Atheist vs Theist moral accountability

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Atheism - If there is no God you can break whatever moral law you wish and get away with it as long as you are not caught.

Theism - If there is a God you will ultimately not get away with anything, as you are ultimately accountable to God for your actions.

Is that why atheism is so appealing?

What does this have to do with moral accountability? What you are talking about has to do with the reliability of retributive justice and not much else.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But if morals are simply the subjective opinions of men and it is your opinion that stealing a million dollars is ok, what's going to stop you?

Morals are not simply the subjective opinions of men, and no atheist would be committed to such a notion just in virtue of his or her atheism. Why do you keep trotting out this absurd caricature of secular morality?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So why should we behave morally if we can benefit from it and ultimately get away with it?

Is it not more or less a truism that one ought to act morally? What are the reasons that suggest that this or that is the moral thing to do in the first place?

Only an immature person with stunted moral development would suggest that whether or not one ought to act morally hinges on the prospects of punishment if one fails to do so.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Is it not more or less a truism that one ought to act morally?

I would say that no strong logical argument can be made for doing so (whether theist or atheist). So I would phrase it differently. It is a truism that many of us choose to act morally and try to encourage others to do so too. Ought implies some external source for the motivation which I believe simply isn't there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would say that no strong logical argument can be made for doing so (whether theist or atheist). So I would phrase it differently. It is a truism that many of us choose to act morally and try to encourage others to do so too. Ought implies some external source for the motivation which I believe simply isn't there.

The one I gave is not a strict truism since what one ought to do, all things considered, can be influenced by sources of justification outside of moral ones, such as perhaps aesthetic or prudential ones or others. Typically, though, these do not override and certainly not in the cases that Fetchmyjunk is targeting. Hence the "more or less". Regardless, my point is very simple. If you have some set of reasons that show that X is the morally right thing for you to do, then prima facie those very same reasons show that you ought to X. The connection here is strong and obvious, just based on the way moral reasoning works. So Fetchmyjunk's challenge here about "why should we behave morally [if there are some selfish reasons not to]" is silly: to suggest that any old selfish reasons would override is puerile.

So I would phrase it differently. It is a truism that many of us choose to act morally and try to encourage others to do so too. Ought implies some external source for the motivation which I believe simply isn't there.

That's not a truism. It’s just a descriptive empirical claim that happens, contingently, to be true. It also has absolutely nothing to do with answering the original question. Fetchmyjunk's original question was why should we act morally if we have selfish reasons to not do so. 'Should' , like 'ought' , is a normative term and one cannot simply drop it and expect to be addressing the question, just like one cannot redescribe a normative view in wholly descriptive terms without committing a fallacy. So, this fails to address the question.

I do not understand your point about 'ought'. Regardless, Fetchmyjunk's question is not hard to address. That X is the moral thing to do already basically presupposes that there are good normative reasons in favor of X-ing; and, even if there are conceivable conditions where other reasons could override this, one does not expect petty selfish reasons to do this work.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I do not understand your point about 'ought'.

There is a distinction between what may be good for society, or what may be morally good, or what may be considered the 'correct way to act' and the basic question of why we should act in a given way.
Most of us choose to act reasonably morally, but there really is no overarching reason to do so. Even in Fetchmyjunks theistic solution where he suggests a selfish motive, one may perfectly well choose to not be selfish and say 'to hell with my eternal soul'.
Both morality and selfishness assumes a motive that is near universal but only exists due to evolution.
If we created an AI, there is a pretty good chance that it would not act morally or selfishly unless we deliberately programmed it to do so. It would feel no 'ought'. If you told it 'you ought to be good' it could question your statement and you would have a hard time justifying it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, that is not what I said.
I said selfishness is viewed as wrong by some atheists, myself included, because it is bad for society.

[b]Would you say homosexuality is bad for society?
No.[/b]

Why is selfishness bad for society? It seems very much in line with the concept of survival of the fittest.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Atheism merely dismisses your assumptions. We don't need to establish a belief system to do that.

Dismissing the assumptions of theism opens up new assumptions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do get out, and I do know plenty of genuine Christians. Many of them would happily take a million dollars from certain sources.

As for basic honestly, I have seen no evidence that Christians, genuine or otherwise, are generally more honest than atheists. Certainly on this forum, those claiming to be Christians put in a particularly poor showing.

So genuine Chistians ignore the command of thou shalt not steal?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why is selfishness bad for society?

Do you seriously not know?

It seems very much in line with the concept of survival of the fittest.
And who said that concept is good for society?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Dismissing the assumptions of theism opens up new assumptions.

It really doesn't.

Bob decides the world was created by a large jelly monster. Jeremy sees no grounds for such an assumption and simply shakes his head.

What new assumptions has Jeremy instigated by dismissing the unproven assumptions of Bob?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So genuine Chistians ignore the command of thou shalt not steal?

Yes. Genuine Christians ignore most commands when it suits them.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why is selfishness bad for society? It seems very much in line with the concept of survival of the fittest.

I would suggest that if this seems the case to you then you have not really considered the matter very carefully.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why is selfishness bad for society? It seems very much in line with the concept of survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest is about adaption, of natural selection and reproductive success. It has nothing to do with selfishness.

If anything theism could more easily be accused of selfishness,with the focus put on one's own salvation.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If anything theism could more easily be accused of selfishness,with the focus put on one's own salvation.

This threads OP is based on the idea (not necessarily correct) that adherents of Christianity are ultimately selfish but put off short term selfishness for long term goals.
Fetchmyjunk hints that he therefore advocates theism because he believes that this short term lack of selfishness is a good thing. But now he is contradicting this philosophy by suggesting that he is not aware that short term selfishness is bad.
Overall, his position is a mess.