[106] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Objectivist morals (was RE: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd) )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Jones)
Fri Apr 20 12:00:50 2001
To: Benazeer Noorani <benazeer@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>, "Josiah D. Seale" <jdseale@MIT.EDU>,
"Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>, <mit-talk@MIT.EDU>
From: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: Benazeer Noorani's message of "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:14:08 -0400"
Date: 20 Apr 2001 11:55:58 -0400
Message-ID: <ppwoftr8t0x.fsf@PIXIE.MIT.EDU>
Benazeer Noorani <benazeer@MIT.EDU> writes:
> My point here is, most theists would say they act consistently with a set
> of morals because they believe their religion is true. The increase of
> happiness in the afterlife is only secondary to this.
This applies equally well to any person that lives their life
according to principles. I can be an atheist or agnostic and choose
my actions based on what I have discerned as right, without constantly
running a happiness-prior-to-death integral in my head, and waiting
for the right moment to betray those around me.
The argument I was responding to was that atheists can't be truly
moral because their morals are not grounded in some fundamental of the
universe, like a higher power, and that given this lack of grounding,
they're all just waiting for the opportunity to kick us in the shins
and run off with our lunch money. Under those terms, the only reason
for theists to not act the same way is that they have to answer to
some higher power, in terms of either reward or punishment. Of
course, I think those terms are bogus. I think people do bad things
because their stupid, not because their belief system is out of
whack.
> Actually, any person who has true faith in a higher being of some sort
> really shouldn't admit the possibility of being wrong. Once you've made the
> decision to "wager" your soul's eternal destiny (if you believe in souls
> and eternity) on the existence and benevolence of one being, it seems
> kinda silly to also believe that you may in fact be wrong. At the very
> least, it would certainly piss off the god you subscribe to.
Sure, of course. That's the problem with most faiths. They claim to
be the right one, and that unbelievers are going to get what's coming
to them, yadda yadda. Which is idiocy, and can only lead to
conflict as soon as someone else with the same claims to the true
faith comes along.
> At least the average theist is placing a bet. If you sit on the sidelines,
> there's zero chance that you'll win.
Atheism is a bet, as much as a particular theism. And the term "win"
takes us back into happiness (or at least lack of punishment) after
death. Or what do you mean? Perhaps life is just a metaphysical day
at the races, and theists have bet on their particular horse,
agnostics are out of cash or don't like gambling, and atheists are
running around screaming "Those aren't horses! Those are monkeys!
Oh, the humanity!" (Which explains scottsch.)
> I have less respect for agnostics than atheists because I see agnosticism
> as a copout. I only have anecdotal evidence to support my opinion, but the
> majority of agnostics I"ve met have been too lazy to really examine issues
> of eternity, hell, good, evil, God, etc. and come to an intelligent
> conclusion of their own.
I've been a theist, I've been an atheist, and now I'm an agnostic.
Not necessarily from lack of willingness to make a bet, but more that
I found that religious belief and moral behavior are pretty much
orthogonal. You can do good things with or without belief backing
them up, and likewise for bad things. Now, I just don't care. On
some days I'm an atheist, on others an apathetic agnostic. But I like
to think I'm moral and I try to be principled.
Ray Jones
