and deep choices that weigh these two equally necessary drives. Then furthermore, humans have both a sociocultural and biological legacy of evolution. So the same pursuit of balance/fitness spread across two levels of mechanism (genetic and memetic your friend Dawkins would call it).

So it is a fairly detailed position I take. I'm not getting much sense of complexity or nuance in anything you've been saying so far.

I believe that our evolved behaviors are amoral, in the sense that social identity absent, they carry no moral load. It is IMO social constructs like the state organization, inter group commercial trade, law enforcement and military which make this world safer today then it was in the past. Not an evolved morality.

If you don't believe that socially constructed behaviour is subject to standard evolutionary fitness constraints then perhaps you've never studied cultural anthropology?

 

[DanP]

That is not something you have been able to substantiate.

Substantiate what ? My claim that moral behavior is not evolved ? There is no proof so far it is evolved. Only empty speech. Thats substance enough.

If you are aware of any proof that moral behavior is evolved, please present it, I would be interested to see it.

Please do not present more articles which link hormones to behaviors, we all know that's true, but it has 0 to do with "morale".

Works like "The moral life of babies" are interesting, however far far away from being conclusive in any way. If anything, they show a drive toward cooperation, but cooperative behavior is not moral. Its amoral.

Then furthermore, humans have both a sociocultural and biological legacy of evolution. So the same pursuit of balance/fitness spread across two levels of mechanism (genetic and memetic your friend Dawkins would call it).

Same Dawkins who said this:

Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.

If you don't believe that socially constructed behaviour is subject to standard evolutionary fitness constraints then perhaps you've never studied cultural anthropology?

It's not that. It is clear that societies evolve, that they have a sociocultural evolution. But 0 of this information is transmitted genetically in humans. A newborn knows 0 about how morale changed in a certain society during the last 2000 years. He will learn , by social interaction, in the next years. He is born amoral. The Darwinian evolution didn't gave him any morale. Furthermore, he will get the morals of the place where he is raised. Raise him with Taliban and will get their morale, raise it in USA and will get westerners morale. Our biology carries no morale. Our social identity does.

 

[apeiron]

Please do not present more articles which link hormones to behaviors, we all know that's true, but it has 0 to do with "morale".

Morale? Or morals?

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for an evolutionary basis to striking a competitive~co-operative balance in human behaviour. both at a neurobiological level and a sociocultural one.

If you are making the unscientific presumption that human behaviour is not natural, not the result of selection, then perhaps you ought to supply examples of human behaviour which is not that of a highly social animal.

 

[DanP]

Morale? Or morals?

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for an evolutionary basis to striking a competitive~co-operative balance in human behaviour. both at a neurobiological level and a sociocultural one.

If you are making the unscientific presumption that human behaviour is not natural, not the result of selection, then perhaps you ought to supply examples of human behaviour which is not that of a highly social animal.

You are repeating yourself. Competitive - cooperative behaviors carry no moral load. I am asking for evidence regarding your claim that neurobiology allows you to explain a natural basis for moral behavior. You claim plenty of evidence. Please do present it.
.

 

[apeiron]

You are repeating yourself. Competitive - cooperative behaviors carry no moral load. I am asking for evidence regarding your claim that neurobiology allows you to explain a natural basis for moral behavior. You claim plenty of evidence. Please do present it.
.

I've already presented the oxytocin example as a data point. Now you explain by what concept of morality this is irrelevant.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Morale? Or morals?

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for an evolutionary basis to striking a competitive~co-operative balance in human behaviour. both at a neurobiological level and a sociocultural one.

If you are making the unscientific presumption that human behaviour is not natural, not the result of selection, then perhaps you ought to supply examples of human behaviour which is not that of a highly social animal.

Doesnt human behvaior and morality change and "evolve" must faster than biological evolution? The morals of humanity "evolve" and mutate at a much quicker rate. There are moral acts from even 200 years ago that would make a modern person puke his guts out, where a person of that time would not even flinch. Is there a similar scenario in the animal kingdom? So which is the natural morality? Even if one was the natural morality, it could be supersceded.

 

[apeiron]

Doesnt human behvaior and morality change and "evolve" must faster than biological evolution?

My argument is precisely that morals do evolve - both at a slow biological rate, and at a fast sociocultural rate.

Of course, I wouldn't use the word "morals" normally as it is such a culturally-loaded notion. But the evolved basis of all human behaviour, no matter how varied, is usually easy to see.

All human behaviour will be judged in the long run for its functionality. Individuals might feel they are making arbitrary choices, but individuals usually have a poor appreciation of global systems constraints.

 

[DanP]

I've already presented the oxytocin example as a data point. Now you explain by what concept of morality this is irrelevant.

You are repeating yourself again. This example does not do anything to support your idea of natural morality. It doesn't consist proof of anything. Yeah, oxytocin may make you more generous. Some researchers claim that it also inlcreases envy and gloating:

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(09)00762-8/abstract

Ppl also forget that oxytocins main role is in the female reproduction and probably most effects not directly linked to reproduction are there to support parent offspring bonding and similar effects.

It's making way more sense than to believe this , then to postulate some almost magical innate moral sense supported by oxytocin.

But it doesn't really matter.

Because you try to look at 1 neurotransmitter from the hundreds of signaling molecules used in a human, which is a mistake, one should never forget it;s a ensemble, and based on this you claim "ample evidence" in neurobiology linking morale to biology.

It is not. Perhapes you should try now to find some evidence which can support your claims in the earnest ? Please, once again, no more links to oxytocin articles in newspapers.

 

[DanP]

My argument is precisely that morals do evolve - both at a slow biological rate, and at a fast sociocultural rate.

To claim this, you must first present evidence of any link whatsoever between morality and biology. A link which is not proven in any way whatsoever so far by science.