Monday Meme Madness on Morality

I have looked at lots of creationist memes, so I thought I would seek out something different. On today's meme Monday: a look at the world of meme morality. Or one meme really.

I think morality is a tough issue for memes. Generally, moral issues are nuanced, reliant on situation and context. Memes depend on short pithy points. As such, simplistic Christian morality that paints a black-and-white picture of good and evil according to the jealous god of the old testament can work. Not much nuance in slavery good, genocide good, rape fine, animal sacrifice great but please whatever you do don't eat pork or shellfish and don't cut the hair on the sides of your head.

I didn't find many anti-atheist morality memes, and it's probably because it's hard to grasp that nuance in a snappy saying. Since this post turned out a little long, there is only one this week.

Meme: Admits his worldview cannot account for objective morality... thinks that god is objectively immoral.

The meme sounds like a pretty good gotcha, but it relies on an equivocation. Namely, there is a slide from objective morality to the adverb objectively. Something can be objective although the bases for it have been formed from a pooled set of subjective evaluations.

Talk to Christians, read a blog or listen to them talk on a video, when the topic of morality comes up, there is a great deal of emphasis on the need for objective morality, which they believe their deity provides. I have heard that the Christian God is the standard of morality against which our actions will be judged. There are so many problems with this line of thinking even if we just accept that the god exists. First off, how can we determine that this deity actually is the standard? Why don't all Christians espouse the same bases for morality? Why are there so many religions that have different ideas on morality?

Basically, even assuming there is a creator deity, I don't see that it is clear what the moral standard is or that he is it. The 10 commandments talks about not murdering but then the god tells people to go commit genocide. Within Christianity, I have heard different interpretations of right and wrong, all saying that other Christians get it wrong.

I also need to just get out there: atheism is not a world view and it does not provide any system for morality. Atheism is just a lack of belief in any god. For morality, you need to search elsewhere. Some of us find ourselves gravitating toward an official or unofficial form of secular humanism, but really most people have empathy, want to have a good life for themselves and others, and start to piece together a system based on maximizing human flourishing and limiting suffering. For a lot of us, our moral system extends to how we treat animals and take care of the planet.

You really don't need a deity to construct a moral system.

But how do we get from there to talking about objective right and wrong? You start to come together in groups, communities, and societies, and you have an informed dialogue about what values we share and want to uphold. Once you get the values together, you can begin to assess actions with relation to them. In terms of limiting suffering and maximizing flourishing, we can say that actions like assault, murder, and rape (this is not a complete list, obviously) are wrong. Not only do they not encourage human flourishing, they are actions which create maximum suffering both physical and emotional, and not just in the victim but in society. Friends and loved ones experience vicarious pain and others who learn about them experience dread and fear.  In the case of murder, we see irreparable damage: a person's life taken away prematurely, their friends and family deprived of them, and so on. (And please note, this is murder, not killing, which may be justified in self defense.)

We can get to "objectively" when we decide what our standards are as a society, so that the judgment is not a subjective "I don't like..." or "I don't think X is right." The standard is not some objective morality, it is a consensus of subjective ideas, but once that is in place, there is a standard that we can use. It is not our opinion. We can see to what extent an action contributes to positives or negatives.

I have seen this kind of morality compared to the rules of a game. We might accept the rules a game came with (the subjective decisions by the game-maker) or we might adapt the game to house rules. The point is, we settle on a set of rules. The rules are arbitrary - like the moral standards we set were subjective - but once they are in place, we can evaluate if a move is allowed by the rules. It's not one person's opinion.

If we can all accept what was stated above (we want to focus on human flourishing and minimize suffering such that violence like murder, assault and rape are wrong), then we can look at the god of the Bible and say he is immoral. He committed genocide, commanded genocide, thought slavery was okay, worried more about rape in terms of damaged property, and I could go on. I would also add that this is a god that, according to some believers, gives infinite punishment for finite crimes. Mosaic law is not one that encourages human flourishing and it doesn't seem concerned with limiting suffering.

Christians may try to rationalize the actions of their god, a move which usually comes down to we can't understand his ways, he knows better than us. I have seen handwaving about certain items. But really, if you try to be objective, i.e. stand outside what you want to be true and find real measures for actions, the Bible god is immoral.

Tldr: atheism is not supposed to include a moral system; it is only a lack of belief in gods; atheists do seek out moral systems though and can construct a moral basis against which to assess moral action.