Why are so many atheists anti-realists or relativists?

Its always struck me as odd that "standard" atheists (the ones who reach atheism through elementary [if not particularly advanced] reasoning, in contrast to the ones with a higher degree of philosophical sophistication) are usually token anti-realists or relativists about morality (they often conflate these two positions). By token anti-realists I mean that they've reached anti-realism through some sort of ill-conceived "scientific" reasoning that doesn't make much sense to philosophers (including atheists, and including anti-realists!)

Why is this the case? Its quite the odd sociological phenomenon.

My basic guess is that morality doesn't seem "sciency" enough for them so they just adopt anti-realism without giving it much serious thought or analysis... but I was wondering what ya'll thought.

The other argument that I see some token anti-realists advance is something like:

1) Moral Realism can only be a true theory if God exists.
2) God doesn't exist.
3) Therefore Moral Realism is not a true theory.

This argument is funny since even theologically sophisticated Christians reject 1).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Umm................................................... WTF?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's that, assuming that there is an objective basis for morality (be it God or some other objective basis), then one cannot objectively prove that that basis exists. If one cannot objectively prove the existence of that basis, then one cannot prove what the objectively true moral rules are and, in that case, no one can objectively asset that his or her moral system is superior to any other.

One can make certain appeals (like appeals to popularity, appeals to emotion, and the like), but nothing that could ever conclusively establish one set of moral rules as being closer to the objective truth.

In such a world--the one we live in--morality may or may not be objectively true, but the truth or falsity (or whether there is any such thing as a truth or falsity) of a given moral system is utterly unknowable. In the face of that, anyone who believes they "know" the moral truth is irrational. One may "believe" one's morality is correct, but one believes it on faith, and should, if rational, acknowledge some doubt or possibility of being incorrect, even wildly incorrect.

In such a world taking a position that amounts to moral absolutism regarding particular conduct is to assert merely a subjective opinion, even if it so happens one's opinion does agree with the unknowable morally objective truth. It's like sealing a coin in a unbreakable box, shaking the box, announcing that that unseen coin came up "tails" and then asserting that anyone who disagrees is a bad human being.

Moral relativism is one way to acknowledge a fundamental truth of the situation...that we don't know what is or is not moral in any objective sense, and condemning people for "immoral" conduct is therefore fraught with potential errors. That is not to say "anything goes," however, since moral relativists are not moral nihilists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sort - of a complicated way of saying that morals don't come to us from a "god" but have been arrived at by consensus.

I suspect morals are based on our being a social animal that needs to get along with others of our own species so we developed patterns of behavior to do that, like any other social organism.

 

Surely, stealing, murdering, lying, dishonoring, and cheating didn't go over very well in the tribes of old.

 

This is odd reasoning, to say the least.

First of all, you have not given any argument for the claim in the first sentence. What I suspect is that your notion of what it means to prove something is wildly unlike what scientists and philosophers mean when they say that something has been proven. If you are going to use an extremely stringent and heterodox notion of "proof", you need to provide an argument as to why we should accept that notion.

Second, even if this line of reasoning were true, it provides no evidence for anti-realism or for relativism.

No it isn't. Moral relativism is essentially inconsistent with the view you've expressed.

This view is not consistent with the view expressed by Pandaemoni. Also, what evidence is the evidence that this is true?

Giving an account of why our moral reasoning and status as moral animals evolved is not the same thing as ascertaining the basis for morality. By analogy, we surely developed vision for reasons of evolutionary advantage, but that doesn't mean that anti-realism or relativism about the deliverances of vision is true! To say so would require a retreat to the usual untenable absolute certainty criterion on knowledge, which is a widely rejected criterion since it forces global skepticism.

 

I should have said "within a tribe".

 

It is almost impossible for me to prove the non-existence of an objective basis for morality. All I can say is that, if there is an objective basis for it, it has never to my knowledge been demonstrated. If it had been, then it would be universally hailed as a philosophical triumph. Instead we see various bases for morality posited, and a great deal of argument about which is right, which is wrong and what aspects of which basis might survive despite the overall construct being wrong.

If an objective basis does exist, then it would be easier for you to demonstrate that, than it would be more me to prove there in no such basis at all.

Science never "proves" anything. Science consists of models of reality that are (one hopes) consistent with nature and useful in making predictions. Those models are always subject to revision when new data does not comport with the model. No matter how certain a model may be, no matter how long it has served, an error in it could always arise with the next observation of reality.

Philosophers can rely on such a regime of falsifiability, but they can also rely on logical proofs in many areas, which science never can. Logical proofs are absolute, and not limited to mere falsification.

You are right that it's worth discussing what I mean by proof, but what I meant was "evidence or argument that removes the proposition from any debate amongst impartial persons of sound mind."

In fact there has been vigorous debate on the origin of morality for millennia, and reasonable men and women can reach no consensus on what it's basis is.

I agree. That was not my point. One can be an reasonable, intelligent and well educated anti-realist in my view and still be wrong. The point is that there is no way to demonstrate that such a person is wrong. You may believe such persons are wrong, but you cannot know that that is so, since there is no objective argument that clearly establishes that.

I think from what you have written, you misunderstand my position. As an analogy, take an objective fact, say "2+2=4," and suppose hypothetically that no one on Earth had the logical capacity to demonstrate that 2+2=4. The statement is objectively true, based on logic, but that logic is unavailable to humanity in this hypothetical.

Suppose I believe that 2+2=7 and you believe that 2+2=2. We are both wrong, but each of us believes himself to be correct and the other wrong. Suppose our common friend, Phil, comes along and he believes that 2+2=4. He is right, but we would both believe his answer is wrong.

Since, by supposition, we cannot prove any of the three propositions (2+2=2, 2+2=4 or 2+2=7) absolutely true or false, it makes perfect sense that we would adopt a live and let live attitude on the question, where we each accept that the different understanding of the 2+2 question is not objectively provable, and therefore that our colleagues are just as justified in their beliefs on it as we are ourselves.

It's an acknowledgment that, while there may be an objectively true answer, that there is no objective way to demonstrate that answer's truth to others.

To take another example, there may be one and only one objectively correct way to eat a hard-boiled egg...starting from the big end, or starting from the small end. For example, God may well have declared only one way to be correct when He created the universe and thereby made it objectively so (if your religion posits that God is the arbiter of right and wrong in all things). Still, whatever the truth of the matter, the war over the question didn't serve Lilliput and Blefuscu well.

 

"Murder" within a tribe often is acceptable, if by "murder" you mean killing other than in self-defense. In Viking and Teutonic culture, killing a fellow tribesman over matters of honor was often a sign of prowess and lauded. In medieval Europe duels to the death were fought over differences of opinion as trivial as whether or not Dante was a better poet than Ariosto. At one point the Pope had to ban duels because in some places as many as 25% of young noblemen were being killed in them.

In Roman times the head of household ("pater familias") has the absolute right to kill, maim, exile or sell into slavery any member of his household...wife, children (even after they were married), slaves, in-laws under his charge, etc. No reason or justification needed to be given and no great social opprobrium seems to have hung on the exercise until the Christians showed up.

(There was some social opprobrium if you killed household members without reason, but it was in the nature of "he's such a hot head," or "he should drink less," and not "he's a monster!!" There was also one limitation on it, in that if you tried to sell a son into slavery three times, and each time no one would buy him, then the son was free from the pater familias's authority, but no longer a part of the family.)

 

Yes, I agree, and perhaps other murders were to get rid of some of the members who were unreliable and/or having all the other bad qualities, but, yes, customs and traditions differ.


How about this?

EMPATHY EXPLAINED, AND MORE

Why do we not eat all the scarce food, feeling the other’s hunger? Why are moods contagious? Why do we feel the wish to dance when we see another doing so? Why do I feel your pain when you cut your finger? Why might I get an itch when you scratch yours? How are you “out there” felt “in here”? How do your acts become mine, and my acts become yours? Mirror neurons!

Using very thin electrodes, experimenters measured the activity of a single neuron of the premotor cortex in a monkey grasping a peanut. Amazingly, a bit later, an experimenter grasped a peanut—and the same monkey neuron activated merely by watching. This was the beginning of explaining vicarious feelings—the mirroring of others’ behaviors. It seems that free will is not so impregnable; each time I witness your movements, you permeate my stronghold.

It extends to sounds, sensations, and emotions, as well, and so we can feel all of those inside of us, as if we were in another’s shoes. These brain circuits blur the bright line between your experiences and mine. Without these mirror neurons there could have been no learning; but, it goes beyond that and onto intuitive altruism. In many places in the world, people tend to share the wealth. Of course, sometimes, our desire for benefits might outweigh our empathy.

In the military, the general is at a distance that separates him or her from the suffering that their armies cause. The same for weapons that kill at a distance—empathy can then be bypassed in the service of efficiency. Otherwise, it is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Each time we see an action, our mirror neurons mimic and transform this sight into the motor commands necessary to replicate the action; however, a neural gate blocks the immediate output of our motor areas. Behind this gate, we can covertly share the actions of people around us. We feel them, and they thus become a part of our extended self. The brain is ethical by design. It was advantageous to know another’s needs.

 

You've got it backwards - you can't have "war" without "civilization," and you can't have "civilization" without "religion" to provide a rational for the organization. Absent that stuff, there is insufficient organizational capability to sustain war - what you get is chaos. War is an organized conflict between competing polities (each with a religion-enabled state organization). War is not some abberation away from the proper purpose of civilization/religion - it is exactly the expression of such. The ability to wage war is the primary competitive benefit of religion/statehood - it's why that mode of organization thrives at the expense of set-ups that lack such capabilities. If "morality" is simply a catch-all for whatever set of norms lead to a given pack-society thriving, then war is among the highest aspects of "morality." At least, when said pack-society wins the war.

You seem to be using "war" where you mean "internal social breakdown." These are entirely different things - a society whose state/religion do not remain coherent is one that cannot wage war in the first place. It's only when all those cavemen are kept in line by the pack-social organization that said polity can actually behave as a pack and destroy competing packs (i.e, "war").

The short breeding cycle is important, but I'd hazard that the fact of having said breeding supervised by humans with the express intent of creating more sociable animals is at least as important. Wolves remain wolves, after all, despite all the generations of breeding, and feral dogs revert to such a state within a few generations.

Pack-social species have every bit as much reason to be hostile to others of their own species: they compete for food and resources with them just as much as anyone else.

It's only members of one's own pack/society that one has reduced reason for hostility towards. And the flip-side of that is increased reason for hostility towards non-members (particularly of one's own species). Wolves are as merciless towards members of other packs as they are loyal towards their own.

 

My thoughts exactly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Uh, no. Organized civilization is not predicated on religion.

 

Name one state-level-or-higher civilization that lacks such an enabling religion.

 

Having is not the same as being required.

If you are going to claim it you have to prove it.

 

It's a circumstantial argument, to be sure, but given the length and breadth of human development, we'd expect to see some counter-examples somewhere if such a requirement is not, in fact, salient. No?

Or are you just making some irrelevant argument about what could theoretically happen, with no reference to actual history?

You're the one in need of support here - you have a bald assertion, backed with zero evidence. Not even a single example, as I requested. And you admit above that all available evidence agrees with my assertion - so there seems to be no lack of "proof," on my end.

Again: come up with a single counterexample, and I'll address it. If you cannot or will not come up with anything to support your position, then you should drop it. Attempting to hector me by pretending that I'm the one arguing from thin air here is infantile.

 

Sorry Charlie, no tuna for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which is not quite the same thing as what moral-realists claim, which is what I was addressing. I agree that a tendency to conform to rules established within our group is hardwired into us...I disagree that the content of those rules is established biologically which is a part of the claim moral-realists make (or rather they claim the content of the rules is established in some fashion that makes some of them "objectively" true). While there can be gray areas whether the truth cannot be discerned, moral realists believe certain moral statements like "slavery is unjust" can be universally true or universally false.

In the brain, clearly, we have on average a propensity for adapting to the group social norms, including (but not limited to) what we would call the "ethics" of that group. We often come to believe those rules deeply, and can feel greatly repulsed, aggrieved or disturbed when we see them violated. That could be true when you or I see a person held in bondage, or when the British saw the practice of Sati in India, but it's also as true when many westerners see foreigners eating insects as parts of their diet or when people from conservative communities see a topless beach.

Truth is, though, if you took an infant from a mainstream American Baptist family, and placed him or her in a family in ancient Rome, the child would grow to adopt the Roman norms and customs, because that would be his or her social group. Slavery would be considered normal...having sex with the slaves in full view of your wife would not be considered terribly strange, that your father could legally kill you if he wanted would not be viewed as necessarily horrifying.

There is a set of all possible systems of social norms. Some of those systems, if widely followed within a group, will lead to an orderly society, other systems are possible, but would lead to a breakdown of society. Our brains are wired to adopt the norms we see practiced around us, and possibly those from the subset that lead to orderly societies (though it's just as likely that the systems that lead to order win out through simple evolution...the systems that lead to disorder are self-defeating given that humans are not great at solitary living—so the disharmonious systems tend to peter out and have less influence in the long run).

Whether there are any moral truths is impossible to say. Is slavery unethical? I think so, but many people have disagreed with me across the ages. Is it unethical to kill someone just to see if I can? I think so, but Vikings saw that as a sign of a strong leader. Is it wrong for me to walk onto a farmer's land and eat the fruit he's growing? I think so, but the Bible disagrees.

The propensity of the brain to adapt to, and strongly adopt social norms doesn't require that certain moral statements be objectively "true" or objectively "false", it simply ensures that within a group most people will adhere to some common standard. That standard can be adopted for many reasons other than its objective truth. An entire population can believe a thing, and that belief can still fail to be an objective truth, in the logical sense. An appeal to popularity is not proof of objective truth.

So, to my point, is any moral statement objectively true, such that it would apply to all humans, and any intelligent aliens across the universe? I don't know, and I don't see that anyone (other than supernatural beings) could know. There is a reason, encoded in the brain, why humans tend to adopt sets of social norms, and possibly sets of social norms that promote group unity. But the objective truth of the specific rules those people adopt is far from certain.

This is not exactly the level of discourse that makes you such a legend here on these forums. By the way, I am in my 30s, so please follow up on your thought, and please explain to me just how egregiously stupid (and possibly brain damaged) I must be given that I am not a wet-behind-the-ears 19-year old you imagine. I can only aspire to being the sophisticate that you so plainly are, Fraggle Rocker.