Who are the Moral Free Riders?

The Intellectual Conservative ^ | 11 March 2005 | Thomas E. Brewton

[Lando Lincoln]

.....agnostic liberal-socialists are moral free riders who benefit from living in a society ordered by the morality of spiritual religion, while sneering at spiritual religion and moral codes as simple-minded ignorance. At best, they do nothing to contribute to social order. Too many of them do everything in their power to discredit or to destroy the very source of social order.....

Lando

[Ragnorak]

The notion that an atheist can claim moral indignation is laughable.

All morality stems originally from a belief in God. America based its entire belief that we have a right to declare our liberty from England on a belief in God.

An atheist actually believes that all human life is a timer that rings when we become worm food. That we are even aware of our own existence is a fluke of science that would be cruel but for the fact that cruelty is a delusion that necessitates a belief in God.

They are "truly moral free riders" because they try to use morality, which at its core mandates a belief in a higher power, to persuade others to buy into their point of view.

[federal]

bookmark

[ClaireSolt]

The word morals simply means customs. It derives from the Latin. With shared morals a community can be cohesive and expect compliance. The strength of Judeo Christian moral tradition is not only that it is based on revealed text but also that very bright people have studies, refined, and transmitted the tradition over centuries.

by contrast the American justics system cannot agree what the law is, so how can anyone obey it?

[SandRat]

I asserted in The Moral Free Rider Problem that liberal-socialists are free riders on the social order of Western civilization, which they did not create and do not support.

Love your analogy! Given that they are equivalent of the "free passage" rail-ridding HOBOs of the '20s and '30s and the be afforded the same treatment when found by railroad security in the rail-yard or a siding.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.

Your post is nothing but sanctimonious BS. I stopped believing in God when I was a child. Does that make me an immoral man? I do my best to minimize the harm I do these days and I do my best to not judge other's failings (not successfully, I'm afraid to say),but you say I am not moral because I don't believe in a supreme being.

If I were religious I would say that hypocrisy is a sin. You are being hypocritical when you say that atheists try to use morality to persuade others to buy into their point of view when you are doing the same thing.

Define morality for us. If you say a belief in a deity is the basis of morality then tell us which deity. I say one's actions define one's morality not whether they feel the need for a supreme power.


Michael Frazier

[nothingnew]

Good piece Lando. Thanks. Saving for future study.

FMCDH(BITS)

[longtermmemmory]

BUMP!

[CzarNicky]

Would it be hypocritical of me to say Amen?

[redgolum]

Bookmark

[Doe Eyes]

All morality stems originally from a belief in God.

Do you think that sex with children is wrong? Is this in the Bible?

[Pittsburg Phil]

Love your analogy! Given that they are equivalent of the "free passage" rail-ridding HOBOs of the '20s and '30s and the be afforded the same treatment when found by railroad security in the rail-yard or a siding.


Yea, the bo's should be kicked back into their jungle.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"Would it be hypocritical of me to say Amen?"

I guess that would be between you and God, eh.

Michael Frazier

[Ragnorak]

I'm not trying to be sanctimonious, its just a little philosophy 101.

You obviously have a sense of right and wrong. Where does this come from? Where is the original source for right and wrong or good and evil?

All of the notions of right and wrong, good and evil trace themselves back through history to a belief in God and a greater purpose to human life than participating in the food chain. When an atheist appeals on moral grounds, the appeal is to centuries of tradition created by a belief in a deity.

If there is no God, no Creator, no Supreme Being, then there is no plan, purpose, or design to any of our lives other than what we choose it to be until we die and become worm food.

Following a moral code is humbling yourself to something that you place more value in than your own wants. What is an atheist humbling himself to and why?

(For the record, in rereading my first post it is harsher than I realized. I listened to Laura Ingraham the other day and heard the debate about how the cross at the war memorial in San Diego insults and degrades "foxhole atheists" so the acidic nature of my original post is probably the fallout from that.)

[mngalt]

I would assert that you are the very definition of a moral free rider. You claim to have a Godless personal moral code which is at least equal to that of us sanctimonious BSers. But, rather than us trying to explain morality to you, perhaps you could tell us from whence you derive your superior code, as it obviously closely parallels those found in most religious texts.

While sectarian wars and purges have undoubtedly occurred, the greatest atrocities ever committed by mankind have been at the hands of those who, in their own minds, have transcended the need to answer to a higher power. I commend to you the last graph of this most excellent article.

[Fzob]

Ping

[LiveBait]

Nice response. There are a number of ways to construct morality and value in human life without appealing to a higher power. (not that appealing to a higher power is necessarily a bad method)

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Choices include: service to the community; making family and friends' lives better; scientific curiosity; saving the whales; a sense of the enormity of the universe and the insignificance of one person within it. There are lots of choices of moral code that give meaning to peoples' lives which neither involve nor require supernatural explanations.

You are incorrect, sir. While none of the above involve supernatural beings, all of them require faith. They are just as much religions as Buddhism is.

Service to the community. Why? One must have a belief (not any factual data, because such data does not exist) that your service somehow makes life "better" in the community (another subjective). Scientific curiosity? Based on the assumption (i.e. faith) that all of the workings of the world are penetrable to rationality (I happen to believe so, but I am self-aware enough to recognize this as an act of faith). Saving the whales, enormity of the universe, ditto...

The most basic logical process, the syllogism, requires two assumed premises to reach a single conclusion. At some point, if you go far enough back, you will reach an assumption as premise.

The sad fact is that rationality fails as a basis for morality in that most of the most important tenets of moral behavior are based on traditions that have worked in the aggregate rather than on an individual basis. Living a moral life is no guarrantee of success, but a society that is moral has a far better chance of prospering than one that isn't. Yet the basis of rationality-based morality is most often the indivdiual. Thus the individual, choosing on the basis of his "rational" interests, has no motive to choose those options which are vital to society but undesirable to himself. This is why these "moralities" do not lead to valid societies. F.A. Hayek explains this in much greater detail in his book The Fatal Conceit. If you haven't read it, might I suggest it as food for thought...

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Nice response. There are a number of ways to construct morality and value in human life without appealing to a higher power.

Actually, there aren't any. Without the appeal to a higher power, what is the consequence of changing your mind (and morality)? Morality without a higher power simply becomes a post hoc justification for what we want...