Sunday, April 29, 2007

The Moral Basis of an Athiest

I thought I'd flash us back to an old column at Volokh. It asks how irreligious people justify believing that certain things are morally right or wrong. There are some good comments, and I think you can make quite a convincing argument. One comment summed it up nicely, I believe:

MarmotEsq:
It would be logically inconsistent, essentially crazy, for someone to say they really do want others to force them to do things that in fact they do not want to do.

In effect, I am challenging your premise. I believe that this is logically self-evident, practically a tautology... But it is the foundational fact that leads my fundamental beliefs about how to act and how to expect others to act.
—————
Crazy Craig: I don't want to do it.

Sane Sam: OK. I won't force you to.

Crazy Craig: I want you to force me to do it.

Sane Sam: You mean you really do want to do it but can't bring yourself to do it without someone to providing additional motivation to get you to do it?

Crazy Craig: No. I really don't want to do it. This is not the sort of situation where I really do want to do it but can't bring myself to do it on my own.

Sane Sam: Well, if you really don't want to do it then I won't force you to.

Crazy Craig: No! I don't want to do it AND I want you to force me to do it.

Sane Sam: That's crazy.

Crazy Craig: Exactly.
——————
There is no logical basis for any person to claim that she gets to be the only person out of six billion who gets to force other people do what she wants even while still being free from anybody else forcing her to do what they want.
—————
Meglomanical Meg: I don't want you to force me to do things I don't want to do.

Sane Sarah: The same is true for me. I suggest that we agree that I won't try to force you to do things you don't want to do and you won't try to force me to do things I don't want to do.

Meglomanical Meg: No. I want to be able to force you to do things you don't want do, but I don't want you to be able to do the same to me.

Sane Sarah: So you'd be my master and I'd be your slave?

Meglomanical Meg: Yes. I believe that it is possible to live in a world where others can't force me to do things I don't want to do while I get to force them to do things I want to do.

Sane Sarah: Only a meglomaniac would expect a world where they are the master and everyone else is their slave.

Meglomanical Meg: Exactly.
——————
The only sane conclusion to me seems to be that no one, not even me, should be allowed to initiate force against anyone else. (Of course, there's nothing wrong with defending yourself or others from being forced to do things we don't want to do.)

Call it "libertarianism" or "the golden rule", but to me it is just the way things are.

I happen to like the incidental consequences as well. Without the initiation of force there would be no murder, rape, kidnapping, mugging, etc.
12.1.2005 4:01pm

Well played.

2 comments:

Matt said...

I would say that all logically consistent systems must begin with a set of axioms. The author's is "the golden rule", which he invokes to reprove his initial assertion. I don't think his argument convinces me of much besides "I like the golden rule" (which I do)

I say this because the reason we disagree with Meg is not because of some logical inconsistency, but because our own minds are so deeply ingrained with the concept of fairness and equality. This is essentially the golden rule (although if you don't think that, perhaps this serves as proof) There have been many societies (Egypt, Sumer, and Persia to name three, where such concepts would have been quite foreign. Where the author says

There is no logical basis for any person to claim that she gets to be the only person out of six billion who gets to force other people do what she wants even while still being free from anybody else forcing her to do what they want.

I am in return saying there is no logical basis on which we say she can not. If we postulate a logical system with the axioms:

1) Everything Meg says goes
2) In cases not in conflict with (1), the golden rule applies.

Meg's behavior is entirely consistent with such a logical framework.

This may appear to be an entirely pedantic point, but it can help clear up a lot of logical debates between religious and irreligious people. The two groups start with different axioms (replace (1) above with , Allah, or ) and are required to arrive at different conclusions (like , or Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries).

Neither is illogical, they are just starting from different places. Understanding the genesis of such beliefs is another problem in itself.

dave hiller said...

I agree to some extent these things are axiomatic. That doesn't mean that all axioms are equally valid. We can design a system like the one Matt postulated where Meg gets her way, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. What makes Meg special? Why couldn't everyone claim to be special in this way?

Put another way, Meg's system is not an evolutionary stable strategy. Why would we follow a system that doesn't work?

 
php hit counter