Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Atheist Morality

This post was mooted after reading an internet article recommended to me. It challenged the claims and the reasons thereof for morality among prominent modern day atheists, notably the likes of Dawkins and Dennet , and the fact that , for all their brilliant arguments in the rejection of god and religion , the arguments for the reasons of morality in the modern day atheist do not quite possess the same persuasiveness. For instance, Dawkins denounces the widespread clamour in favour of religion – that it is a great driving force towards morality in society and leads to a great deal of philanthropic work. The article challenges the atheist philosopher’s claim that “without religion , the good will still do good and the evil will still do evil , but for a good person to do evil , requires religious motivation”.
As has been my wont, at the face of it, I was ready to denounce the article as another bit of creationist trash talk, but it made much more sense than that. Indeed some of the arguments propounded in it were ones which had previously crossed my mind; hence they set in motion a chain of thought which I was compelled to pen down, quite a long time back actually , but have finally got around to doing it , almost 3-4 months after I read the article.
Before proceeding to air my perhaps inconsequential thoughts, I feel it noteworthy to mention that I am totally unschooled in any of the so-called important philosophical works, which over the years might have (and still may) pulled weight in literary circles. Neither am I aware of much of the philosophical / spiritual / ethical theory which may have been propounded. Perhaps that is the good bit about philosophy; one can say whatever one feels likes and then claim – “well, it is my philosophy”. Voicing ideas contrary to those of Hume, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Russell etc, is hardly comparable to claiming the overthrow of General Relativity.

So , to get down to business – at the very outset , I’m not overtly thrilled by the use of the terms “good” and “evil” or “moral” and “immoral”. Outside of human society , there exists no meaning for these terms anywhere in the living world as is known to us. Why then do they hold such prominence in our society , which is after all an offshoot of the same laws of nature that govern all , from the bacterium to the chimpanzee.
A dangerous territory to tread this....as this very point has been championed by all creationist , anthropocentric propaganda. The oft quoted invocations to the human soul and the work of god , which allow a moral human society to be separated from a barbaric animal one is well known. However the reasons thereof are not far to seek and well mooted in Darwin’s venerable theory as is aught else that concerns life on the planet.
Society arose simply to divide labour among individuals and to this very day essentially serves that purpose, although the spectrum of labour indeed may have magnified considerably in the 21st century as opposed to the days of our cave dwelling ancestors. The simplest society was the one of the male and the female...the pregnant and the nursing female stays in the shelter to protect and rear the offspring while the male is out hunting / hunting gathering : a fact which perhaps explains the genetically superior physical prowess of the male of our species. For a moment ignoring the hormonal influences of such evolution , it would have been interesting had males evolved the capacity to nurse the young after the female gave birth ...the periods of child rearing (pre and post partum) might then have been more equally shared and perhaps we might have seen Usain Bolt and Marion Jones competing for similar times in the 100m....however as is glaringly obvious , such a development would have conferred far less evolutionary advantage to the species than the one which has evolved.
Back then to human society – from couples to group of couples to communities , initially nomadic followed by settlers...initially hunters / gatherers followed by food growers. As society grew in size , so did the number of tasks required for the community....and so there were hunters , farmers , soldiers , masons , craftsmen , teachers and so on. With the development of religion and worship as the integral component for survival and well being , priests who conned all and sundry (and continue doing so even today) gained eminence : In a nutshell labour was significantly divided and each individual was assigned tasks only upon completion of which would he be entitles to the common resources of the community for his and his family’s upkeep.
The role of the individual and the manner in which it leads to the fragmentation of society is not my purview today , but yet another idea. With growing complexity in the organisation of society , there became requirements for regulations which all members of the community had to follow to prevent the balance of the community from tipping over and the entire structure degenerating into chaos. Individuals failing to abide by these regulations would be meted out punishments – whatever they might be as per memetic evolution and the severity of the so called ‘crime’.
It is my belief that the very basic of these requirements , the ones which if not strictly adhered to would precipitously harm the balance of the society , are the very ones which over the course of generations have been evolutionarily ingrained into the human psyche as morals. It can hardly be doubted that strong legal sanctions reinforced by a rigid mental stance against a particular behavioural pattern serves twice as strong a deterrent to the pattern proliferating and ultimately endangering the integrity of the community. 2 such pretty universally condemned actions which invoke almost universal condemnation in any society are murder and theft....so there you have it , the evolution of 2 of the strongest moral dictums.
“Thou shalt not kill”
“Thou shalt not steal”

It is easy to see therefore, how religion and its methods were drawn towards morals from an embryonic stage ...morals reinforced the stability of society, and religion, by using morality as its chief brand ambassador , entrenched its roots ever deeper into the human psyche. Again, I shall not delve into the monster that religion really is and how it has twisted the concept of morals and usurped its real origins to use it lethally against the very thing it evolved to protect – the stability of society.
To come to the point which got me writing in the first place: how do atheists explain the need for moral behaviour? Here is where I hazard my answer. “Atheists have no requirement for morals.” As outrageous as this sounds, the claim is based on the assumption that new age atheists are men of science, logic and reason. The very logic and scientific reason that leads individuals to accept atheism, are the reasons which would (or should) lead to the concept of individual responsibility towards the society and the community. The role of an individual in society is symbiotic – do your bit and it repays you by providing the resources required for you and your family to subsist.
In a perfect society (my Utopia), there would be no need for morals to be indoctrinated to children ; the society would be based on an adamantine foundation of laws – initiated by men of logic and reason , who comprehend the structure of society , its evolution and the role of the individual within it. Once such laws are in place and their implementation is in place, there will be no requirement for the half baked moral code in vogue today which is often illogical and mutually contradictory, not to mention at times completely removed from the fabric of modern society.
Of course the practical achievement of such a society and its implementation are likely to be practically nigh as impossible, as for instance, the success of a communist society without degenerating into totalitarianism (but that topic is for another day). As is glaringly obvious, in a system like this, that omnipresent power struggle and desire for one-upmanship (ratified by none other than Darwinism itself) is likely to pervade deeply and threaten a complete overthrow of the system. That notwithstanding , the initial contention for writing the mail , is that the atheist understands the structure and the evolution of society and hence his role within it. As a result scientific laws are good enough to ensure that the balance of society is not tipped over by him. The real problem lies with the creationists , who attempt to enforce downright stone-age philosophy into a society where it is simply not compatible with leading to well....we are all witness to the chaos it creates.


As the memorable quote runs (of course taking the words good and bad with a pinch of salt): “Without religion the good will still do good and the bad will still do bad, but for the good to do bad , it requires religion”

7 comments:

nirvana demon said...

Just to add my two cents worth here:
Following Helsinki, scientific endeavour decided to use the 4 principles to regulate research and study: Beneficience, non-malfeasance, respect and autonomy to define the relationship between scientist and (for want of a better word) subject.
This, in my mind, is the closest that science has to a moral code, and is almost taken to a point of dogma by concerned groups (IRBs being notorious for this).
The question, though, is that before Helsinki, things like Tuskegee happened, events like Nurenberg unfolded, and a whole host of scientists were forced to look back and admit that they had sacrificed individual autonomy for what they perceived was the greater good.
This has had huge implications for human subject research, for example today a placebo-controlled trial for a procedure/drug that has existing applicable substitutes is almost impossible- standard of care must be offered, irrespective of costs or effort or time. The effect on sample size calculations and study sizes has been staggering, yet, scientists accept this as part of the natural process because there is an understanding that this is fair, and justified.
The question, though, is: Is this understanding of the (moral if you like) responsibility of the person in power (in this case the scientist) towards the subject an instinctive one, or is it learned behaviour? Must we then formulate guidelines for minimum ethical requirements in scientific interaction, or let it be a subjective assessment, left to the scientists' judgement?
Good to see you back in the blogosphere, Gandalf.
Regards, AM

aneesh said...

Sticky territory indeed Dr M. The ethics of scientific practise in general and research in particular is one that has bothered me. As opposed to morals and ethic elswhere , which developed secondary to the evolution of society....in this scenario , the areas are so grey in themselves that morality further confuses issues. At the very least , I guess , one may say that since the areas being explored by research are so untried , that they should not be under the same rigid blanket of moral ethic...at the very least the so called cultural shackles should be lifed.
However you are quite justified when you say that it might easily degenrate into another Nuremberg.
What is the answer .... I dont know...but perhaps , a ethical commitee spanning members from different scientific mileu and at the very least a complete education of the 'subjects' into the possibilites of the study (but then obtaining consent might become nigh on impossible).

Health for ALL said...

Hey guys .. very rarely do i get time nowadays to read blogs , much less to comment on them. BUt now that i am jobless and two of my most favorit writers are writing - i just had to ..

I am not religious , nor atheist. I agree with ET that "morality" or im-morality .. good and evil .. ethcal and un-ethical -- are really terms that I too wont like to use . FOr me too - both personally and socially/ scietifically -- the principles of - Beneficience, non-malfeasance, respect and autonomy- as told by mallu sir- are the stars that guide my existential compass....

Having said that -- recently i had a discussion with a great advertiser who specialises in social campaigns .. I asked him about some campaigns that he had failed miserably( e.g Janaghraha -2 campaign - to vote - in bangalore ) . The first campign had been succesful but not any thereafter.

He told me something that made me think on all this . He said ---

" Morality - and Ethics -- are NO LONGER arguements in themselves. "
" They have to be cloaked in an EFFICIENCY arguement Always "

What that means is --- to give a crude example --- we should not bribe anyone - not becasue it is "unethical" or "immoral" - but simply becasue a corrupt system is not as efficient as a non-corrupt one.
Mind you - it may seem to the person giving the bribe - that his work is being done faster --- but overall on a systemic level - the system will run slow.

Similarly - we should not marry a girl younger than a certain age ( mallu sir - something for you) ... not becasue of any other reason - but simply that her economic productivity will go down.

bottom - line

There are certainly things that need CHANGE
---and if religion/ ethics/ morality/ good etc .. cant accomplish the change,
then there are definitive ECONOMIC and EFFICIENCY arguements which can move people to .

Health for ALL said...

and ... by the way - you sound quite like an old friend -- Spock - son of Zarek ,

take care

Puneet said...

On leave, as I am these days, I get a lot of opportunity to ‘socialize’. One of my relatives, in her attempt to convince me and in her disgust at my lack of faith, told me that I developed appendicitis, being a doctor, while she didn’t, and attributed the ‘curse’ to my lack of faith!
Most (or perhaps all) people in the world are ‘religious’ and ‘ethical’ and believe in ‘morality’ because they are scared of the wrath of the gods. This fear was the genesis of the religion in the first place and the ‘morals’ rode on the religion and got indoctrinated into the minds of the population. Sure enough, as Aneesh says, “new age atheists are men of science, logic and reason. The very logic and scientific reason that leads individuals to accept atheism, are the reasons which would (or should) lead to the concept of individual responsibility towards the society and the community.”
And Pathak very rightly points out, people need arguments like ‘efficiency’ and ‘productivity’ to drive them. The sacrilegious connotations of immoral behaviour are not only illogical and irrational but also unacceptable.
I have one doubt though. Taking off from the Dawkin’s Hawk And Dove Theory, a scenario where hawk dwells within a society of doves, is not an evolutionary stable system. But what about the impulsive human instincts? Most humans, including the elite and erudite lot, are ruled by the policy of ‘instant gratification’. In the utopic society, what will prevent an occasional dove to transform into hawk to earn some instant gratification? Agreed such a behaviour will not be evolutionarily stable and ultimately after many lifespans, the all-dove society will return. But won’t the cycle repeat itself?

aneesh said...

@ Pathak.... I like the 'effectiveness' argument. However , I dont think its all encompassing. Ethics are a far more complex issue and I find myself very ambivalent on a variety of issues....as mallu sir , points out...human trials and esearch for instance...The logic of effectiveness would dictate drug trials , genentic trials etc on criminals on death row , individuals with zero life expectancy etc (in one word those who effectively have no useful purpose in society)....but how many of , inspite of our 'claims' of liberation from morality would accede to such practices....and why is this so....is it just basic illogical indoctrination that persists in our minds...or is there some deep seated 'purpose' to be derived of this 'human centric morality'.
to sum it up...as Dawkins say : saving how many human lives would it be worth to expend one life.

aneesh said...

@ Sax....the hawk hypothesis , is exactly what I stressed upon,assuming it is detrimental to society....what it needs to weed out these behavioral patterns are regulations and laws which strictly enforce the expected pattern of behaviour.
...how , how this is to be done..who decided the laws...who enforces them...I dont know and is not within my purview.