I Want The Government Out of Everything!

Well, as you can see a lot of people want the government to get out of everything. Obviously, they fail to specify what everything means, if it indeed means anything at all. Let’s see, perhaps they want the government to not regulate the food industry, that way, they can get food poisoning without the government’s help.Perhaps they don’t want to send their kids to schools or colleges where the government provides financial aid and students grants and loans; or maybe they want the government not to fix the roads and highways that allow them to reach their jobs and destinations.

These people are so deluded that they cant really think straight. One guy there screamed freedom!, what freedom is he talking about? What freedom is the government taking away from him by reforming health care? None. Perhaps, the only freedom that they are fighting about is the freedom to manage their own wealth. However, these people most likely want the government to do a lot of things without them having to pay for anything. They probably want the roads and highways to be in a perfect condition so that they can travel smoothly on them, but they don’t want to pay for that. They don’t want to pay for the services that they do want. Probably the only thing that they want the government to do and they would be willing to pay for it is to allow prayers in school, and have the teacher read the bible to children.

If these people are so adamantly defending the “freedoms” that they have, then where were they 8 years ago when The Patriot Act was passed? Where were they when Bush tried to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage? What has changed in the last 8 years? Oh! that’s right the political party of the person in charge, and the color, we should never forget that Obama isn’t white. It wasn’t fascist for Bush to evesdrop in the conversations of the people, or to know what books you check out from the library; but it is fascist of Obama to do… to do what? OH that’s right to bail out the banks… wait… didn’t Bush bailed out the banks? Oh, I know A.I.G … wait, Bush bailed out A.I.G. I know! the auto industry, that’s what he did, god damned fascist, preventing the auto industry from failing so that thousands of families wouldn’t go without. Damn socialist taking away my freedom to do… my freedom of… not paying taxes… that’s right, that’s the freedom that I want to keep, because I know that the 4th amendment is worth nothing as long as I don’t have to pay taxes and get all the things I want the government to do for me without me paying for it. Obama is both a fascist and socialist… and I think he might be communist too… They all mean the same thing,right?

Atheist Morality

Many times I have heard this question: Where do atheists get their morality from? Without god or religion there is not way that you could behave in a moral fashion. This question is thrown around as if it was the epitome of Christian arguments for the existence of god. However, religion does not equals morality. In fact, there have been many occasions in which religion has been the reason behind many immoral acts (9/11, The Crusades, the inquisition etc…) at any rate, I will answer that question here.

Morality is behavior that has serious consequence for human well being. There are many theories defining the goodness or wrongness of an action. There are two main schools of thought relating to morality; the Consenquentialist, which states that an action is right or wrong depending in the outcome of the action itself,and the Nonconsequentialist, which states that an action is right or wrong depending on the action itself. There are many theories that subscribe to these two schools of thought. For the consequentialist we have the Utilitarian theory, which states that an action is right if it maximizes the happiness of the greatest majority of people. there are many arguments against this theory, but the main ones are these: Different people have different points of view, so in others words different people have different ideas of what make them happy. Second, are some actions that are wrong even if they produce good (like torture, supposing that the information extracted prevents some major tragedy). And the last one is that utilitarianism is unjust in the way happiness is distributed. Now, you may wonder what does all of this have to do with the morality of an atheist? Well, not much, however, this is to show you that there are different ways to determine whether your actions are wrong or right without the intervention of religion.

Now, to talk about my morality. I cannot speak for all atheists, so this is only related to me. Like I said before there is another school of thought regarding morality the Non-consequentialist. The best nonconsequentialist theory is the one by Kant. Kant’s view is that moral principles are categorical , and as a result, his moral theory has come to be known as the “categorical imperative.” A categorical imperative is one that must be obeyed under all conditions, for example: don’t steal, or don’t kill.  Kant’s theory consist of two formulations of the categorical imperative. The first formulation goes as follows, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”  this means that you should only act on those principles that you would be willing to have everyone act on it. In other words the first formulation states that an action is right if everyone could act on it and you would be willing to have everyone act on it. The first formulation identifies with two criteria for moral acceptability: universalizability and reversibility. A principle has universalizability  if everyone can act on it. A principle has reversibility if the person acting on it would be willing to have everyone acting on it. The categorical imperative then establishes the existence of perfect duties to oneself and others. A perfect duty is one that has no exceptions. These include the duty not to kill innocent people, not to lie, and not to break one’s promises.

In addition to  perfect duties, there are also imperfect duties to oneself and others. An imperfect duty is one that does have exceptions. These include the duty to develop one’s talents and to help the needy. These don’t always have to be obeyed . It is enough that we sometimes obey them.

The second formulation of Kant’s theory says “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity…never simply as a means,but always at the same time as an end.” so, in other words Kant’s second formulation states that what makes an action right is that it treats people as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end. That way you don’t use people for your selfish desires, like asking money for preaching or using religion as a cover for hate. However,Kant’s theory has some flaws, like the perfect duties. It may be the case that killing innocent people,lying, stealing,breaking promises, or the like, is always evil, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always wrong. to fix these flaws we have Ross’ theories. His theories are based mainly on  duties. He attempts to deal with the problem of the conflict of duties by distinguishing between actual and prima facie duties. An actual duty is one that we are morally obliged to perform in a particular situation. A prima facie duty is one that we are morally obligated to perform in every situation unless there are extenuating circumstances. So, killing is wrong, but if a criminal threatens your family and killing him is the only way to save them, then it’s  the right thing to do.

So, I have just told you where I get my morality from, without god or religion. Even if you dont agree with me, at least you will be more educated after you read this.