Lecture for Young Atheists

This value of this sort of thinking should be self-evident for any person who wants to be logical and rational. All it says is you are to achieve your goals in the most efficient manner possible. No justification is necessary for this sort of thinking, for it is obvious upon the least reflection. It is rational.

Counsels of Prudence. Next we have the counsels of prudence which can advise with regard to one's own personal happiness. I say advise and not command, for no one knows what constitutes happiness with any certainty, and there is much groping and trying of this and that.* For example an obvious counsel is: work and save while you are young and healthy to be prepared when you are old. That's good advice, but only on average; for it is not absolute and it does not hold for the person who has no expectation of reaching old age or, if so, then not for the person who anticipates being able to fend well enough for himself when old. These counsels are valid and self-evident, but only on average and generally, but not universally and absolutely.

[* Not only does happiness depend the individual but this very often changes through time anyway. And often what is thought to bring happiness is found not to do so when the condition is actually acheived.]

Surely one of the best counsels of prudence has been formulated by Stephen Uhl with his Golden Rule of Enlightened Selfishness, namely: treat others as you would rationally expect and want to be treated if your positions were reversed. This marvelous rule has the great benefit of incorporating all of the elements which can affect our happiness in a negative and positive way, all the way from criminal laws to traffic laws and to laws of interpersonal behavior. This rule would have us acting in a society in a way both to have easy minds about how we treat people* and to provide a framework for all to prosper in, thus also ourselves. The essential justification of this rule is that we are personally better off by treating others well and because those people will tend to treat others well also and that will include us either directly, or else indirectly by making for a happier society. While this rule has very much to commend itself, still it is not absolutely certain with regard to one's happiness and can only recommend or counsel. Uhl can only promote it as resulting in greater personal happiness on average.

[* An important factor to keep in mind is that the human has so evolved that he may have bad dreams about treating people contrary to feelings of compassion and animal-pity that have served the species so well. Some atheists may be so taken by these feelings as well by the Golden Rule that it would be difficult for them to cheat certain people or even any person, finding more happiness in compassion than in any other desire for happiness, e.g., enriching themselves. Such atheists would make more dependable friends if they can be identified.]

The fundamental imperative of a free being who rejects respect for a moral law,* e.g., the atheist (as you will have discovered in your homework), is to go for one's greatest happiness (and not to qualify but rather only quantify**). Only on this supreme premise, i.e., as justified by our own pursuit of happiness, can the counsels of prudence make sense. This is of critical important for straight-thinking atheists and something that most atheists, I think, never fully comprehend.

[* As we will have seen from the homework (the essay on Sagan, et al.), the Moral Law (so-called) is an invention of metaphysics concerning the alleged universally agreed upon interactions of beings imagined to be free of the necessity of natural laws. Roughly speaking it is the Golden Rule which commands categorically and without regard for any sort of selfishness or self interest. It is moral laws that the theists prattle about as though to violate one would be to offend their King God. Since these laws can have consequences only by virtue of a god, and since obviously (for us atheists) there is no god, there is no sense to a moral law. We will concern ourselves with Uhl's Rule, the Golden Rule based on one's personal pursuit of happiness, as one of the counsels of reason and it can serve as a stand-in for much of what the moral law might call for (although Uhl's formulation cannot serve as a proxy for the moral law)]

[** It is baseless to judge that enjoying a play or an intelligent conversation is somehow of "higher"" value than getting drunk or raping someone. What counts in every case is how much amusement is expected from any given activity and for how long. Thinking of "higher" and "lower" values constitutes a confusion of mind which is typical of theists. This is like saying that murder is worse than passing in a no-passing lane. It is "worse" solely in the sense that the penalty is greater for apprehended violators, but not that there is any qualitative or "moral" difference.]

In summary an excellent counsel of prudence is Uhl's Golden Rule of Selfish Enlightenment. According to this thinking we are better off, i.e., happier on average, by complying with this law and thus obeying the criminal and civil laws as well as treating other people with respect and concern.

Right and Wrong versus Smart and Dumb. It is generally agreed among all people that actions conforming to the Golden Rule (including here conformity also with criminal and traffic laws) are to be called "right" and those in violation of that rule are called "wrong".* I want to introduce two other terms which are critical for keeping our thinking straight as atheists with regard to this Golden Rule, namely "smart and dumb". It is smart to go after my happiness and dumb not to do so (and Uhl justifies this rule by contending that it is, generally speaking, the smart thing to do). And so the reason I conform to the Golden Rule (according to Uhl) is not because it is right (for that is a mere tautology) but rather because on average it is smart, i.e., leads to a greater happiness for myself. It is usually smart to do the right thing.

[* Since we are including the criminal and traffic laws in Uhl's Golden Rule, we can also speak of wrong as referring to the reductions in personal happiness which belong to violations of the rule and which encompass legal punishments.]

Now if the reason we do the right thing, i.e., conform to the Golden Rule, is because it is the smart thing to do (leads to personal happiness), then obviously when the smart thing to do is the wrong thing (against the Golden Rule), we are first smart and then everything else and so we do the "wrong" thing. I just want all of us to keep in mind that the terms right and wrong have no objective meaning morally, but are simply a commonly held definition concerning actions with respect to the Golden Rule.

The trouble in dealing with other atheists, I think, is now pretty clear to all of us. Rationally we have to assume that they would cheat us if they could do so safely and profitably and without bad feelings or bad dreams. It would all depend on the person's assessment of smart and whether he finds it smart or not to cheat us, i.e., whether cheating is profitable and safe, i.e., whether or not greater personal happiness is expected.

In summary we can observe that objectively speaking there is no more meaning to right and wrong than there is to right and left.* In both cases the expressions are totally subjective. The only thing that counts is smart and dumb. On average the Golden Rule is a smart rule, but not always. Sometimes it is dumb. The only thing that we would logically and rationally want to do always is what is smart, i.e., what leads to personal happiness.

[* As my left can be your right on occasion, even so my smart can be your dumb, and my right your wrong.]

Advice for Young Atheists. Now based upon what we have considered above, here are some counsels of reason and experience. Again the premise is self-evident: in pursuit of your own personal happiness you will do well to heed this advice, for you will be better off (happier), at least on the average.

1.Carefully think before you act. Know what you are after and consider all factors and act efficiently and effectively.

2. Generally speaking, while you are young and strong, you will be smarter to prepare for the possibility of weakness in your old age.

3. Be cautious in all endeavors in pursuit of your happiness and get informed of the likely consequences in great detail (similar to No. 1). If you want to kill someone, as an extreme example, be super aware that it is very difficult to do this safely. Consider the case of Leopold and Loeb. And so make sure that the expected reward is worth the risk, and remember that such things as murder, even if you escape detection, may result in bad dreams.

4. Generally you will be better off complying with the Golden Rule and being concerned about others and obeying the laws of your society. But don't be taken in by theist prattle that this rule is somehow "holy" and must always be complied with. It works on average, but only on average. Don't confuse right and wrong with smart and dumb--they are different and it is the latter alone that count (the former being mere tautologies).

5. It is natural to expect that an atheist (you and me included, of course) will be dishonest, i.e., by virtue of his own conception and estimation of personal happiness as a logical and rational atheist. Accordingly be very careful in dealing with him. This is especially true if the dealings are open to a possiblity of him cheating. Remember (per 4 above) that you would cheat him if that were safe and possible, and so you should expect the same from him.*

[* There are actually two sorts of atheist, the sane and the lunatic. We have been discussing and assuming here the sane atheist who can also be called rational and immoral, i.e., he knows that the moral law is totally without objective meaning, and simply disregards it as a factor of conduct. But the lunatic (or moral and irrational) atheist, although he also knows that the moral law is without objective meaning, will still honor it and will sacrifice his personal happiness in order to comply with it. Spinoza was such an atheist. If you can be sure you are dealing with a lunatic atheist you should find him quite trustworthy, on average.**]

[** Strictly speaking there is also the Buddhist atheist who is no more concerned with moral conduct than is the sane atheist, but who is trustworthy for the simple reason that he wants nothing more than to end all his desire for anything whatsoever .]

6. On average a Christian theist is more likely to be trustworthy than an atheist, for the theist has a reason to want to comply with the Golden Rule even in secret, i.e., he has a conscience (as a result of his moral law and his God) and he does not give up happiness.* Since on average the Christian theist is more trustworthy than the atheist an atheist might decide to act publically the part of a theist (as a camouflage) in order to convey better the impression of honesty (which then, like Smerdyakov, he can use to his advantage if he chooses to).

[* When the atheist gives up happiness for the sake of the moral act (as the lunatic atheist would do), he gives up that happiness forever; while the theist in the same situation considers himself as merely delaying his happiness, and not losing it. Now there are some theists who are no more to be trusted than atheists. For example the "eternal security" (or "once saved, always saved") Christian knows beyond doubt that he will end up in a happy heaven no matter how evil he may be. So this Christian] may find it advantageous to cheat you with the loss of only a degree of happiness, but he will end up happy.]