Atheistic Rights & Responsibilites

[Dominic]

As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities. These include (but are not limited to):

1. Have no gods.
2. Don't worship stuff.
3. Be polite.
4. Take a day off once in a while.
5. Be nice to folks.
6. Don't kill people.
7. Don't fool around on your significant other.
8. Don't steal stuff.
9. Don't lie about stuff.
10. Don't be greedy.

Remember, theists will condemn you for living by this code because you are doing it of your own free will instead of because you're afraid that if you don't a supreme being will set you on fire.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities. These include (but are not limited to):


[/ QUOTE ]

Being an atheist doesn't come with any responsibilities, beyond that you are responsible for your actions.

The rest follows from who you are, and the values you have.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is 0 a number?
gawd, I hope so, or I want my membership cancelled.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is 0 a number?
gawd, I hope so, or I want my membership cancelled.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
You dont have to worry if responsibilities dont exist, right? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[hmkpoker]

As a human being you have one inevitable modus operandi that will determine all action:

1. Act with the goal of maximizing the quality of a personal, subjective state of affairs.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

You dont have to worry if responsibilities dont exist, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do worry if I don't know who's enforcing the responsibility or guarding and/or deciding my rights.

It's like finding out that liking blue brings on special conditions.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
As a human being you have one inevitable modus operandi that will determine all action:

1. Act with the goal of maximizing the quality of a personal, subjective state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an idealized model that may summarize an individual approach, but people have to contend with a large number of evolved traits. At any given time, (over)acting on one of them may work very much to the detriment of the individual. Isn't that what we take advantage of at the poker table?

luckyme

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a human being you have one inevitable modus operandi that will determine all action:

1. Act with the goal of maximizing the quality of a personal, subjective state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an idealized model that may summarize an individual approach, but people have to contend with a large number of evolved traits. At any given time, (over)acting on one of them may work very much to the detriment of the individual. Isn't that what we take advantage of at the poker table?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


All individuals act from imperfect information, and cannot therefore exercise perfect rationality.

No one, given the choice between what he percieves to be a less favorable state of affairs and a more favorable state of affairs, will choose the former.

[siegfriedandroy]

Or, alternatively, you are free (as an atheist) to have ten exactly opposite morals. Either way is no better or worse.

[siegfriedandroy]

Or, for whatever reason, you could live solely for the purpose of minimizing the quality of your state.

[siegfriedandroy]

I think many often act in ways not ultimately 'favorable' to their state of affairs.

[siegfriedandroy]

hehe /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a human being you have one inevitable modus operandi that will determine all action:

1. Act with the goal of maximizing the quality of a personal, subjective state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an idealized model that may summarize an individual approach, but people have to contend with a large number of evolved traits. At any given time, (over)acting on one of them may work very much to the detriment of the individual. Isn't that what we take advantage of at the poker table?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


All individuals act from imperfect information, and cannot therefore exercise perfect rationality.

No one, given the choice between what he percieves to be a less favorable state of affairs and a more favorable state of affairs, will choose the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is correct.

People at a poker table are there because:

1. They believe they are going to make money
2. The money they expect to lose is less than the worht of the enjoyment they get out of poker

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
All individuals act from imperfect information, and cannot therefore exercise perfect rationality.

No one, given the choice between what he percieves to be a less favorable state of affairs and a more favorable state of affairs, will choose the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH, my bad. I was referring to PEOPLE !!

Follow a group around and you'll conclude their rationality comes about 7th after horniness, ambition, alpha issues, peer pleasing, cross grooming... ok, maybe 7th is too high.

Keep your ears open and you'll have a nice stack from what follows this start, "I know I shouldn't do X, but I .... "

It's not a matter of insufficient information it's the fact that hormones uber alles.

luckyme

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities. These include (but are not limited to):


[/ QUOTE ]

Being an atheist doesn't come with any responsibilities, beyond that you are responsible for your actions.

The rest follows from who you are, and the values you have.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's a tongue-in-cheek piece, Sparky.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]


All individuals act from imperfect information, and cannot therefore exercise perfect rationality.

No one, given the choice between what he percieves to be a less favorable state of affairs and a more favorable state of affairs, will choose the former.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



He is correct.

[/ QUOTE ] No, he is not. A non-utilitarian does not try to bring about a favorable state of affairs regardless of how that state of affairs is created. This is what is meant by the common saying 'the ends do not justify the means'. Example: If a good 'state of affairs' (e.g. utility is maximized in this state) is brought about via rape or murder, someone might choose to stick to the less "favorable" state of affairs instead of employing the unacceptable means to bring that state about.

The question has been posed before:

Would you torture a small child for all of eternity to make all of mankind happy?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As a human being you have one inevitable modus operandi that will determine all action:

1. Act with the goal of maximizing the quality of a personal, subjective state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that the same as:

1. We do what we want.

chez

[guesswest]

It may be, but I think there's different level's of 'want'.

You could argue someone like Mother Teresa was just doing what she 'wanted'. I think it's a bit useless though in so far as it's self-defining when you reduce it to a level whereby you're doing ostensibly self-sacrificing things.

Edit: Moor: that same argument would apply to a utilitarian - specifically that the utilitarian is maximizing their personal state of affairs by forwarding a utilitarian agenda, which presumably is an agenda that satisfies them if they're a utilitarian in the first place. Like I say, I think it's a redundant and self-defining position - just playing devil's advocate.

[madnak]

Mother Teresa was a bitch. Many of the people revered as being altruistic just plain weren't. Probably the most philanthropic people in the modern world are rich businessmen /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[madnak]

Whoa! Is that word allowed? But [censored] isn't?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be, but I think there's different level's of 'want'.

You could argue someone like Mother Teresa was just doing what she 'wanted'. I think it's a bit useless though in so far as it's self-defining when you reduce it to a level whereby you're doing ostensibly self-sacrificing things.


[/ QUOTE ]
We just need to distingush two different catagories of wants:

1) Things we want in part because we care about what other people want and

2)the rest

chez

[madnak]

Why do we need to make that distinction?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we need to make that distinction?

[/ QUOTE ]
for those folk who think helping others is different from doing what we want.

chez

[guesswest]

mad - I know next to nothing about her, you may well be right, change the name in that case, the purpose of the example remains the same.

chez - I agree, but any idea how that distinction would be made if it's accepted that all acts are fundamentally 'selfish'? And is that a vote for or against virtue ethics?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
mad - I know next to nothing about her, you may well be right, change the name in that case, the purpose of the example remains the same.

chez - I agree, but any idea how that distinction would be made if it's accepted that all acts are fundamentally 'selfish'? And is that a vote for or against virtue ethics?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unselfishness is a measure of how much we care about others. Its not a simple measure as it the spectrum of how much we care about othe people varies from person to person.

I think virtue ethics comes into place when deciding which of things to do given they are all things we want to do. I want a new car, I want to help starving children etc etc - There's no simple method of chosing which makes us happiest and some of these choices carry with them a feeling of goodness/badness. Virtue ethics is about how to make the best choices.

I think there's a strong case for giving priority to avoiding things that carry the feeling of badness and favouring those that carry the feeling of goodness. Its essentially the same argument as to why we shouldn't smoke.

chez

[madnak]

But if that's how you're defining it, then the mechanism is already in place. Those feelings themselves provide the necessary incentives to act compassionately.

And who says we shouldn't smoke?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But if that's how you're defining it, then the mechanism is already in place. Those feelings themselves provide the necessary incentives to act compassionately.

And who says we shouldn't smoke?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course the mechanism is already in place, its what we are.

Its the reason people decide not to smoke even if they want a cigarette. I didn't mean to suggest an external force.

chez

[guesswest]

Well I'd say unselfishness is more a measure of how little we care about ourselves, but an 'altruism is an inherent contradiction' type theory such as this would say unselfishness could only yield to apathy, not to caring for others.

By this criteria mugging an old lady is equally as selfish as donating money to a charity, the only difference is the nature of the goals in terms of what the individual gains satisfation from. So that's virtue in one sense, ie what you're assigning as important dictates how virtuous you are - but it's not in another (fairly traditional) sense, ie how altruistic you are.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I'd say unselfishness is more a measure of how little we care about ourselves

[/ QUOTE ]
Same thing isn't it. Ones is relative to the other.

Alturism in the sense of doing things we don't want to makes no sense. If Mother Teresa doesn't want to help the poor then she wont.

chez

[guesswest]

I don't think they're the same thing no, I don't think they're polarized. In this model, if you care about someone else it's a symptom, it's a way in which selfishness has manifested itself - caring for others contributes towards some ideal or situation you want to develop. The only way I can see selfishness (the very literal kind) diminishing without becoming a logical contradition is through apathy.

And your second point I won't argue, I don't think altruism at a fundamental level makes sense for exactly that reason.

[DougShrapnel]

Altrusim doesn't lead to apathy, It's a irratinal train of thought that is defined as sacrafice. When most talk of altrusim they mean giving up something of greater value for something of lessor value. As chez points out we value other people. We donate to charities because we value the goals of the charity more so then what we donated. We are exchanging something of lesser value for something of greater value. Mugging an old lady says alot about your values, as does giving to charity. What you choose to value is a good measure of virtuousness. What is untraditional about that?

[guesswest]

Doug - I certainly was not saying that altruism leads to apathy. I was saying that apparent altruism, which I was defining as something like 'selflessness', like all other actions, results from a desire to see x manifested in the world - so is fundamentally selfish (thus not altruistic).

And I'm not suggesting that ethical distinctions don't exist, I was using the charity vs mugging example to suggest the distinction has to be somewhere other than how selfless a person is. I personally find the idea that altruism doesn't exist liberating, and think it gives more meaning to ethical choices - in exactly the same way free will not determined by anything would be thrashing around uselessly.

[DougShrapnel]

Pretty sure I don't disagree with anything you said

[ QUOTE ]
so is fundamentally selfish (thus not altruistic).


[/ QUOTE ] Some people are altuistic tho. True altruism is a dysfunction not a merit. When we extend our sense of "self" to values or others then yes it is fundementaly selfish. But that fact that it contains concern about the welfare of others or makes a statement about what we value more then part of ourselves, deserves a word of it's own(not selfishness). Rand uses the term rational self interest. I perfer caring and value assesment.

[guesswest]

I agree it's something different and probably needs it's own term - I like 'value assessment'. Though, I'd probably like it more if the political right hadn't altered the meaning of the word 'values' so much.

[Dominic]

I now know why I don't often post in this forum.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it's something different and probably needs it's own term - I like 'value assessment'. Though, I'd probably like it more if the political right hadn't altered the meaning of the word 'values' so much.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing providing we that view doing nothing as a choice.

Your right about the politics bit but its their mistake not ours. Right wing people love Objectivism because it supports their political view but its supports all political views.

I can be an (I am) an objectivist who wants a free NHS even though I don't need it for my own health. Its still fundementally selfish in being all about what I want but its support views which are normally labelled unselfish and not right wing.

chez

[madnak]

I don't see any reason to believe your idea that compassion and selflessness are positively correlated. On the contrary, in my experience the more you care about yourself, the more you care about others.

Based on the information I have, the person who mugs an old lady is likely to be insecure and have low self-esteem. The person who donates to charity is likely to feel good about himself and have high self-esteem. Everything I've seen indicates that there is in fact a correlation between not caring about oneself and compassion - an inverse correlation.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason to believe your idea that compassion and selflessness are positively correlated. On the contrary, in my experience the more you care about yourself, the more you care about others.

Based on the information I have, the person who mugs an old lady is likely to be insecure and have low self-esteem. The person who donates to charity is likely to feel good about himself and have high self-esteem. Everything I've seen indicates that there is in fact a correlation between not caring about oneself and compassion - an inverse correlation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote mad - I don't think compassion and selflessness are positively correlated. I was suggesting that true selflessness does not exist, that everyone is 100% selfish (with the possible exception of genuine altruism as some kind of dysfunction, as doug pointed out).

To that end the mugger and person who donates to charity are equally 'selfish' - so the ethical distinction is somewhere else, probably in where they place value.

[guesswest]

And chez - no comment only because I agree with all of that.

[madnak]

Ah, I misinterpreted and thought you were arguing against chez's position.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
it's a tongue-in-cheek piece, Sparky.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to tell the location of the tongue in relation to the cheek on the internet. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[surftheiop]

Didnt read the thread but,
"As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities.
If these are responsibilities who/what is holding you responsible and why should they/it care?

[HLMencken]

You need a primer on what is a "right" or "responsibility".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You need a primer on what is a "right" or "responsibility".

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, do you think there is a consensus view? Or woud different cultures, religious sects, psychological viewpoints tend to have different opinions?

luckyme

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need a primer on what is a "right" or "responsibility".

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, do you think there is a consensus view? Or woud different cultures, religious sects, psychological viewpoints tend to have different opinions?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't believe there is a broad consensus view. But I do believe there is a consensus view that non-belief in a god does not imply the right or responsibility to not be greedy.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But I do believe there is a consensus view that non-belief in a god does not imply the right or responsibility to not be greedy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or anything else.
There are few if any deductions one can make after learning only "Hortense doesn't believe in a god". There are two main influence areas - cultural, and psychological makeup. If you're not brainwashed as a child you have that route to reach the age of being able to weigh evidence and draw conclusions. If you lean to independant thought, and a non-heirarchical tendency, that may hold off or re-set the early brainwashing. Neither main route to non-belief is a cookie-cutter, and there are plenty of twists to them also.

The non-belief doesn't create any specific views on rights, responsibility or ethics in general. Those will form from our basic human nature with cultural and individual experiennces swirled in. Believers in Montreal will tend to have more in common with non-believers in montreal, than with believers in Meca.

On here, we tend to get a fairly narrow slice of both believers and non-believers. Most non-believers I know only fit the general tendencies or history I've noted above and are nothing like the posters on here,including me.
Believers likewise.

luckyme

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities. These include (but are not limited to):


[/ QUOTE ]

Being an atheist doesn't come with any responsibilities, beyond that you are responsible for your actions.

The rest follows from who you are, and the values you have.

[/ QUOTE ]


it's a tongue-in-cheek piece, Sparky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dom,

Your tongue-in-cheek needs some brushing up. You do very well with your tongue-in-justaboutanyother partoftheanatomy posts, though. So, I am sure you will get better with the cheek area with practice. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

RJT

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All individuals act from imperfect information, and cannot therefore exercise perfect rationality.

No one, given the choice between what he percieves to be a less favorable state of affairs and a more favorable state of affairs, will choose the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH, my bad. I was referring to PEOPLE !!

Follow a group around and you'll conclude their rationality comes about 7th after horniness, ambition, alpha issues, peer pleasing, cross grooming... ok, maybe 7th is too high.

Keep your ears open and you'll have a nice stack from what follows this start, "I know I shouldn't do X, but I .... "

It's not a matter of insufficient information it's the fact that hormones uber alles.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


Re-read what he said. People's inability to perceive a more correct truth doesn't make their actions less logical, or less self centered for that matter.