Uncertain Male In search of the bases of Atheistic Morality

[zerp]

Hello, i am a young person in search of truth that i can hold to. In this search, i am trying to find the moral and ethical bases by which i should live my life. I aim to be as objective as possible, asking myself every possible question i might have about any moral belief. This way i hope to find at the very least a foundation on which to build my life. So i am asking every religious view (if it is acceptable for me to call you so) what their moral views are, and their logical reasons for believing so.  I recognize that since atheism has no central moral doctrine that you will all unavoidably have different views, and i would like to hear as many of these (justified) views as possible. If you wish to contribute, thank you.

Questions i have to atheists about basic altruistic morality:

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two  morall questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

Why should i be honest?

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

Thank you for your time, and i (think i) will appreciate all answers.

[xSilverPhinx]

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

Because I care about my own well being and I value my own well being. It doesn't take much to assume that others value theirs as much as I value mine.

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

Partly because of the reason above and it is the most stable "objective" morality in the simplest scenario. If others treat me as I do not want to be treated, then it's something I'd have to think about, depends on the mistreatment and how responsible I find they are for it.

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

Equal in what sense? In the eyes of the law? In society? People are not equal under those domains.

Biologically I recognise that there is variability among people, but I do not subscribe to ideas of racial superiority or inferiority. Biologically, there is no "more evolved" as in "better", but "better adapted". It depends on the characteristic you're analysing to see whether someone is better adapted to do something or be somewhere, and that doesn't keep them from being worse in another situation than someone previously deemed "inferior".

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

It's wrong because it's unnecessary (speaks for itself). "Unnecessary" would be out of porportion or exceeding, gratuitious or worse, useless. Morality is a product of interaction, so it could seem immoral to me, but what's moral to me isn't moral in the eyes of some.I would just be part of the answer in those cases. When dealing with immoral and sadistic people I simply turn the question back onto them, since what I feel doesn't matter to them. It is morally wrong if they themselves would not want to be in my position. That would be the full answer in those cases.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two  morall questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

In simple terms, do the least harm. That isn't always possible of course.

Why should i be honest?

I'm not always honest, and in many cases honesty is not the best policy, even for moral reasons.

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

Depends on what you mean by 'wrong'. Is it wrong in a legal sense (clear objectivity) or in your subjective sense? if in the subjective sense, could be tricky to justify.

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

I think of it more in terms of 'what do I avoid losing from being moral or selfless'. You want to live in a society, right? Be part of a group? If you're part of one (on any level) that you care about, you'll want to be moral, and you gain...them

[Will]

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

I care about the well-being of others mostly because of a sense of fairness being filtered through my ability to sympathize. I care about my own well-being, I feel compelled to live in a fair world, and I understand that others care about their well-being, thus what happens to others matters to me. Beyond that, the interconnectivity of society means that when others are not well, it can have consequences in my life. Selfish as that might sound, it's the reality in which we live. What hurts others can often hurt me.

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

Society functions when members all basically follow the same behavioral norms. A society is really only as secure as the people's willingness to follow similar rules. If we do not follow those rules, we contribute less to society's stability and can destabilize it. You don't want to live in a destabilized or nonexistent society.

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

This requires a certain amount of objectivity. What about you, fundamentally, is of worth? Is it traits specific to you, or is it something more general, your sentience and humanity? I've concluded that my worth is centered around my sentience, my ability to learn, grow, love, and think. While I value specific traits of mine, my musical abilities, for example, without those abilities I still believe that I am of some basic worth. The obvious conclusion, then, is all things with these features are of some basic worth. This only includes humans now, but if we meet a different species that meets my criteria, it will extend to them.

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

This stems from both the social contract and the Golden Rule above.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two morally questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

I like to quantify the different choices. Can you think of an example I can elaborate on?

Why should i be honest?

Being trustworthy is very rewarding. If you've earned a person's trust, you don't need to justify things to them as much.

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

Interesting question. You don't have to see them as right and wrong if you don't want to, but can see them in whatever way one chooses. Maybe you can just see them as being constructive or destructive. Maybe you can see them as benefiting you or not benefiting you. Right and wrong are just very general terms for positive and negative thoughts and actions from your perspective.

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

You will tend to elicit the same behavior from others around you and you are more likely to have good mental and emotional health.

[proudfootz]

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

As we are social animals the quality of the community in which we live will have a great impact on our own well-being.

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

The 'golden rule' isn't perfect, because we all have individual histories and tastes not everything I like is what you like, and vice versa. But it is certainly a good place to start because there are a lot of things which we would certainly agree on simply because we are human.

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

We are all equally human, so it makes sense as a starting point. To treat any person as unequal is a position which I feel must be justified.

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

Necessity is something which can become a judgement call - should someone decide to make use of violence they should be willing to answer for it.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two  morally questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

Here is another instance where the 'golden rule' can be applied - how would you want someone with power over *you* to decide such questions that might impact on you?

Why should i be honest?

Since we are social animals, basic honesty is one of the things which makes life easier for all of us - and we do better working together than as untrustworthy partners.

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

I think intent will play a large role in deciding whether another's actions are wrong. Misunderstanding can certainly produce hurtful acts, but some people do such things deliberately and that is much more worthy of sanctions.

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

Being moral is part of the price we pay for living in a society in which we can flourish and have the opportunity to reach our fullest potential as human beings.

I wouldn't necessarily call that 'selfless' however. More like 'enlightened self interest'.

[YaarghMatey487]

I'm not going to answer each individual question. Everyone seems to be about on the same page with their answers. On a broader scale, some atheists don't really have their own moral code and choose to just...go with the flow. Maybe they don't care, maybe they haven't read much philosophy, etc. However, most of us find that we like having something that at least serves as an outline. Personally, I find myself agreeing with the vast majority of Buddhism as a philosophy (not a religion).

[Melmoth]

It sounds like you're attacking an already established moral code rather than asking us to construct one for you.

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

I think that depends on what kind of person you are. Does the happiness of others make you yourself happy, for example? If so (and assuming you want to feel happy) there's your answer. If not, then you don't have a reason.

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

That rule of thumb works as a practical tool for day-to-day life, I think. Strangers, in particular, will usually mirror your behaviour. In other words, it's a way of manipulating people to make your surroundings more comfortable. If you're nice to them, they will be nice to you. But this doesn't play out so predictably with some, particularly when they know you. And where a tool doesn't work, there's no point in using it. 'Do unto others as you would like done unto them' is a better, more straight-forward rule for friends.

What makes all humans "equal"?

Nothing, in a general sense. But then, nothing could justifiably make them 'unequal' either.

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

Nothing; everything; no.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two morall questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

Do whatever you want to do. If you want to feel better, then do what makes you feel better. Justification: it will make you feel better.

Why should i be honest?

Why should you lie? Surely it depends entirely on the situation.

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

I don't know. I try not to.

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

You stand to gain nothing from being selfless... by definition. Whether you stand to gain anything from being 'moral' is too vague a question to answer.

Hope that helps!

[Stevil]

Regards to the whole Original Post,
Life is full of questions, and you have listed many of the great ones.
I don't think you can be told the answers, they are all personal and may change during the course of your life.

I feel that Atheists have a strong sense of values (morals), much more so than theists, they are personal to us, hence we have a large buy-in. We don't think we can simply pray for forgiveness or go to confession and start with a clean slate.
We certainly don't justify our position by refering to static scriptures written thousands of years ago. As independant, responsible and empowered individuals we use reason and experience to justify our values. Some of us are also open minded enough to debate our values and even change our minds based on compelling discussions.

But we are also often guilty of transgressions, it's just that we let ourselves down.
But we are often full of forgiveness and tolerance.

Your destiny is in your hands.

[Cosmo]

Atheism and morals. A lot has been written about the subject, but one thing is for certain, morals transcend religion, and the belief in God. All the people before me have brilliantly (in my opinion) answered the original post. However I would like to add to the discussion. Back when I was religious, I asked an atheist friend of mine why he had morals. That was after he had refused to jump in a taxi in the middle of San Francisco because there was room left only for one, and he did not want to abandon me. There are many social, biological, evolutionary, logical, reasons why he did this and there is no need to go over them, for if you have read the previous posts, you surely can understand. The reason he presented was nevertheless the most human. He said: "I did that because I (himself) am the person I spend the most time with, and I would hate to dislike that fellow." That very selfish behavior (his ego held him to higher standards), worked out to my advantage, since he was my ride home, and SF being a fairly large city, it would have been quite hard to find him. The point that I am trying to make is that in the end your most stringent judge is yourself. But what about all these people who thrive on a very amoral economical system (most, if not, all of us)? What about all the serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, etc…? Is their judge that strict? No, obviously, but the fact that most of us will agree that these people committed crimes, shows that the majority of humans agree on certain moral principals. But obviously, the human machine is subject to social and genetical (re)programming, after all, evolution is still taking place as we speak. Hence, it is very possible that you might not be able to see why people think that certain things are morally right. It is very fortunate because one person must at some point have asked why it is morally right to sacrifice a child to appease the god of thunder, before everyone realized that indeed it is wrong. Therefore, when I doubt, always talk to people around you (good job on that) and do not hesitate to challenge the moral standard. Your peers are not only the ones you might hurt, but also those who will judge you, there is a lot at stake here.

Going back to the issue of honesty for instance. I claim that your evolutionary moral heritage will dictate in most cases your conduct. You are a homo-sapiens and therefore have been engineered by evolution and natural, then social selection to fit in a group of other homo-sapiens. If for some reason, you do not see what is wrong with being dishonest for instance, then ask around you, (include people and philosophies as far from yours as possible). If you still do not see what is wrong with it, then ask yourself what will ultimately benefit you most on the long run. And if all of this fails, then you just might be right, therefore fight and defend your moral views.

[fester30]

There is nothing certain about morality, Uncertain Male.  One cliche statement fits here: to each his/her own.  You make your choices, and then live with them.  There are consequences for each choice, whether positive, negative, or neutral, and it's up to you how you choose to view those consequences.  One person may give money to a charity and feel content with knowing that the consequence of that action is that someone might not starve.  Another person may give the same amount to the same charity and be disappointed when they don't get a pat on the back or certificate.  Another will give only to enjoy the tax break.  

On the flip side, one person may feel embarrassed or hurt when a motorist gets angry at them and yells insults when they accidentally cut that motorist off.  Another person may cut a motorist off intentionally to elicit that response because they enjoy it.  Whatever choices you make, perhaps the best thing to do is be educated about the possible consequences of those choices so you are prepared to make the best choice for you depending on which consequences you prefer.

As for atheistic morality... to each his/her own.  I personally am faithful to my wife because I love her and wish to make her happy, and my faithfulness increases her happiness.  Besides, I couldn't handle a wife AND a mistress... I'm just not that good.  My monogamy has nothing to do with a command from a book or fictional character in that book.

[terranus]

i am trying to find the moral and ethical bases

Both of which are overrated...

I aim to be as objective as possible

That's a good start...

So i am asking every religious view (if it is acceptable for me to call you so) what their moral views are, and their logical reasons for believing so.

In that case you won't be religious for long. Religion and logic mix about as well as vinegar and baking soda. Try and combine them and all you end up with is a big mess. Or a miniature volcano. Either way, not good.

I recognize that since atheism has no central moral doctrine that you will all unavoidably have different views, and i would like to hear as many of these (justified) views as possible.

Stick around here long enough, and trust me, you will. And not just from the Atheists, either.

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

Being a follower of Machiavelli, I would say that, if it benefits your overall well-being, then why not?

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

You shouldn't. This rule only works if everyone follows it. And as we know, that isn't happening anytime soon. In fact, I would argue that it's against our very human nature to follow this rule. Would it be great if everyone did go by this? Absolutely. But that is just not going to happen. We live in a world full of crazy, illogical, uncaring people.

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

We aren't all equal. Plain and simple. Don't believe me? Fine, then lets have a sprinting contest between Usain Bolt and Danny DeVito. However, we do all deserve equal rights, because we are all apart of the same race, and on the grand scale of things, an equal part of this world in general. Can't answer the last part of your question just yet, because frankly I'm not really sure about why it only applies to humans. I would assume it's because of our perceived higher intellect and more advanced communication skills - but there are probably many more factors involved that I haven't even thought of. Guess I need to do a little bit of research on that topic myself  

[terranus]

Crap, I forgot:

Bonvenon al la Forumo!
[spoiler:344ti866]Welcome to the Forum![/spoiler:344ti866]

[DeterminedJuliet]

I think you've presented your questions because you are worried about a lot of hypothetic "what-ifs". If you are used to religion, that is a very natural place to start (pretty much all religious texts are big instruction manuals for "what-ifs").

But I've found that living, breathing morality doesn't work that way. It exists on a case by case basis, which is, granted much scarier. I've heard many religious individuals argue that this invariably leads to moral relativism, which is projected as an ultimate evil. But I don't really think it is. If you think about it, pretty much everyone, religious or not, acts in a morally relativistic way in practice (as opposed to the theoretical morality you see in religious doctrines).

So this is how I conceive of morality.

A) Social structuralism. In general, things that allow society to function "well" are good. Of course, you have to define what "well" is, and, to me, I would argue that a society in which most people experience freedom, health, and happiness is functioning "well". In a personal sense, I often think to myself "Does this make our society better or worse?" If it makes it worse, I try not to do it. In a wider, general sense, most societies have "social contracts" which dictate good behavior and, for the most part, I don't mind participating in those, either. When possible, I'm polite in public and courteous of strangers. If I went to a foreign country which had different social contracts, I would do my best to follow those.  

B) Personal reflection. As in, "care more about what is going on in your own head than what other people are doing"  I've mentioned elsewhere that I like Taoism as a philosophy and this is where I get some of these ideas. It might seem like a motto for selfishness and, in a way, it is, but not the materialistic selfishness that we're used to that tends to tear people apart and drive inequalities. If you are more occupied with living in the moment, cultivating a balance in your life and analyzing your own thoughts and motives, you'll find that you're actually nicer to people. Most of the nastiness that goes on between people comes from what? Greed, envy, materialistic gain, power struggles, etc. These are all struggles that come up because one person is projecting their own inadequacies on to other people. If you deal with those inadequacies on an internal level, you'll find that you're, well, just nicer to other people.  

So, all in all, my moral code comes from a mixture of sociology and a vagues sense of eastern philosophy. Haha. I know there are probably some points that I outlined here that could be elaborated on better, but, to be honest, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about semantics and logical progressions in my day to day life. I focus on trying to keep balance, I don't worry about God or the afterlife, and, for the most part I think I am a pretty kind, moral person.

[Twentythree]

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

Many of those “others” carry many of your same genes, caring about others by proxy means that you are caring for replicas of your own genes. Caring about others will enable you to empathize, allowing you to form better relationships, or use that empathy to manipulate and control.

Why should I do to others as I would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

This again is part of evolution creating the framework for successful social animals. If we were not aware of others and our behavior towards them, our social structures would break down leaving each individual alone in the world to face injury, disease, food finding and child rearing and predator evasion on their own.

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

It could be easily argued that not all humans are equal, some defiantly have phenotypes that surpass the mean in considerable ways, whether it be athletic prowess, intelligence, attractiveness or any other area where one human being surpasses another in ability. The idea of human rights however is a modern adaptation by human societies to avoid subversive populations from forming, thus increasing the stability of the population as a whole. It seems morally right that all of us be afforded the same opportunities, but why does it seem that way? Because we have all been brought up in a world where human rights has already evolved as a social control element. If we went back to ancient Rome where slavery was commonplace, they would consider our ways of life today to be counterproductive, those below a certain class are worthless especially if they are not property. The other thing to keep in mind is that human rights is an idea. Ideas flourish in societies not preoccupied with material acquisition. For example how much more time does one have to consider the ills of the world when they are well fed clothed and secure. If you are terrified hungry and cold you probably wouldn’t be concerning yourself all that much with the plight of others.

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

Violence beyond self preservation is unnecessary and irrational. The concept of right and wrong however is subjective. You must always keep in mind that one man’s patriot it another man’s terrorist. How do you think the revolutionists in America were looked at by the English? To us the Boston tea party was an act of rebellion, to them it was an act of terrorism. When it comes to violence there is no justification. Morality is learned and will be different depending on your environment.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two morally questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

Again, Morality is subjective. The only rule of thumb that I could possibly give is to try to lean toward decisions less likely to cause serious injury or death.

Why should i be honest?

This again relates back to relationship building, Unless you are tremendously skilled at deception, taking a personal position of intentional dishonesty will not win you many friends, thus reducing your effective contributions to the community in total. If you notice, humans have evolved a ESS model of honesty where most people are only as honest as they need to be in order to foster the relationships that they have/need/want. The deeper the relationship the more honesty is required to sustain it. Honest as it evolved had to be the ultimate arms race, a perpetual deceiver will get ejected from the group and die, whereas a perpetual truth teller will always be subverted by the liars in the group (See: The Invention of Lying) . Therefore we had to evolve deception and deception detection simultaneously, until we have reached our current status of generally being truthful, but always ready to deceive if the moment strikes us, we are nimble and adept liars. I don’t think you should be honest at least not completely or constantly (See: Liar Liar), it may just get you hurt.


How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

This is subjective, the 911 attackers were heroes in their country, the crusaders were heroes in their country and just as Americans are heroes in my country, but the Vietnamese may have a different opinion. Right and wrong are entirely subjective principles based on the moral framework you learned initially by your parents and eventually by society in whole.

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

Friends, allies, a wife and children. Not getting your ass kicked, going to jail or getting killed.




Many of my answers may seem cold, they may seem like they don’t give much reason to try to be a good person. They may even have you wondering then why atheists are not cruel and cold, calculated deceivers looking to only propagate genes and find the quickest easiest path to a meal. The reason is responsibility for the future of the species. We humans are unique in that we do have a living culture, a culture that changes and evolves as much as anything else on the planet. Knowing these truths should give you great motivation to be part of the blossoming future of the planet.  It was great thinkers and truth seekers of the past that have led us to a world full of possibilities. We now know more about our planet and our solar system the entire cosmos and medicine. Being atheistic makes you responsible, you don’t get to blame god or be forgiven, you don’t get a handy rule book with all your moral decisions made for you. You are responsible for every choice you make, every decision, every breath you take affects the world we live in now and can have incalculable impact on the future. That is the apex, the true morality of no god, in the eyes of no one the only one to blame is yourself.

[AreEl]

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

The word ''should'' here would better be replaced by ''may''.  ''Why may I care about the well-being of others?''  Answer: care only if it has impact on your goals.

Why should I do to others as I would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

The word ''should'' is better replaced by ''would''. Answer: do to others what they want/expect so as to acheive your goals.

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

You are stating a false premise, above.  All humans are not equal. ''Rights'' are not inalienable, they are a product offered by your society.

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

''Violence'' is OK if it furthers your goals. If you consider a level of violence ''unnecessary'' it is probably because your empathy is higher.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two morally questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

Rules are trasitory. The rules you set for yourself are justified only by your goals. If you have a moral dilemma, perhaps your goal isn't stong enough; change your rules or change your goal.

Why should i be honest?

There is no ''should'' for a free-thinker. Get rid of it!

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

Do so only if you have more power than the other person. If you have less, roll with the punch.

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

That depends on what you want out of life. If you are looking to be admired by a certain class of people, your goal will be met by being a nice guy.

[hollyda]

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

Empathy and religion are not the same thing.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. -Albert Einstein

From where I'm sitting, the belief in "be good and you'll get a treat" is self-serving, anti-human bullshit. If everything you do has an ulterior motive, being either eternal rewards or avoiding eternal damnation, how can you honestly say you're doing something for the betterment of others?

I hold the belief that I am no better than anyone else. I have feelings, emotions, beliefs, worries, cares, family, friends, a fiancé, etc., etc. As an atheist, I believe this life is the only shot we get, and I want to make the most of it.

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

The bulk of my response is summarized above. If people don't do the same, that's on them. You are only responsible for you.

What makes all humans "equal"?

Biology. Beyond that, society determines equality. I say we're all equal, but I am not society.

As in equally deserving of all rights?

If I don't believe there is a moral guideline passed down by some passive-aggressive celestial father figure, I have no reason to assume people aren't deserving of equal rights. It's religion that divides people into classes as the Elect and the non-Elect.

Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

Depending on who you ask, this answer varies.

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

You're essentially asking the same question in different ways. If you're empathetic, you won't be violent toward others. Empathy meaning you recognize those funny feelings you experience on a 24-hour basis aren't exclusive to you, and you can identify when others experience them as well, and feel for them even if the experience isn't personal. What you're asking is the difference between a normal person and a sociopath.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two  morall questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

I'll defer to Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Why should i be honest?

Is there any reason you think you shouldn't be?

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

A study was recently conducted on the science of morality. A panel of volunteers were gathered together with their brain patterns being recorded as they were asked a series of questions. This was one of those questions:

There is a pair of twins, Ed and Larry. Ed hates Larry. One day, Larry comes to visit Ed and asks for some coffee with sugar. Ed goes into the kitchen and sees a white substance resembling sugar in a bottle with a skull and crossbones. He assumes it is poison and puts it in Larry's coffee. Larry drinks the coffee, and it turns out it was sugar after all. Since Ed's intentions were to kill Larry, even though Larry didn't die, did Ed commit a moral wrong on a scale of 1-7. 1 being ABSOLUTE MORAL WRONG and 7 being perfectly justifiable.

Every single person responded with "1" - ABSOLUTE MORAL WRONG. What scientists discovered by manipulating brain frequencies with a magnet was this answer could change. Essentially, moral and ethical thought, like the rest of us, have evolved. All that keeps morals in line is magnetic brain fields.

This is an actual study. http://news.discovery.com/tech/magnet-b ... ality.html

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

I'll again refer you to Einstein's quote.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. -Albert Einstein