Utilitarianism: the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.
Many atheists base morality on utilitarianism. However, I am confident that I can defeat the argument that a meaningfully consistent code of morality can be based on a doctrine whose standards shift as much as utilitarianism. The problem with utilitarianism is that it leads to situations where an action may be unequivocably wrong in one situation, but "morally necessary" in another. For example, it is immoral to allow for the murdering of small children in the abstract according to utilitarian theory, however, if you had to murder a small child to save a community, it would be moral. That's because by murdering that child, you'd be doing the most good for the most people which is the litmus test of utilitarianism. Since this is the way it works, you cannot create reliable moral rules for living by looking to utilitarianism. It is simply not workable for an action to be heinous in one case, and the proper course of action in another, and for that to be called a consistent point of morality
I have asked many actvly religious people this same question. Only phrased slightly differently ie "if you could kill (the anti-christ/Hitler/Stalin/Jusda Iscariot) as a child to prevent the evil they did would you?
Many said yes, more than half infact. Seems "moral" religious types fail is peice of crap senario as well as those "immoral" atheits
I would respond "no" to the question of whether or not I would kill them as children. I know many other Christians who would take that stance as well. However, you will be glad to know that nowhere in what I wrote did I say that atheists cannot behave in moral ways. I simply said that utilitarianism is a pathetic basis for morality.
Atheists, like religious people, are capable of making their own choices. The only issue on the table is whether or not atheists can come up with a concrete and consistent standard of morality that society can accept as universally true. THAT has no bearing on whether or not an atheist, as an individual, can behave in a way that is moral or not.
I agree that utilitarianism is a poor foundation for morality. Ultimately, we need to find an absolute upon which to base values and conduct. That drives atheists crazy since they cannot concede the existence of an absolute.
lujlp seems to be inclined to fall for (at least to suggest) a logical fallacy --
that some people are unable to reason effectively says nothing at all about the truth or falsity of "religion" (much less Christianity as taught by Yeshua).
IOW, if they don't know what they are talking about - that says little about what they are talking about...
MikeT is correct, however, and cogently phrases the problem(s) with utilitarianism. Ultimately, there either IS, or IS NOT, a Creator Who lays down a genuine standard.
The evidence is clear, and the math is undeniable. Even Pascal's weak argument makes the point.
No, I'd not kill Hitler as a child (unless personally ordered to by God) ;)
But once we accept utilitarianism, we lose the ability to condemn Hitler. I mean, is it possible that Germany (and the vast majority of Germans) would have been a happier and more prosperous without Jews around? If the answer is yes, then Hitler was moral, if no, then immoral.
Suddenly, the worst we can condemn Hitler for is miscalculation, and being bad at math has never been a moral offense.
Utilitarians also have a great deal of difficulty measuring people actually being happier.
Most of their arguments depend on merely satisfying what they think ought to make people happy.
Mathematically, a very short lifespan should make most people happy by eliminating the parts where they are miserable.
The characterisation of "utilitarianism" presented in this thread is not accurate, and consequently provides you with a convenient strawman. I would suggest you drop it, but it's such an easy target that I doubt that you will. Persistently denying that utilitarianism provides any basis for morality - and hilariously claiming that you can "defeat" utilitarianism, as if this was Philosophy Death Match - simply reduces the quite large body of philosophical literature on the subject to "would you kill an ickle girl?"
"The only issue on the table is whether or not atheists can come up with a concrete and consistent standard of morality that society can accept as universally true."
This seems to be the persistent theme of a lot of Christian defenses against atheism, and it's tragic. Why is it an issue? What exactly scares you so much about the idea that morality is not objectively fixed? Clearly individual atheists (such as Peter Singer) have come up with a "concrete and consistent" morality - it's just that you don't like it.
And Mark: Pascal's weak argument is so weak that you probably shouldn't have brought it up.
Situational ethics is no ethics at all. Just another variation on the hippie "if it feels good, do it".
A logic system without fixed anchors isn't much of a logic system. Imagine this notion applied to electronics and computer programs. You PC boots in the store, but not when you bring it home because it doesn't like your cat.
Crazy.
I fail to see how it is not a characterization of utilitarianism that is at least pretty accurate if not spot on. Utilitarianism is based on doing the most good for the most people. It is in that sense going to lead to more collectivist conclusions, such as sacrificing one little girl's life for the sake of the tribe.
The problem with utilitarianism is that it is inescapably based on "if the ends justify the means" sort of thinking. That sort of thing is no foundation for a consistent morality because it can lead to situations where one act have polar opposite moral implications based on the circumstances.
And Mark: Pascal's weak argument is so weak that you probably shouldn't have brought it up.
Right, and very wrong, merkur.
Pascal's argument is weak because he assumes probabilities that give equal weight to the "no God" hypotheses, which physics now demonstrates are too optimistic by a factor of ten to the 199th power or so.
Pascal gave you too much rope.
Mark: The little I know of physics does not lead me to believe that physics suggests any such thing. Perhaps you could cite me some relevant research that weighs against the "no God" hypothesis.
Pascal's wager remains ridiculously weak precisely because there was a huge amount of rope that he didn't even realise was there, particularly in the assumptions that are made about God (and life, for that matter) to begin with. So I'll stick with my original point that the wager is ridiculously weak, and know that I am in good philosophical company to believe so (starting with Voltaire and continuing to the present day).
Do a search on physics and the relationship betweeen the fundamental constants (mass of the electron, charge, gravitational constant, Planck's, etc.), merkur.
It turns out that physicists have expressed shock at how they must be PRECISELY what they are in order for most of the processes in life to exist at all.
The Gamov et al ("tornado in a junkyard" math) calculations show that EVEN after those constants are what they are - the odds against life from chance are on the order of one in ten to the 200th; in other words, zero.
Pascal's wager is a sucker bet.
And speaking of Tornado in a Junkyard, pick up the book of that name by James Perloff, merkur.
It's quite readable, and will introduce the whole concept. (Perloff is a former atheist, etc. Those of us who "once believed" tend to be harder to convince, and less susceptible to the BS once we've studied the facts.)
As an engineer and "almost physicist" myself, I find those arguments the most compelling. It's difficult NOT to see the Design once you understand the parameters!
Physicists don't express "shock" at those parameters, Mark, although they do express wonder. And while some physicists do take this to be evidence of a motive force of some kind, very few of them bring this as "evidence" for anything resembling the Christian God, because it's not very good evidence for such a God.
On the other hand, many physicists don't see this as evidence for a God, so it's hard to see why you would claim that it does act as evidence on that basis. It would appear that an advanced knowledge of physics doesn't lead to clear evidence for God, otherwise all physicists working in this field would be believers - and they aren't. QED, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, I go in the opposite direction to you. The more I learn about these issues - and I freely admit to having little more than a lay interest fed by popular science rather than my own research - the harder it becomes for me to see anything resembling "Design" in the sense that you understand it. Much like most physicists.
Pretty much every engineer I know sees designed order in the universe. I'm not going to stick my neck out here on hard science issues because I'm a software engineer, but the mechanical engineers I know hold the same view that the universe has a fundamental design to it that resembles an engineered system.
merkur - I'll stand corrected on "wonder" vs. shock; I haven't claimed that these highly unlikely numbers constitute proof, either, just evidence.
And Mike makes the telling point. I've never known "all" physcists, or engineers, to agree completely on much of anything -- so there's no "QED" there. I DO think there's a distinction between the physicist (I was "almost" one, but went the engineer route instead) and the engineer in that regard.
I have often said that appreciation for good design is learned.
Language plays funny tricks, doesn't it? We use the word "design" because it's the best word we've got; but of course the word design implies a designer, leading people down that line of thinking quite easily. The key word in MikeT's response is "resembles".
Perhaps one reason that engineers see design in this way is because they are wedded to the classical mechanistic view of physics. Quantum physicists don't seem to have this problem.
And by the way Mark, would that be George Gamow the atheist? I'd rather read his writing than Perloff's claptrap any day of the week.