I don't think people are morally obliged to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, although I think it's true. I suppose that when I make statements that other people "should" do something, I am at least partly making a statement about how I'd like the world to be, that is, there implicit goals in what I say. If everyone's goals for the world were completely disjoint, that sort of thing wouldn't work, because the person wouldn't recognise my claim on them and there'd be no-one to help me with people who don't recognise my claim and are stronger than me. This might be the sort of world that theists are envisaging when they talk about how atheism leads to moral chaos or whatever.
But in fact the world isn't like that. People have at least some common ideas about how they want the world to be. Some of the common goals seem innate to most humans, some of them we're taught, maybe the stuff that we're taught hooks into stuff that is basic to human brains. You could ascribe this to evolution or follow C.S. Lewis and blame God.
Anyhoo, we are where we are, which is that a bunch of us are aware of stuff that seems right as distinct from stuff that we actually always want or do. If I want to make moral claims effective on you, I have to find some way of working with where you are starting from (like the evangelising vegetarian), or I have to find enough people who agree with me that it's not worth your while fighting us (or if you can't be convinced that it's not worth while, enough of us that we can win). I'm happy to use "you should/shouldn't do X" in either of those senses. I currently don't see anything else to morality, but I know not all atheists would agree.
In the case of my example, I'm not a vegetarian, because I don't take animal suffering as seriously as human suffering (ISTM that suffering is somewhat tied to self-awareness: for example, an animal probably doesn't realise it's about to die, unlike a condemned man). scribb1e is mostly veggie but has other dietary restrictions which make that tricky sometimes (e.g. if we eat in restaurants).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-11-29 02:17 am (UTC)But in fact the world isn't like that. People have at least some common ideas about how they want the world to be. Some of the common goals seem innate to most humans, some of them we're taught, maybe the stuff that we're taught hooks into stuff that is basic to human brains. You could ascribe this to evolution or follow C.S. Lewis and blame God.
Anyhoo, we are where we are, which is that a bunch of us are aware of stuff that seems right as distinct from stuff that we actually always want or do. If I want to make moral claims effective on you, I have to find some way of working with where you are starting from (like the evangelising vegetarian), or I have to find enough people who agree with me that it's not worth your while fighting us (or if you can't be convinced that it's not worth while, enough of us that we can win). I'm happy to use "you should/shouldn't do X" in either of those senses. I currently don't see anything else to morality, but I know not all atheists would agree.
In the case of my example, I'm not a vegetarian, because I don't take animal suffering as seriously as human suffering (ISTM that suffering is somewhat tied to self-awareness: for example, an animal probably doesn't realise it's about to die, unlike a condemned man).