There are a number of professed atheists in this forum. I was curious as to what sort of moral imperative atheists are beholden to when presumably no one is looking. Speaking as a theist, I am constantly cognizant that there is a God who considers what I do and is aware of what I do, even though that awareness on my part may not always result in the moral behavior which I aspire to. But let’s take a fairly mundane example — say theft. We’re talking about blatant theft in a context where one could plausibly or even likely get away with it. I affirm to you that as a Christian, or more relevantly possibly, as a theist, I would never do that. Possibly it has just as much to do with my consideration for the feelings and rights of some other individual, who has “legal” possession of said items, as it has to do with my awareness of an omniscient creator who is aware of what I’m doing and who would presumably not bless me if I violated his laws. I mean, I care about the rights of other people. And, considering other moral tableaus, those of a sexual nature for example — I would personally never consider going to a prostitute for example, in that I feel empathy for that person, and how they are degrading themselves in the sight of God, and how I would not want to contribute to their degradation, so that my own human lust would never result in me victimizing another human being in that way. So in summary, there are all sorts of constraints on my personal behavior that stem directly from my belief in God, and I am honestly curious about the inner life of professed atheists in such matters. In other words, do atheists for example, in such junctures of moral decision, only consider whether they can get away with it, i.e escape the detection of human authorities? I am just honestly curious about the inner life of atheists in such matters.
692 thoughts on “What is the moral calculus of atheists”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree. I would add fairness, disgust, and possibly guilt and shame. I also agree with many who have posted in this thread that these motivating feelings come from our evolution as social primates.
But to me, these are all about how we DO act. But I see the key question of the thread is determining how we SHOULD act.
I agree that moral knowledge is key and it has to be informed by science. But it also needs to be informed by the moral principles that KN outlines. Further, moral decisions require a process of moral reasoning similar to what happens in the scientific community: principled reasoning, free exchange of thought, peer review, consistency with other moral principles, and so on.
Earlier, you said that “The interesting question here is whether the ‘morals of society’ are really ‘morals of humanity'” which I take to mean that we can assess the moral principles of society against our best moral ideals ( ideals which could be wrong, just as science can be wrong, but are still the best we have for similar reasons). I agree with this.
I put knowledge and reasoning ahead of empathy in making these decisions about such moral ideals. Consider: over the last 100 years, fairness feelings have extended to women and gays; empathy has extended to animals; disgust has been taken away as a weapon of racists. Now our culture educates people to have these feelings in new ways, because we have used moral reasoning and knowledge to determine the right thing, and our culture has changed so that the majority of people have different empathy, different senses of fairness, different context for disgust.
(And we have changed our laws to reflect these moral decisions, of course).
William J. Murray,
And I respond: “Why are you answering questions with questions? I’m trying to understand your motivation.”
And the game moves rapidly to stalemate.
If you (the ‘atheist’ WJM) choose to define ‘immoral’ as ‘that which I dislike’, and justify interfering in people’s personal lives on such a basis, I would probably consider rational discourse to be futile anyway.
But your attempt to don the mantle of ‘the atheist’ does not chime with my experience of the breed. It seems more like a-fuckwit-who-happens-to-be-an-atheist than anything else. I find myself staring at your daft toupee rather than going along with your persona.
As each atheist has his own “calculus” I can´t make an argument for each of that. I mad many every time this argument appeared here at TSZ. Also I give you references of phylosophers.
@ Allan Miller
Exactly right, WJM’s atheist persona is a sociopathic nihilist with no regard for reason, logic or rational discussion. He then, after having invented such a persona who is impervious to argumentation or moral/societal considerations, asks how we would convince him otherwise.
Any idiot can play this game. What would we do with a person who hears voices and have convinced himself that god has blessed him and finds him deserving of any and all material and earthly riches he can take for himself? He will always respond to any theological argument that his inner voice from the holy spirit overrules rational and logical arguments or appeals to fallible interpretations of scripture.
What now?
So if I find it pleasing and fulfilling to do good to others, and I consider it moral to do so, and I share such sentiments with others like me and we agree on making an effort to stick to such a moral system, what is irrational about that?
So no matter they looks for the “overall utility” they are inmorals. Then “overall utility” cannot be the “calculus” for atheist morality.
If WJM usually “wins” is because the average knowledge of metaphysics here at TSZ is very low.
Moral try yo answer the question what I ought o do?. The only logical to have something that I ought to do is to have a goal. Atheist do not have a goal, each human life is only a product of chance and biology have not goals, then we do not have nothing that we ought to do, we choose what we “want” to do.
If God exist, we are here because he wanted, then it is probably that there is a puropose for us, a goal. Then we have to, we ought to fulfill that goal then we have a rational moral.
True, without a “first hand” knowledge of what God want we cannot know which are our true goals. We can only build the kantians rules of moral, that useless aas yours “overall utility”. To have a moral not only we need a God but a true religion.
I am not sure how you can conclude that from the point I made about dictators not being able to dictate moral decisions.
You don’t need religion to try to determine what one ought to do. The vast amount of non-religious philosophy on both metaethics and practical ethics is evidence of that. Of course, there is no agreement on many of the harder questions. But that applies to religious people too.
I am not sure how that answers my question. If religious people have different ideas what what ought to be done and they live in the same society and need to live by a consistent moral law, how is the right moral decision determined?
In the Christian, Jewish, Muslim traditions as I understand them, there are processes for working through what is moral according to the understanding of the basic moral principles of the religion. And these processes are somewhat similar to what I described. But they may include revealed truths as axioms (eg revealed truths about the role of women) that I would disagree with. So the acceptability of these revealed truths is one concern with using the theist approach. But many aspects of it seem similar to what I described as a secular approach.
My point is that being a theist does not make that much practical difference to having a justifiable process for determining what one ought to do.
Blas,
He wins? How is that victory manifest? Can you or Bruce point to a thread that ended by something other than the parties getting bored with the endless beating of straw horses?
I presume you regard your own grasp of metaphysics as a cut above the rest of the common herd.
Demonstrably false. I have goals, almost all atheists have goals with their life.
For example, I want to enjoy my life and I want to see the people I love enjoy theirs. I want to travel and see new, beautiful parts of the globe I haven’t been to. I want a partner I can share the rest of my life with and make love with, preferrably often. I want to be in the company of my friends, play games and have a laugh as often as possible.
I have plenty of goals Blas.
So what? We don’t need to have “oughts” handed down to us from up high, we can make our own “oughts” and they work just as well.
Clearly atheists can and do make goals for themselves, and clearly those goals motivate and inspire atheists to reach and live up to them. Clearly, those goals result in moral, empathic and humane behavior.
None of the problems you imagine are the problems you imagine them to be.
Well, I did say “for me”. And I did put “wins” in quotes.
My conclusion is based on my view that many of the people who try to argue with him do so by
(a) critisizing religious doctrine or noting that religious people behave badly but neither of these seem to me to be a relevant argument against his position, or
(b) giving explanations of how we DO behave whereas he is looking for an argument which provides a rational reason for how we SHOULD behave which does not use a religious basis.
I understand that other people may have different criteria for assessing the state of the argument.
And I do what to emphasize that I don’t post here to “win” arguments. But I try to understand the logic of WJM’s arguments.
I posted links to KN’s views which I think are the best response for someone like me who is an atheist. But in the end even KN does not think they would persuade someone like WJM.
“Should” is ia hidden consequence. What happens if we do something we shoouldn’t?
If nothing happens, then the wourd is functionless. If something happens, the word is superfluous.
The traditional understanding is that that doing something we shouldn’t offends God or alienates us from Him. But if He is imaginary, the concept is empty.
The phrase, “we should do something because…” implies consequences, in which case the word is just a placeholder for the consequences.
I don’t see how my hypothetical motivations have anything to do with why you would attempt to talk me out of my moral views in the first place. IOW, the only reason you would bother trying to understand my motivations for my moral views and behavior is if you’re attempting to modify them; the only reason to attempt to modify them is if you consider them wrong in the first place; the question isn’t what my motivations are or how to talk me out of them, but why you would consider my view on morality wrong in the first place.
Would you similarly attempt to have a rational discourse with me and want to explore my motivations if I didn’t consider homosexuality immoral? Of course not.
No, it’s not at stalemate. Unless you can tell me why, as an atheist, I shouldn’t find homosexuality wrong and shouldn’t try to do whatever I can to stop it, then what we have here is checkmate.
Why would you want to pursue rational discourse with me in the first place, unless it was to attempt to talk me out of my moral views? If you’re going to attempt to rationally talk me out of my (hypothetical) moral views, then you must already consider my moral views wrong. What atheistic-friendly principle or axiom justifies your view that my moral views are “wrong”?
Of course my atheist is not representative of most atheists – that’s the whole point. Off course it’s easy to find agreements with those that think like you, just as it is easy to not have to examine one’s presuppositions and logic when they are not challenged by anyone outside of your comfort zone. I asked the question I asked in order to reveal the hypocritical nature of atheistic morality.
Atheists claim that morality is entirely subjective (or, at best, culturally inter-personal), but when they come across someone who disagrees with their personal moral code, they don’t accept the equivalence their own premise demands. Anti-homosexuality morality is ***every bit as valid*** as being pro-homosexuality or ambivalence, because atheism denies there is any objective (in the absolute sense) standard for morality. Therefore, I’m under no assumed obligation to give a crap about your moral views or whatever moral standards you happen to live by.
Nor am I obligated to obey the social standard, because I’m sure that atheists will agree that just because society says X is immoral doesn’t mean the atheist has to abide by that view. This means that contrary to how atheists actually live and act, and contrary to protestations otherwise, atheism in fact inevitably leads to the conslusion that “all things are permissable”. That you don’t have the stomach to face that is your problem, not mine.
If one makes the daft assumption that a human being is a tabula rasa, and that a fair and just society is not to the individual’s potential benefit , then yes, everything is permissible.
BruceS,
Yep, fair enough. Although when someone is pointing out rational inconsistencies ‘under atheism’ it is not irrelevant to point out by example that theism suffers precisely the same problems, according to the examples offered.
Murray’s case is built upon sand. Hypothetical individuals that regard rape as a moral good, or refuse to discuss. You could simply rip off the label ‘atheist’ and replace it with ‘theist’, while leaving all other characteristics the same. No system of ‘should’ can include all outliers. Nor can any such system persuade all listeners. So #1 is to determine ‘shoulds’ for oneself. This process does not happen in a vacuum (although it might for some outliers).
Some theists are perennially mystified as to why someone whose free will is not informed by terror of Judgement does not choose to be ‘immoral’. Which exposes a nice metaphysical dilemma in itself. Give people free will, but they can’t be trusted with it, so terrorise ’em!
Actually we CAN tell you why you shouldn’t find homosexuality wrong and repulsive, but your hypothetical atheist has been defined, by you, in such a way that those reasons will remain forever unpersuasive.
That means the issue is not an issue with atheism, but with your manifestly sociopathic and irrational strawman atheist who more or less just finds homosexuality repulsive and immoral for no particular reason other than that’s how you wanted to define him.
Another atheist moral view does.
How would this be any different from a situation where a theist thinks he’s the only one who properly understands gods morals commands? Or one who just doesn’t care about gods moral commands and just seeks his own pleasure and satisfaction regardless of everyone else, including god?
You can still only do the same thing in this situation, try to talk him out of it by appealing to a different moral view by using reason and logic or trying to appeal to his emotions in some way. Whether those be atheistic or theistic principles, if he doesn’t care he doesn’t care.
Are you really that incredibly naive that you think telling people that there’s a god who wants certain things is going to suddenly make them fall in line? I’m sorry, but history has delivered the verdict on that silly fantasy: It doesn’t work any better.
William, you seem to have missed that you’re not obligated to do anything at all under theism either. God may wish for you to do a certain way, and you can blieve that he may even elect to punish you if you do not, that doesn’t obligate you to do good, any more than a societal construct with human checks and policing does. The theistic system is every bit as vulnerable to selfish idiots, which is manifestly evident.
Sometimes on the theistic system, people even go so far as to convince themselves they have gods blessing and authority to exploit other people, their land and so on. Your theistic system simply doesn’t solve the problem, neither in theory or in practice.
No it doesn’t, at best it is only theoretically compatible with that view. It doesn’t LEAD to it. For that you have to actually start with the assumptiont that your hypothetical atheist has already elected to forego society’s rules and laws, and has put himself in the position that he refuses to consider any situation that doesn’t immediately result in his own personal gains and benefits, the consequences for other people be damned. But that means you have smuggled your conclusion into your argument.
William,
Are there moral questions for which your own moral calculus provides no resolution? I would suspect there might be, as your belief in god is so nonspecific. Do you ever use means other than logical deduction to arrive at a position on a moral question?
I didn’t say there wouldn’t be issues under theism. Command authority morality – whether supposedly from god or the politburo – is obviously fraught with the same kind of problems.
Where you and others fail here is that you are not understanding the point: the point isn’t that that theists behave better morally, or do not behave hypocritically, or are not prone to subjective error and misjudgement but rather that atheism doesn’t even provide an assumedly valid principle by which an atheist can assert “this is wrong” or “you shouldn’t do that”. Under atheism, we are free to pick whatever moral code suits us based on whatever criteria we feel like. It doesn’t even have to be rationally justifiable because there is no presumed objective commodity that one would have to justify their moral view to be in accordance with.
Once again, I’m not arguing that most atheists think this way or behave this way – of course they don’t and that why I’m pointing it out. The only principle one can employ to justify their “live and let live” moral view on homosexuality is, ultimately, that is how they feel – which equally justifies any opposing view. If one argues “well, it’s better for society” – there’s no objective principle of morality that requires me to consider society at all. If you make utilitarian arguments, I’m under no obligation to give a crap because “utility” is just how you personally think morality should be adjudicated. If you argue that it harms fewer people, once again – atheism assumes no objective standard of morality that I “should” abide by. If I feel like harming people and call it moral, under atheism it is the principled equivalent of the opposite.
Command-morality theism faces equally non-solvable problems. Can god command a rape, and it be good? How is the “because god says so” of command-morality theism in principle any different than the “because I say so” principle under atheism? It’s not any different – god is just employing “might makes right” on a universal scale.
Unless what is “good” is assumed to be an unalterable condition of existence that even god cannot change, morality of either sort – theistic or atheistic – rationally boils down to “because I say so” and “because I feel like it”. This is the natural law moral philosophy.
Please understand that I am not claiming that there cannot be mistakes and abuses when one adopts a natural law view; what I’m saying is that only the assumption of natural law morality provides a rationally consistent, non-hypocritical philosophical basis for how we actually act every day wrt morality. We all act as if morality is more than just a subjective or inter-personal, social consensus commodity. Atheism cannot accommodate that (other than by being irrational, whether on knows it or not). Divine-command morality accommodates that, but it is just atheistic morality (anything goes) writ large. God is right because god is might. We know that is unacceptable. Might doesn’t make anything right – even if it is God’s might.
What we are left with – however difficult to navigate – is natural law morality, because it is the only kind of morality that escapes the (ultimately) might-makes-right basis for both divine-command morality and atheistic morality.
I’m sure there are moral questions I cannot answer. I only try to be a “good enough” person and there are very, very few instances where I would directly interfere in other people’s lives due to what i considered to be a moral obligation. I’m not applying for sainthood, and I think that a lot of things that matter to traditional religions are not really matters of morality.
I consider the moral rules of personal liberty and responsibility to be far more important than worrying about what goes on between consenting adults. That’s why I’m a social libertarian. If others do things that I think are ultimately self-destructive (the consequence of immorality), most of the time it doesn’t bother me at all. That’s one of the purposes of free will – to let people destroy themselves if they wish.
If you are asking why one should act in a moral way, even one agrees rationally it is the moral way, then you are asking a very good question and one philosophers do not have a consensus view on.
(In fact, I posed that same question at the end of my very first post in this thread).
I agree that in the end societies may need laws to deal with people who act immorally on such a basis.
I am only arguing that it is possible to determine knowledge about better moral behavior, even as an atheist. Why people should act in the morally better way is a different question.
I’ll let WJM argue the merits of his case — he can do that much better than I can!
I agree with all of this
But I would add that in determining shoulds, people and societies “should” use the process I described briefly in various posts and KN elaborates on. Further, the results of peoples’ and societies’ determination of their shoulds can be compared and ranked based on how well that process is applied and on core values takes as those least open to question that the process refers to.
There is a “should” in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph which is explained and justified by the pragmatic and coherentist approach which in included in my understanding of KN’s thoughts.
I don’t understand what better moral behavior means or could mean, other than better based on consequenses.
I have been arguing that all people benefit from a just society. I could liken it to the purchase of insurance. You give up a bit to gain security.
Occasionally tyrants arise that try to gain security by force, but history doesn’t treat them well. Most don’t die an easy death. Criminals sometimes evade the law, but there are personal costs to that.
The incentives are pretty much the same for everyone, regardless of beliefs.
Sure, consequentialism is a viable process for comparing alternatives.
Of course you need agreement on how to rank consequences and how to deal with hard cases (eg is it right to sacrifice one person to obtain his or her organs and thereby save five terminally ill patients; simply looking at consequences would seem to say yes).
You are avoiding the problem BruceS, you as an atheist can choose what you ought to do. But if you freely or because are determine choose your goal there is no more “ought” you have choose. There is no more moral just a technique to reach your choosed goals.
If one by himself determine what he “ought to” then their is no more morality.
I know you have goals Rumraket,you have choosen your goals. But Rumraket is there only by chance, he couldn´t be there if we rewind the tape probably Rumraket wouldn´t be there. And in not so long time he will not be there anymore and nobody will remember what he did, what he said and which were hs goals.
So he is free to choose the goal he wants. There is no ought to reach any goal. Then there is no moral.
Which is the goal of the individual that the society helps to reach?
You are dancing around the Euthyphro dilemma. Do you believe that what god commands is moral because god commands it or does god command it because it is moral?
Blas,
If so, then how would it suddenly become morality merely because God determines it?
Why is God’s opinion binding, if ours are not? (This is a question that William studiously avoids. I hope you’ll be braver.)
Nope, that misses my whole point about process and principles..
I can choose what I DO do, as can anyone, but I cannot choose what I OUGHT to do.
But take care, anyway, Blas.
I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I fail to see the downside.
Societies for tens of thousands of years have survived or failed to survive with no appreciable contribution played by official or formal morality. We have in recorded history, hundreds of implementations of rules and laws — some legalistic, some based entirely on social pressure, some based on theism. Civilizations and nations and subgroups come and go, regardless of whether they are theistic.
If your standard is civilizational stability, I think it’s a wash. If you think there is some value to basing morality on absolute rules promulgated by a deity, I have to ask what is the value of reasoning from false premises.
I mean, you can’t really argue for the existence of God based on the utility of having a standard of morality.
I think I understand your argument, but I think you can in some aspects, choose what you ought to do.
If your motive for moral behavior is benefiting or not harming others, you are not out of the woods. You still have to determine or predict the consequences of your actions and weigh costs and benefits. And prediction is dicey.
Agreed. Moral processes are fallible.
As is science.
There is, of course, a point about science having real world experiments which morality does not have in the same sense. I asked KN about that in the other thread and he had some helpful thoughts.
This forum would definitely benefit from a like/unlike option on posts. Just going through this thread I see a lot of posts that are well said, I just don’t have a particular response. I didn’t really intend to convert anyone from atheism anyway, it was honestly just a survey of how atheists thought about the world, themselves etc in a moral context. But again, we need a like/unlike option that indicates on mouse over who is liking the post. People need feedback that their ideas are appreciated or not.
Which was Plato answer?
Because ours is an opinion. Itis not binding. God´s is a law is binding.
If you not choose what you ought to do, who does?
I think that’s mostly along the lines of my thinking. Two quibbles I might come up with are
1. I think knowledge and reasoning are in partnership with empathy rather than put ahead of it. In fact, what the expansion of knowledge has allowed is a corresponding broadening of our empathetic base, as we come to learn both how interconnected we all are with one another, and how little of consequence really distinguishes us as individuals from one another. In this case, fundamental human equality is not just an ideal, it’s a necessary default based on the inability to assign meaningful and widely acceptable value differences between individual circumstances. And fundamental human equality is really the basis on which empathy works — the seeing of ourselves and others as members of one kind, one clan, or one community.
2. As for determining how we SHOULD act, that has to be rooted by reference to how we DO act, or how we CAN act. Whether a local social morality or a universal human morality, any established standards have to be humanly achievable. Unfortunately, all too often the destructive and unjust behavior is easier to achieve than the just and productive behavior.
A “better” foundation for morality is not necessarily an easier one.
Well, it’s not technically a forum, just a blog with responses. I agree it’s a bit of a limiting format.
My question is, do you think you now have a better feel for the validity of non-religious approaches to moral principles than you did earlier?
Fair enough. I meant one could not choose arbitrarily. Consider:
2+3 = X
I can choose whatever I want to replace the X. But I cannot choose the correct answer (assuming the usual meaning of math and digits!).
Ethics aren’t as simple as math, but hopefully that helps explain what I was trying to say.
hotshoe,
re: your post about sex
What about people that have sex with animals, that have other types of aberrant sexual compulsions/obsessions — take your pick as they run the gamut. Do you look at all that with a shrug, or maybe an approving nod. Do you speak for other atheists as well on such matters. Of course Alistair Crowley said, “Do what thou wilt”. Wasn’t supposing that atheism equated to Satanism, but maybe it does. Our entire culture has become increasingly based on lust, in a way we can’t even fully appreciate any more as we’ve become acclimated to it. Its like a drug. Once you’re satiated at a certain level, you want increasing levels of kinkiness to satisfy these urges. Is that something that atheists in general embrace, I assume not.
I’m not interested in Plato’s answer, I’m interested in yours. Why are you avoiding answering?
Haven’t decided yet, but am assuming that attitudes among self-professed atheists are by no means monolithic. Some, like hotshoe (see my response above) may be of a decidedly libertine persuasion as a result, other atheists not so much. I was thinking a moment ago, that possibly atheism can be more healthy than wrong ideas about god.
I think the distaste may be learned, or in some it may be as deeply ingrained as the homosexual urge itself is to those who possess it. So, it can be a cultural response, or it can be a biological response — but it’s a very individual response. I have an instinctive revulsion for the idea of homosexual behavior, my wife does not. I’ve tried to overcome my feelings, especially considering we have gay friends and acquaintances that I have very high regard for. I find I must simply not let myself visualize that aspect of their lives. But being an instinctive revulsion, it can’t really be a moral revulsion. Somebody mentioned spiders and snakes. I’m revolted by black widow spiders and especially above all, gophers. But I don’t consider them immoral.
That depends entirely on one’s perception of animals as objects of empathy.
Many theists (apparently most at UD) consider animals to be meat robots. in other words, just machines without the capacity to suffer.
In which case, bestiality would morally be no different than masturbation with props. Vibrators or inflatable dolls.
I suspect most people do not consider animals to be meat robots.
Heh. I’d probably agree. But then, I tend to the persuasion that it is for all practical purposes impossible to have a right idea about god.
I feel more or less the same. But I don’t really see the advantage of your position.
I’m an atheist.
You are a theist of sorts, in the sense that you assume that a god exists, but you aren’t especially concerned with whether your assumption is true.
How does adopting a premise, the truth value of which you don’t know or even care about much, get you anywhere? You can be completely rationally consistent, but with faulty premises, your conclusions could be false.
Blas,
Why is God’s opinion binding, if ours isn’t?
That’s definitely true. I’m still bemused by your use of the term “self-professed”. What does that convey that “atheist” by itself doesn’t?
My understanding is that sexual conduct without consent cannot be moral. Animals can’t consent, children can’t consent, drugged/unconscious people can’t consent, therefore sexual contact with them cannot be moral. So, no, I don’t shrug much less nod approvingly to all types of sex.
I can’t read your mind as to which “other types of aberrant sexual compulsions/obsessions” you might want to clarify. Consensual sexual kink doesn’t bother me either hypothetically or in person: consensual domination/submission, costume play, anal stimulation for a person of any gender/orientation, toe sucking, orgasm control, body modification … which of these is the least bit problematic if practiced by consenting adults in a private space?
Give me reasons other than that you think your god might disapprove.
Of course I don’t speak for them. But I’ve never heard a rational argument against consenting adult sex; I’ve only heard the bizarre idea that your god cares what you do with your genitals. So, obviously, not an atheist argument …
Bullshit. Alistair Crowley is even less relevant to atheism in the 21st century than your scriptures are. Nonetheless, I want to point out that for Crowley “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will” always included the necessity to respect the will of the other in any encounter (not just sexual encounters). It’s not a license to rape,nor to behave like a two-year-old having a temper tantrum.
Huh? Where are you getting this from? What’s your evidence?
I’m probably old enough to be your grandmother; I’ve known a lot of folks you would no doubt think were deviants, and I’ve never seen any evidence that we “want increasing levels of kinkiness to satisfy these urges” — neither personally nor on a whole societal level.
What I do see is an increased openness to sexual identities now that we, as a society, are finally shaking free of the unwarranted shame which typically used to be imposed by filthy religion. This new openness is an unmitigated good. It harms no one, and saves the lives of many young men and women.
Well, I certainly hope all atheists embrace a generous sexual morality based on consenting adults. But I try not to assume one way or the other.
What are your goals?
Like I said, we can all pretend that humans are blank slates, or we can recognise that our biology is an important homogenizing factor.
🙂