How do *some* atheists define their morality

Debate Room
41

Interesting question

As is sometimes the case, I’m probably out of step on this issue:

IE :

There are no such things as innate human rights. So called human rights can and have been removed or ignored at the whim of governments. The rest of the world does bugger all.

Australia is in breach of Human Rights Conventions we have signed because of our bipartisan policy on refugees. We have also been criticised by Amnesty International on the same matter. My government has simply ignored any criticism and continued with the policy . That seems to be the common response by governments criticised for human rights violations

The US interned thousands of Japanese American citizens during WW2.

More recently The US has made it possible to ignore the right of habeas corpus for Americans and non American Citizens with The Patriot Act . It established Guantanamo Bay prison to hold suspected terrorists, without charge .

The US also practiced ‘rendition’, where a terrorist suspect would be sent to a country les squeamish about torture, such as Egypt.

On one occasion, an Australian called David Hicks (from Adelaide actually) was kidnapped by the US from a foreign country and taken to Guantanamo Bay. He was held there and questioned for 3 years, without charge. He was returned to Oz when it finally sank in that the bloke was just gormless and rather stupid.

I’m sure there are many more examples, in may countries. My point is that most of not all governments will ignore any so called human right son political expedience.

------the US did not invade Iraq because Hussein Hassam was wiping out the Kurds with poison gas, but because he allegedly had weapons mass destruction., Mainly though to protect US oil interests.

I can’t think of a war waged on moral principle, or to protect human rights…

I won’t even start on the catastrophe which has been the Donald Trump Presidency

42

There should be, and they should be very simple and all negative.
You have the right not to be murdered.
You have the right not to have your property stolen.
And so on.

And of course, all countries would have to agree to defend those rights, and to intervene in countries that violate those rights. (We all know who they are!)

The French government violated the rights of Fernando Pereira by killing him when they bombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland. They gave a medal to the murderer, Alain Mafart. So much for human rights in France. And France is one of the better ones!

43

LOL… Should in one hand and shit in the other… See which one fills up faster. All a human right is, is this imaginary virtue thing that people who have too much food and too much time on their hands imagine other people should have. I agree that the idea of a human right is a pleasant fantasy and that in a civilized world it would be great if something like that actually existed. It would be a bit like and atheist heaven.

44

I agree with the failings of calling something a “right” - yet, recognizing these ideas do move societies in the right direction. It may take generations but they get established and refined. Just recognizing food as a basic human need that everyone should have access to has moved us to reduce extreme poverty from 3 billion to 650 million in 30 years.

Equality gets recognized as a “right” - yet the basic concept of equal value between sexes, races, sexual preferences or identity, etc moves us towards acceptance (and hopefully to the point of an “I don’t give a fuck” attitude).

Sigh :pensive: we have come so far…little by little I hope humanity moves further towards the humane.

It does often (as with almost all things) require a societal agreement. And governments are responsible for deaths of their citizens and failing societal trust.

45

Some people have suggested the Christmas invasion of Cambodia to expel the Communist Party of Kampuchea. But for me it is a bridge too far; I can’t think of one either.

46

IMO:

A cornerstone of civilization is the mass production of food. By mass production, I mean enough food is being produced so that some members of the civilization don’t have to dedicate their lives to finding food (typically because others are growing it in abundance).

However, if you find that the food is being produced, but there are people who still aren’t getting it; then I would suggest that distribution of food is not a priority in the civilization. Strangely; a civilization like that seems to have prioritized its own destruction, instead of its own stability.

Not claiming this is fact, just something to think about.

1 Like
47

Rights are granted by the state.

48

Yair.

Imo our capitalist society makes equitable food distribution impossible. Not to worry, this too shall pass, along with all other human inventions. Hopefully not in my lifetime because I’m a happy little capitalist thank you very much.

I’ve often wondered just how much armchair socialists would be willing to give up so that those starving to death could have enough not to. What would be fair? 10% (Christian tithing) 20%, 50% ? Just how equal should equal be?

Compared with a basic working person in my country today, I was deprived growing up in 1950’s Australia. (Our first fridge in 1953, CRT TV 1960, first car 1962) Dad was an executive with BP. Four kids at parochial schools, mum did not work for wages.

At 16, I read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath”. The setting is great depression America. The author claimed that during the depression that America dumped tons of oranges and thousands of pig carcasses at sea, to keep prices up. I had no reason to doubt the claim ,and was appalled.

Mohandas Gandhi wrote “there is enough on earth for every man’s needs, but not for every man’s greed”

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Trivia. "The Grapes Of Wrath " was one of very few books by American authors allowed in the USSR for decades. People were told the book gave an accurate description of life in the US for decades after the depression. I guess it has always been true enough in parts of the US for far too many.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))

Off Topic: While I was writing this, I had a phishing phone call: An ominous-sounding voice said ''ATTENTION. THIS IS THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT-----" I hung up that stage. I do not take calls unless they ask for me by name.

49

Hmm, you could be describing Stalin Mao or Hitler? I think morality is not bound by logic, I’m not even sure it should be.

The basis of my SUBJECTIVE moral worldview is that I should try to prevent and avoid causing, any unnecessary suffering, and that all humans are treated equally at least as far as this is concerned. And to a lesser extent all conscious animals.

It seems as good a starting point as any to me.

1 Like
50

Were Stalin and Mao atheists? In a sense, yes. And yes, they did horrible things. But their none of their despicable acts were driven by atheism, whereas many other rulers did use religion to murder millions.

1 Like
51

As far as I know yes.

The claim that dictators were responsible fort crimes as atheists is of course nonsense.

One more time for apologists: Atheism is only a disbelief in god(s) nothing else is implied or may be inferrred

Even IF such claims by Christians were true, they are Tu quoque and may be simply dismissed .

As I believe they say in Kentucky “that dog won’t hunt”

52

Never is the question asked…were they humanists?

53

I’ve actually run across several christians who counter claims of religious atrocities with something like “Oh Yeah, well what about the atheist atrocities by Stalin and Mao?” ( incidentally Tu quoque)

Stalin decreed a philosophical position of dialectical materialism. He also seems to have suffered from a paranoid personality disorder, at the very least.

Don’t know abut Mao or Hitler. They seem to me to have been opportunistic hedonists, with the odd psychosis thrown in.

Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia.

54

That PPD sounds like the conspiracy group that are “gang stalked”. I feel a bit more compassion for them…BUT they refuse therapy BECAUSE the fucking therapists and medical establishment is “in on it”…

1 Like
55

I think Hitler was an idealist. I think he felt betrayed by the German government (especially after WW1) and sought to empower the average person. He was vulnerable to those more savvy with more notorious agendas (a useful idiot who was influential and charming).

That’s the beginning…perhaps the first steps towards the ideological dream turned nightmare.

That whole nation were meth addicts under him… (well not everyone but jesus Fuckin’Christ- close to everyone really fucking was)…

56

First time I’ve heard him described that way. Could have been initially I guess, with the sensitive soul of an artist.

His feeling of betrayal was very common in Germany after WW1, especially among veterans. That paranoia was not helped by the vindictive Treaty Of Versailles. Nor by US banks repatriating its gold held in Germany. That was a significant cause of the hyper inflation and depression which did not end until the beginning of WW2.

Not sure how idealistic he was when he personally murdered people on “The Night Of The Long Knives” (June 20-July 2 1934)

Nor when he had SS Einsatzgruppen mobile murder units who shot a range people in soviet territory. The total was around 1.5million people, over one million of whom were Jews. (1939-1941

57

Lol … to be clear cranks - far from empathizing with the man. The beginning. His initial motivations to politics.

He was a conspiracy nut :peanuts: or lead/convinced of those ideas :bulb:.

A nationalist. A protectionist.

1 Like
58

Also…a huge turning point in history was (somewhat) acknowledging the destructive aftermaths with heavy hand :raised_hand_with_fingers_splayed:… Steps forward (UN after the failed League of Nations) - however, it was common after wars for the “guilty” nation/s to pay :moneybag: …it was suppose to act as a deterrent.

Today, heavy hand :raised_hand_with_fingers_splayed: still exists. Different in some areas BUT there. Not judging it as “good or bad”.

59

He was certainly that, writ very large. “Germany over all” meant literally everyone.

1 Like
60

@electroncapture001

The attached article is from Psychology Today. Any morality that depends upon belief in a God is inherently unsound. God is a delusion.