Atheist Ethics

Whenever I hear the word "ethics" I immediately substitute "opinion", and I am then immunized somewhat against the twisting of logic that usually is involved. I almost failed to do this when I approached the Atheist Foundation of Ethics article over at rationalatheist.com. This article started off with a fair description of the basic criticism of the relative nature of Atheist ethics. So I was encouraged that there might be a substantive argument ahead.

But first, the author wages an untrue and irrational war on Christian values. What this has to do with Atheist ethics is not clear, but one assumes that the author felt it necessary in order to bolster his further arguments.

Ultimately he gets to Atheism and its ethics. First he describes "consequentialist" ethics as being "objective". Put simply consequentialism is "the end justifies the means". Or as he states,

An objective ethic is a consequentialist ethic that has an ultimate goal that is objectively measurable. It then becomes an objective question whether a particular recommended means will in fact lead to that goal, whether another means might be more effective. The statement "If you want X then you ought to do Y" becomes a statement about cause-and-effect relationships that is objectively true or false, and can be investigated by scientific procedures.

So the first rule of Atheist Ethics is to do whatever works to reach your goal: the end justifies the means.

The next step in Atheist Ethics is to choose a goal. The "default option" example given is to breed; it is

a built-in "default" goal of biological life, genetic
reproductive success, also called "inclusive fitness" by biologists.

So we have the second (suggested) rule of Atheist Ethics: reproduce for genetic success. It is required by Natural Selection. But if you can't breed, then there are other options for the atheist:

then contribute something to the culture. "Health", defined as "survival ability", implies other derivative values. The more knowledge you have, the more friends you have, the more freedom, the more wealth, the more wisdom, other things being equal, the greater your ability to survive, and promote the survival of your circle. The fact that we have a "default goal" written into our genes by natural selection accounts for our intuitive feelings that certain things are "obviously" good or bad. But we don't have to depend on intuition; logic is a better guide.

Logic tells him that material success in the world is demanded by Natural Selection: it is a Law of Nature. These principles are the "Ethics of Health".

In addition to these principles there exist the Social Contract Ethics, which make for peaceful living: no killing, stealing, and so on. And what about meaning? No fables or mystical story telling allowed, except that meaning is derived from doing what Atheists do.

But wandering around to goals again the author identifies what he believes to be the two types of goals: life goals and legacy goals:

if you want your personal story to end in victory, you will choose your actions at all times in your life to be compatible with your desired legacy. In this way, your legacy-goal may set limits on what you would be willing to do to achieve your life-goals.

If you choose to restart the Holy Roman Empire with you in charge, then you will choose life goals compatible with that.

And he really goes off the deep end:

I think the natural limit of this process is to include all carriers of culture, all potential cooperators, all persons, in one society. Beyond persons, we may even choose to include more, for at least two reasons.

First, I would advocate including "former persons"- those who have died, and those who have suffered brain damage. This I call the "insurance clause" to the social contract- we are all at risk of becoming "former persons", so we all have reason to want certain rights of "former persons" to be protected.

Second, I would allow an "adopted honorary person" clause. If any person wishes to adopt an animal or a "pre-person" as a member of their own family, being responsible for it's care, training, and behavior, I would grant the adoptee certain rights.

A third reason for including nonpersons would be compassion. John Rawls defined a "good person" this way: "A good person is one who has the qualities of moral character that it would be rational for members of a well-ordered society to want in their associates." In short, a "good person" is a desirable neighbor.

And his final analysis:

We have our choice of what to value, so atheist ethics are also relative; but if we choose to value something that is objectively measurable, our ethics can be objective.There is one particular choice of what we shall ultimately value, that we can expect will be a widely popular choice across all human societies and cultures, because it is favored by natural selection. Because we are social animals evolved by natural selection, we would be expected to value the health (survival-ability) of our families, and the peace of our communities. This offers a "natural" standard of ethics: The Good is that which leads to health, the Right is that which leads to peace.

What we have is an admission of relativity; an ethic based on "the end justifies the means"; where the end is a material goal of his choosing. Now valuing health and peace is a non-starter: no rational human doesn't want those things. These are good things, no doubt about it. But wait, these are the ENDS; what about the means? Any efficient means to these ends is desirable? It is all relative of course; if it achieves the objective, then it is GOOD. So if it does not achieve the objective, it is BAD.

By observing the Humanist Manifestos starting with #1, and reading through the subsequent morphs, it is obvious that the goals of Atheism would be enforced; that institutions of all types would be seized and restructured to the (relative) ethics of the Atheists in charge. Oh, the goals would be "objective" all right and measurable too: Five year plans, top down. Don't fail to notice the one-world reference in the article above.

This article succumbs to the relativity it ostensibly set out to disprove. The totalitarian bent is obvious in the statement above: "I would allow..." , not to mention the philosophy of "consequentialism".

Well, hopefully, not on my watch. You aren't allowed to allow me anything. Sorry, and be sure to watch your back for other Atheists that don't relate to your relative values. Your end might meet up with their means.