An Atheistic Examination of the Culture of Death
The Worst Argument of All - Tue, Aug 31, 2004
"An atheist has no reason to oppose murder" is one of the religious bigot's favorite canards. Dostoevsky's dictum that "without God, anything is permitted" is popular among superstitious know-nothings who know nothing about atheism except that they hate it and its adherents. Without an all-powerful, celestial lawgiver to dispense reward and punishments, they argue, there's no reason to be good. Why not just kill that old lady for her money, or for no reason at all, and simply hide the body?
The real risk of detection and societal retaliation is, of course, one deterrent, as is the general undermining of one's safety that would result if such an amoral philosophy became widespread. Another short answer is supplied by the Eurythphro dilemma, which refutes divine-command morality by demonstrating that the concepts of "good" and "bad" are either independent of God's will or nothing more than a set of arbitrary, ever-changing whims. Killing that old lady would be good if God commanded it; and it is no answer to say that "God wouldn't command it because it is bad" because that implies a standard of morality outside of God's control.
Faced with these roadblocks, I've found, theists resort to what I consider the worst argument of all. "What would it matter," they ask, "if you were killed painlessly in your sleep? You wouldn't notice your death and you wouldn't be here to notice the difference." Often this is accompanied by the observation that you'd be in the exact same position had you been hit by a meteor, or accidentally by a car, so that there is no reason to consider murder morally worse than a death resulting from those circumstances. And to the objection that one's death would cause pain to loved ones, the response is that they all too, and indeed to world, could be destroyed painlessly as well.
The argument is a subtle attempt to circumvent utilitarian principles by factoring out pain, but it is morally meaningless because it factors out the loss of future pleasure, and life itself. Of course, in a dead universe consisting of nothing but colliding rocks there is no pain -- but there's no reason to discuss morality at all in that context. It is only when life is introduced into the equation that any discussion can take place. And once it is, the potential for happiness is a sufficient argument against murder, whether or not the killing is accompanied by pain. The fact that the victim is asleep, or a barely conscious infant, or a completely senseless person who is anesthetized or in a reversible coma, is irrelevant in view of what still is lost.
Certainly if a black hole swallowed the Earth while we all slept the result would be no different than its vaporization in a nuclear holocaust. But morality is not only about life, but intent. The fact that our mortality may be proven by an accident is no reason to prove it ourselves.
And the religious are in no position to raise these points at all because it is their own philosophy of the eternal soul that obliterates the distinction between life and death and renders murder, or any moral wrong, impossible. There is no loss to me at all if I "die" only to resurface in another realm or another body. So it astonishes me that to this day the worst of all arguments is still advanced by even the best of all theists.
(Top) —Posted by: The Raving Atheist in Abortion · Permalink · 11 Comments
·•◊•·
The Raving Atheist » Comments on: The Worst Argument of All
"An atheist has no reason to oppose murder.”
My reason is the same as that attributed to God: I judge it to be wrong.
[Edit] September 1, 2004
“Accessory motives may aid in producing an action, but they presuppose the weakness of the direct motive; and conversely, when the direct motive is strong, the action of accessory motives will be excluded. If then…the glory of God is to be ‘the absorbing and the influential aim’ in our thoughts and actions, this must tend to neutralize the human sympathies; the stream of feeling will be diverted from its natural current in order to feed an artificial canal.”
~George Eliot, Evangelical Teaching, 1855
[Edit] September 1, 2004
While I found most of this article interesting, and agree with the bulk of the sentiments, I'm a little unsure about this bit:
Sure, it's true that if this philosophy became widespread we'd all be less safe, but in a situation where this philosophy is rare, there's no significant loss of safety in adopting this philosophy yourself — or rather, there is, but only to those around you. The tactic of not going round killing each other is what Richard Dawkins would call "unstable", since any one individual can gain competitive advantage by going against the grain.
I guess I should be proud of my fellow human beings when I observe that we don't do this. At least, not often. Well, not all the time...
[Edit] September 1, 2004
"... any one individual can gain competitive advantage by going against the grain."
Very true, and exactly why it is imperative not to accommodate or appease lawbreakers, why we need capital punishment, and why our foreign policy must be firm enough to discourage attempts to take advantage.
It's also one good argument against the usefulness of God (whether or not he exists) as a social control: if God forgives even the greatest sinner, there is really no incentive not to kill that old lady for her money. In fact, religion should be feared, because when it is misused or hijacked, whether by the left or by the right, it becomes a fearsome tool.
[Edit] September 1, 2004
Now hold on, RA...you make it sound as if atheists must necessarily be utilitarians. There's no reason that an atheist can't hold to a set of deontological moral rules (take Robert Nozick, for instance).
[Edit] September 2, 2004
Here's another argument that turns the tables on theists:
If those without sin go to heaven and have eternal bliss or whatever, then, how is it wrong to kill an innocent? If you kill someone who is without sin, then you are sending them straight to paradise; while doing them the favor of not spending any more time on Earth, where they run the risk of sullying themselves and, possibly, being damned. For that matter, if we all get eternal life, how can killing anyone be wrong?
On the other hand, if there is no afterlife, then murder is a much graver crime, as you will have truly destroyed a being.
As far as God being the source of all morality, just a quick look through the Bible shows many examples of God endorsing slavery, genocide, rape, etc. Check out http://www.evilbible.com for a list.
Hardly a good example of how to behave.
Finally, I am reminded of a letter to the editor that I read in the SF Chronicle several years ago. In it, the writer said that he had addressed a right wing think tank that claimed that you need God to have morals. The writer said that he had then asked the audience, "what would it take for you NOT to punch your mother in the face?" Nobody said "because God says not to." There're some things that you JUST DON'T DO.
[Edit] September 3, 2004
Dave,
This argument was used by the Arnold Aimery, the Papal Legate at the siege of Beziers. When the Papal troops entered Beziers they were faced with the dilemma of how to find the few hundred Cathar heretics among the 15,000 Catholics. Aimery said "Kill them all, ... God will know his own".
[Edit] September 3, 2004
An atheist has several reasons to be against murder:
1) A society in which murder is acceptable is dangerous to all who inhabit it. The society is composed of individuals. Therefore, individuals should oppose murder for their own safety. Obviously, there will always be cuckoos who murder and take advantage of the system, but the system must necessarily fight back, and impose penalties for such cuckoos.
2) From a purely philosophical view, one must decide what one wants from life. Bringing destruction is one approach, but based on #1, above, this does not seem productive for either onesself or society. Who says we have to be productive? Noone, but those who are not will not be as successful in the society that values productivity.
I, for one, find productivity and creativity very appealing. That said, if I had to preserve my life or something I believed in at the expense of a life, and I felt the trade off was acceptable, I would do it.
[Edit] September 8, 2004
"the potential for happiness is a sufficient argument against murder": It is?
[Edit] September 11, 2004
If atheist believed that there is no reason to oppose murder, wouldn't most atheist be in prision?
Actually percentage wise (which takes into account that there are more religious people) tells us that belivers in a god kill, steal, rape, etc. many times more than atheists.
[Edit] October 12, 2004
When confronted with the "worst argument of all," I generally have two reactions. The first is "what's your point?" Suppose that it is true that without objective god-based morality all ethical considerations are equally valid (as the argument is intended to suggest). That does not prove the existence of god. To argue that morality requires the existence of god is simply begging the question.
My second reaction is to point to moral principles that are not prescribed in the bible (yet are shared by the majority of modern Americans) -- the immorality of human slavery, for example. If moral principles must be based on scripture, why do we all abhor slavery? The bible does not proscribe slavery (to the contrary, it regulates it), so there must be some other source for this widely held moral belief.
[Edit] January 29, 2005
Comments Closed
In order to stop the proliferation of comment spam, the comments on this post have been automatically closed because the post is older than 30 days and the discussion has been inactive for more than 21 days.
Please feel free to your comments to me.
(Top)