I've caught myself in a contradiction. (Help)

You might want to ask in r/debatereligion - you might get some interesting perspectives.

For myself - as a humanist, I broadly define morality as that which a) preserves individual rights and b) advances the cause of humanity as a whole. Based on these principles, God's actions in the OT are clearly immoral. He condemned whole nations to death based on no good evidence. These people were not given trials - no evidence was adduced against them, and no impartial judgement was rendered. God's actions and justifications are little better than that of the Third Reich.

Tell you what. Hold out your hand, then take your other hand and pinch it. What did you feel? Pain, right? What is pain? it's a negative sensation that your body sends to your brain telling you that you are being harmed. Why is harm bad? Because human beings in general desire to live, and live without pain. THis is universal, it can be found in every healthy human being across cultures.

I would argue that all morality is an evolutionary survival strategy, and in that umbrella, to avoid pain. I'd argue that it could be reasonable to say that morality is about survival, avoiding pain, and living a good life. We human beings in general like to experience good things, and avoid bad things.

I'd argue if a certain course of action creates a lot of pain, or discomfort, or harm, and there is a better alternative available, what you are doing is immoral.

The killings and crap of homosexuals, adulterers and nonbelievers in general is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm. Heck, by definition, I'd consider just about every action of harm by God to be immoral. This is because he is omnipotent, and has the ability to come to a more preferable solution for all parties involved, and he's omniscient, meaning he knows the full consequences of every action involved. If he wishes to be omnibenevolent, he would use his omnipotence and omniscience to act in optimally moral ways, that beign, ways that avoid harm.

Humans, I can cut a little more slack, but I would still argue we do wrong if we act in sub-optimal ways that cause unnecessary harm.

This is not the only way to approach morality as an atheist, but I think it's the one that makes the most sense. I know utilitarianism comes under fires itself (since that's basicallty what Im practicing). For example, some people say that utilitarianism would allow you to kill someone to the marginal benefit of a thousand others, but the fact that you even bring this question up really shows that valuing life is paramount, and outweighs other priorities. Therefore, my little catch to utilitarianism and criticism is that "if you're right, I'm practicing it wrong." And if I actually think they are right, I will modify my morality to act in a more optimal way.

Dunno if this makes sense or not. But it's my own approach toward morality as an atheist.

Non-biblical Western philosophy has basically two moral schools: Kant's Categorical Imperative - Don't do something unless you would make a universal law of your action. (i.e. in short do unto others)...The second is John Stuart Mill's Greatest Good For the Greatest Number - benefits to the majority or group over the individual. See various episodes of Star Trek.

Now if you look at buy-bull morality, it basically boils down to whatever god (authority, power, patriarchy, owner of the greatest means of violence) wants done is good.

Now, all things considered, where does your judgement fall in this continuum?

I think it does have a lot to do with the evolution of our morals and of our society. The idea that your rights end where another person's begin is a fairly pervasive concept these days. In Bible days, not so much, especially not where other tribes were concerned.

I think really it's a little of both. By many people's standards today, behaving that way would be highly immoral--at least there's an outcry in most places when innocent bystanders are caught up in acts of war. On the other hand, the ancient Israelites had a different understanding of the world than we do and a completely different moral standard they were holding everyone to. It shouldn't be justified away, but in the same way that you wouldn't be as mad at a 2 year old for hitting someone or stealing a cookie as you would be a 10 year old, you can't really hold a Stone/Iron Age culture to the same understanding and moral code that we've adopted a few thousand years later.

The problem for me is that there are still people trying to live by that ancient, flawed moral code and force others to do the same.

[deleted]

It sounds like you've grown up. Morals aren't what someone on a pulpit tells you they are ... they're what makes the world a good place to be alive in.

Barbaric and spiteful violence is STILL barbaric and spiteful violence EVEN IF you say you're doing it because of god. In fact, god doesn't even come into whether something is right or wrong. People just use it as an excuse.

There is a growing idea that you can indeed apply scientific methods to morality, a thought that has been neglected. Morality has somehow always been in the hands of religion. Because morality seems to be so subjective.

In most religious worldviews morality is completely subjective and is not based on any "objective" criteria, only declaration or judgement at the whim of the God being.

But A few people have been at least starting the scientific debate. But I think one hurdle is the actual definition of morality.

Matt Dillahunty shows that there is no objective moral system in any religion and that the only moral system is secular, just stolen by religion.

Also Sam Harris has a newish book called "The Moral Landscape" that is about the beginning of using scientific reasoning to start answering moral questions.

Subjective morality is what any one person or society chooses to think of as right or wrong. Objective morality is the use of facts and hard data to compare the outcomes of those subjective systems. Subjectively, they were not wrong according to their own standards, but if you compare their system objectively versus a modern system, using broad terms of desirable outcomes like freedom, peace, health, the preservation and quality of life, you can demonstrate the inferiority of their system. They are wrong not only according to our conception of morality, but also by virtue of their outcomes.

You seem to be wondering about where morality is formed apart from religion. There's a helpful Dawkins video that discusses this.

Morality as we perceive it, is a multi-dimensional, evolving concept, part biological and cultural.

In our biology we possess cells called mirror neurons. These facilitate our ability to emphasize with others. When we see someone in tears, the mirror neurons impart that same feeling of sadness to us that we are perceiving in the other person. This is why certain aspects of morality are simply natural. Does anyone think its ok to stab puppies and kittens? If they do, then something has probably gone array in the brain.

The biological aspect of morality is of course an result of our advancement through Darwinian style evolution, it had and has a purpose, it allows us to relate to others. It contributes to the other side of morality, the cultural and social aspect. It's easy to agree that killing innocent puppies is wrong, but what about aborting half-formed infants in the womb? Cultural morality is influenced by religion, by our commonly held beliefs, by the effects that human action has on mankind. We all work together to determine what is morally acceptable on a broader scale.

So I don't think you really have a contradiction. Wiping out an entire city of people is morally disgusting, as is stoning someone for being different (homosexual/adulteresses). It was just a more common atrocity at that time in history. As I said earlier, our concept and understanding and usage of morality is evolving over time. So its no surprise that when we look back we see a barbaric version of humanity. Think of all the wasted life in the early years of our history, all the wars and constant blood shed. Even if they were morally acceptable at the time, from an objective standpoint as a more evolved human being we see that these acts were immoral.

First up, obligatory posting of the Assassin's Creed:

Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted.

There is no basis for societal morality. There is no Absolute Truth upon which to build society. There is only what we think, and what is repeated enough to be held as truth. Our society is entirely within our own hands, and we define morality however we wish to. We define "good" as not harming anyone, and "evil" as causing harm.

There are problems with this definition. But it works better than all the alternatives that we have tried so we continue to use it. It is not Truth, but it's the next best thing that we have. In time, we'll create better systems.

Also, Everything is Permitted. You have a contradiction within yourself, and it apparently isn't causing Cognitive Dissonance. Without Dissonance, there is no reason to worry about whether you are correct or not. You hold a viewpoint, and if that viewpoint dictates that older viewpoints were wrong.

Granted, those older morals came from a society where population growth was glacial. Non-Reproducing members of the species were a massive liability, and so Homosexuality was seen as a problem. Religion stepped in to force them to reproduce, and so they were demonized.

Adulteresses on the other hand... that's due to inheritance laws mostly. In some areas illegitimate sons had claim to their father's property. This leads into the major reason that Adultery was looked down upon: How do you determine who the father is if the woman in question has been scoodlypoopin with two or more men? You really can't, so they had to discourage the practice by being brutal and "scaring" women into being unbearably chaste for society's sake.

They were both "necessary" actions as far as ancient society was concerned, but in the modern day we see it as abhorrent. From your point of view, with modern morality, it seems barbaric and stupid. From their point of view, having either adulteresses or homosexuals around was a threat to the stability of the social order. They were expendable as far as the people who benefit from such order were concerned.

Morality is subjective in terms of what we value. If I value human well being and you do not, then we can't really have a moral discussion. That doesn't mean that I don't have the rignt to argue for human well being. Moral systems are built primarily on a society discussing what we value and hen using objective aspects of those values to determine the morality of more specific actions.

Yes there are those that don't value human well being and we call these people sociopaths. Most of us recognize that if we don't build a moral foundation on well being, that we can objectively expect the world to be a worse place.

Stoning homosexuals doesn't enhance anyone's well being. There are many ways to objectively demonstrate this.

TLDR - just because people value different things doesn't mean you have to change your values or tollerate theirs.