AND THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS…

Somewhere, somewhen, there’s some unwritten rule that we atheists are required to explain how it is that we’re moral creatures, without the benefit of having transcendent guidance.

I hate this crap.

At some juncture, I just lose interest. Besides which, I think it’s a trap, a pitfall we fall into as a rule. I mean, really, why on earth do I HAVE to explain it? I don’t. I feel that I (and my fellow atheists) best exemplify by example. To wit: the large percentile of crimes committed in this (or for the most part, any other) society is committed by religious folk.

But, in the blogosphere, many of my cohorts in crime seem to feel this compunction, and as such (the shelf life of peer pressure is far too long: but evolution has had its way with me, as it has with us all, and so), I feel that niggling option to comply.

And true enough, some revel in it: Aaron Kinney and Frances the Magnificent seem to rather enjoy the battle – good for them, I say. Me, not so much.

I prefer to avoid labels: atheist thus far is the one I accept. Besides which, a person can absolutely drive themselves bugfuck trying to figure out just which term fits their unique perspective.

I’ve pretty much abandoned all hope (hee-hee, poor Milton gets paraphrased on such a regular basis) of finding a good fit. I’ve given moral relativism the old heave-ho: determinism seems to have merit (but my ego still has problems with letting go of the concept of free will). Thus far, it seems I’m a moral naturalist.

“Moral naturalism is a form of cognitivism derived from applying evolutionary game-theory to ethics. Rather than interpreting morality as the result of negotiations between members of a large group of free moral agents, moral naturalism sees morality as an emergent phenomenon arising as an unintended side-effect of the interaction of those agents in smaller groups. In other words, morality is not to solve a single problem but a number of recurring problems, in the same manner that natural selection adjusts populations of organisms for changing environmental conditions. This puts moral facts in a class with natural facts about the world, which contradicts the assertion of divine command theory that morality is defined by the arbitrary revelation of God.”

I think that covers it very nicely, thanks.

Most of my perspective arises from the fact I was a bullied child. First off, I grew up a white kid in a demographic of approximately 80% Hispanic, which meant that

1. I became a really fast runner (because when you’re the odd man out, no matter what your skin color, you become a target), because (and again, this isn’t exclusive to ANY population) you fight one, you fight them all. That would apply to the reverse as well (i.e., Hispanic kid in predominantly white population).


2. Sometimes, I’d be forced to fight another white kid, for entertainment purposes, and


3. I was a giant among my peers (not anymore), who refused to fight.

So, given my limited options in that environment, I had two defense mechanisms to choose from:

• Become a sociopath, and completely disconnect from anything remotely resembling empathy, or


• Become almost completely pacifistic, refusing to harm anyone, or anything.

I trust that the choice made is abundantly clear.

I personally believe that morality is an individual choice, and that one’s environment is a huge factor in that choice.

This isn’t to say I was ‘saintly’: most young boys engage in behavior that would be considered Sociopathic in an adult – it’s a matter of whether it’s a touch, or a wholesale wallowing that makes the distinction. I found the flavor wholly repulsive, and turned my face away from that innate darkness that humans have built into their nature. With no help from religion, I might add.

So, in short, I’m a morally upright individual – I don’t steal, I rarely lie, I’m excruciatingly honest (to my own detriment, I might add), I understand what the word no means (I feel that rape – the ultimate conscious violation – is perhaps the most disgusting crime one being can commit on another), children absolutely adore me, domestic pets as a rule gravitate to me, I’m about as friendly as another human being can be in person, and I won’t strike another person without due provocation. I also haven’t seen the inside of a cell in approximately thirty years (one time was enough: in some things, I’m a fast learner).

Which begs the question (for the theists): from whence came morality?

So I’ll paraphrase myself (I’m entitled to), and add to an earlier quotation of mine:

‘From the womb of evolution sprang religion. From that womb also came morality.’

Because, let’s face facts, folks: any individual of a species that behaves in a manner contrary to the well being of the herd, is cast out. I won’t trot out any scholarship in this regard: I leave it to my readers to investigate for themselves.

And I leave you with one of my all-time favorite quotes:

‘Words, not deeds, shall speak me.’ – John Fletcher, English dramatist (1579 - 1625)

Till the next post, then.