Godless morality

[winterbottom]

In the absence of gods, it is very simple to construct a working definition of morality. I think the essence of morality is living life like you're being watched by people whose opinions you care about. It's quite the same tenet as in many religions, but doesn't require you to rationalize mystical beliefs.

What's so complicated or unfulfilling about that?  

OK, so what if you don't care about anyone's opinion but your own? Then you have some real problems.

[Neoncamouflage]

I care about very few people's opinions, do I have problems?
Still, that's a unique look at morality I've never heard before, I like it. I just try to be a good, caring person like I always have. I really like when someone tries to use morality against Atheism. I just pull out some official looking charts that show the amount of child molesters that are pastors and such compared to all the Atheists who supposedly have no morals. That in addition to the one showing religious and Atheist prison populations.

[SteveS]

Interesting ideas!

OK, so what if you don't care about anyone's opinion but your own? Then you have some real problems.

I agree with this, but that's because of my self-interest (a part of which is my emotional nature, which I'll get to in a bit).  It is usually in my interest to have people hold a decent opinion of me.  In other words, do I care about other people's opinions simply because I care about other people's opinions (altruistically), or because I'm self-interested and care about the impact their opinions will have on me?

This is the sort of basis for my libertarian thinking and my sense of ethics.  Anytime we agree to a code of conduct we are limiting our freedoms.  Why would I limit my freedom?  Because I feel it is in my best self interest to do so, and I think I others will agree with me.  If I was totally free I could rape, pillage and murder all I want.  Of course, if everyone else was totally free, they could rape, pillage and murder me as well.  I don't think this would make life very enjoyable.  Presumably, neither do a lot of people.  So - we agree to a code of ethics and agree to live accordingly.  This is in my own interest - as it is in everyone else's interest.  Not because its fundamentally "good" or "bad", but because it makes sense, individually, for each of us to make this choice.  To sort of segue into my next paragraph, part of the reason this makes sense to us is our "human nature": what we like and why we find life enjoyable.

Getting to in, then, people aren't just rational beings, we're also emotional.  I get a strong positive emotion when people like me, and it seems others are similar.  Our sense of empathy recognizes that other people are similar to us;  we can guess, fairly well, how our actions will be perceived by others, and evolution has created in us a desire to seek social acceptance (we evolved into/from social creatures).  This works out well for us in a way: if I do something nice, both me and the recipient feel good.  Likewise if I'm on the receiving end of kindness.  This is as close to a "free lunch" as I think we can find in life.  Its almost like we're trading, but the total value of the trade is greater than the sum of the parts.  This is the "human nature" bit I was alluding to in my 2nd paragraph - and I think this is part of why our ethics make sense to us.

Getting back to square one, all of this is, of course, my opinion.  

[winterbottom]

I care about very few people's opinions, do I have problems?

No, as long as you aren't the only person you respect, I think you'll be OK. Sure, it's fine to be that way, just don't expect anyone to care about you. Who needs morality if you're in this world alone?

[Neoncamouflage]

I don't mean it like, I'm this way and if you don't like it then tough. I still try to be nice and make people happy, but if someone I don't really care about doesn't like me for some reason I'm not going to go out of my way to change their mind. If I change every time someone doesn't like something about me then I lose all that makes me unique.

[Will]

imho, it's incredibly fulfilling to write one's own destiny and be honest with one's self. It's also personally fulfilling to know that I have an innate need to contribute to my existence by helping others AND make the conscious decision to accept the golden rule as logical and thus worthy of my time and energy.

[SteveS]

if someone I don't really care about doesn't like me for some reason I'm not going to go out of my way to change their mind. If I change every time someone doesn't like something about me then I lose all that makes me unique.

Good point.  This strikes my "individualist" feelings with accord!

My attitude is much the same.  Sometimes, people won't like you for reasons that seem indecipherable or ridiculous or stupid or just plain wrong.  These folks I figure can go and hang for all I care.  Its better if they don't like you for a reason that you find legitimate --- self questioning can be painful, but rewarding.  But in this case, if I change as a result, am I changing because of them or because of me?  

[Neoncamouflage]

If you feel that changing will make you a better person, or bring yourself closer to what you want to be then I'd say you're changing for you. Not so much if it's just to please others, or become more socially accepted.

[SteveS]

Indeed, and this was my point.  I (obviously) feel that changing by my own initiative is correct, and that catering only to the desires of others is not.  (shrugs).  This is what makes me an individualist!  

[winterbottom]

I don't mean it like, I'm this way and if you don't like it then tough. I still try to be nice and make people happy, but if someone I don't really care about doesn't like me for some reason I'm not going to go out of my way to change their mind.

That's not what I meant. Plus, you don't have to have personal knowledge of someone to respect them.

[winterbottom]

Getting back to square one, all of this is, of course, my opinion.  

Whew! I finally read all that (I hate reading) and find it valid. The rule of mutual benefit is a good one to live by.

BTW, I think being attractive is another free ride.

[SteveS]

BTW, I think being attractive is another free ride.

Yeah, probably.  If a person has the good fortune to be physically attractive, this certainly seems to open up opportunities that aren't available to others.  Still, I doubt its without effort - maintaining the physique of the "beautiful people" has got to be a lot of hours in the gym (plus eating really healthy, and who wants to do that?    )

[mrwinkie1330]

Woah... I was just about to post about how I wish there were more religious people on this site because generally, the threads are a post and then 20 people agreeing.   I read this first post and disagree with a bunch of it.  Let me throw my philosophy in the pool.

Morality is relative.  This means that morals are different for each person.. there is no right or wrong.

Now as to acting with self interest, this is important.  If self-sacrifice is ever made because of others, you are disservicing yourself, which is the most horrible thing you can do.  If everyone followed this philosophy, things like murder would never happen.  No one would act spitefully.  I am a strong advocate of selfishness and hope that no one even considers the opinions of others.  Let them have their opinions.  They are correct.  Yours are too.  Everyones opinions of a person are based on their morality which is based on the individual.  Stop living through others and letting others dictate your decisions.  Its a difficult concept to grasp, but I love discussing it.  

Also, read The Fountainhead... My philosophy is a slightly modified version of Objectivism.   She comes pretty close to what I believe in a much more articulate manner.

[pjkeeley]

Morality is relative. This means that morals are different for each person.. there is no right or wrong.

True enough, however: if your version of morality starts to stray too far from the herd mentality, and you continually act based on your own morals and not those of the herd, people will react strongly against you, and therefore you may not be acting in your own interest any more (which would seem to contradict your next paragraph).This is why I think there is a minimum of morals that have to be accepted by society as a whole before anyone can expect to live peacefully with others, even though I accept that "there is no right or wrong", as such.

Now as to acting with self interest, this is important. If self-sacrifice is ever made because of others, you are disservicing yourself, which is the most horrible thing you can do. If everyone followed this philosophy, things like murder would never happen. No one would act spitefully. I am a strong advocate of selfishness and hope that no one even considers the opinions of others. Let them have their opinions. They are correct. Yours are too. Everyones opinions of a person are based on their morality which is based on the individual. Stop living through others and letting others dictate your decisions. Its a difficult concept to grasp, but I love discussing it.

I think the often overlooked cause behind morality seems to be our emotions. Rationality almost never comes into it, even when we think it does; most of the time we do things for others simply because it makes us feel good (or conversely, might make us feel bad if we had failed to act). What behaviour society celebrates and that which it condemns is nothing more than people's gut feelings on the issue. And I would argue though that even if we often act in ways that are driven by our emotions, we are still acting in our own self-interest. Surely if the positive emotional benefit of an act has driven us to do it, we must subconsciously favour that benefit to say, the feeling we get when we make a more 'rational' choice?

I don't disagree with you, I do think people should act out of their own self-interest, I just believe they already do act this way, probably universally. I doubt there has ever been a person to walk the earth that didn't base their every action on their own self-interest, rational or emotional (if we can even seperate those categories). Even Jesus Christ, if there was such a man, still would've helped people only because it made him feel good...

[winterbottom]

Even Jesus Christ, if there was such a man, still would've helped people only because it made him feel good...

It is without question why these people put themselves through such horrific shows of corporal mortification:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&c ... a=N&tab=wi