I understand the topic of morals has been touched on by many philosophers who are far smarter than I. Never the less I feel it is important to take the time to write out my thoughts on the matter of Morals without a supreme constant. Side Note: I know this has been discussed in depth by Nietzsche, especially in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra".
For the new generations in Europe and America, atheism is rapidly growing.
- 2008 Gallop poll shows 15% of Americans are atheists, up from 8% in 1990
- In Europe only 52% of people believe in a god, 17% believe in a 'life force'.
Over the past 1500 years the moral code for the majority of western civilization has been based on the Bible; that is the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. This has mainly been that it is ok to be meek and poor because you will find grace in God's eyes so long as you follow what he says. That you should treat others as you want to be treated. That certain things are evil and certain things are good. These things are a constant because God says so and God does not change.Looking at things from this view point it is easy to say what is right and what is wrong: what ever God/Jesus said. But in today's society is this still true? If a new country with majority, or all, atheists were created, what would they base their laws on? Surely Good vs Evil must be thrown out, for how can there be evil with no God? ("The absurd is sin without God" -Camus) Instead there is only Bad, so it must be Good vs Bad. Now the question is: what is Good, what is Bad?
To not believe in God is to believe that presence precedes essence. In other words, there is no pre-determined fate or universal law that we humans should follow. Instead it is up to us to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. Some of these things are easy. It is generally accepted that murder without cause is wrong (though there is always a cause be it just or not), or rape is wrong. But some people feel the need to murder to get money for food. To them this is Good, since they have no concern for the other person. The Japanese, when they invaded mainland China, raped and killed many people because they believed they were a superior race. There was nothing wrong or bad about this to them. This is true for many genocides: Native Americans vs Manifest Destiny, Hutu vs Tutsi, Aryians vs Jews, etc...
Even more complicated is the question of slavery. For the vast majority of human history slavery has been accepted. How is this to be determined? Or the issue with pedophiles. In Greece 500BC there was no problem with a man having sex with a boy. Today, NAMBLA members don't get the same respect that Plato and Aristotle did. Well, in muslim countries NAMBLA might be alright.
The thing that I want to know is whether or not there can be laws created on a purely existential basis. If so, these laws would be subject to constant change since they would have to be based on what the 'majority' of people feel is right. If one year Man-Boy love is OK and slavery is back in style then no problem. But the next decade that could change. Is this really a better system?
Realistically this is not much different than what is currently in place. Today nations whose laws are backed by Christian values still had slaves as recent as a couple hundred years ago and still commit executions. But there is a strong undertone that these things are wrong and as we have seen in the evolution of western democracies these things have weeded themselves out so that our governments look to be following the teachings of the Bible much more closely than if they were based on any thing else. It seems as though our system of laws has been in continuous gravitation around a common universal principle.
So what will an atheist or agnostic society do when 51% of the population is OK with slavery or even murder. If we aren't created by God we are simply animals. Monkeys don't have a problem killing other monkeys. It was Mark Twain that said "Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them". If a new law system were to develop out of atheistic principles it would have to be based on good vs evil and probably related closer to those of ancient Rome and Greece than those of democracies today. The theme for this new system could possibly be that which was developed by ancient Sparta, Athens and Rome: Might is right.
If this is the case it is certain that many things would change. Perhaps euthanasia would not be frowned upon, nor slavery. This would come to resemble Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. I think it is ironic that the majority of atheist liberal thinkers that today believe in social benefits come from our biblical oriented system while in a future system based off of atheism (might is right) the social benefits would probably not be around and would probably be frowned upon.
Just curious on the possible future governments and law systems should they be based around an atheist society where there is considered to be no universal right or wrong.
1) Nietzsche
2) Atheists often argue "Occam's razor", but is there that much difference to say an invisible man created everything as opposed to everything came from nothing.... no problem?
3) While it is true that religion has suppressed scientific thinking it is also worth noting that this large gap is often blamed on Christianity. Where was the rest of the world besides Europe? Surely those non-Christian Africans and Asians and Muslims and Buddhists are exploring the galaxy by now... not a very sound argument.
4) Islam often sets contracts for children not yet born to be married, however the wedding is not consummated until the child reaches puberty. However this could be very young especially at our current standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment