Godless morality

[i_am_i]

Intrinsic goodness. Now you're getting into territory that I may have trouble navigating through. So I'll think on that awhile, and let our more philosohpically-inclined members take that up.

Good thread, Jester. Oh, and please call me J.

[Ihateusernames]

Intrinsic goodness. Now you're getting into territory that I may have trouble navigating through. So I'll think on that awhile, and let our more philosohpically-inclined members take that up.

Good thread, Jester. Oh, and please call me J.

I only have a moment, but I was wondering--will it super piss you off if i start calling you 'G'?  Cus my bratty side is oh-so-wanting to do that  

[Ihateusernames]

I've read a lot of your posts and I find them very impressive.

I really appreciate your kind words, thank you.

I'm no intellectual...

Nor am I - honestly, I don't have the cred.  I haven't decided whether or not it's something to aspire to, or even something that can be aspired to by an average joe like myself.  I do like to read, however, and to think (as far as I am able with my given abilities and my current level of training) - surely just like everyone here.  But I'm off topic (again  )...

I definitely feel like I had to learn "moral" behavior.  Like you, I've done many things, to myself and others, that I regret.  It seems like what you're describing is a kind of "honorable selfishness," to which I can definitely relate.  I had to learn to enjoy behavior beneficial to both myself and others.  But what happens when the two come in conflict (the self and others)?

I just have to wonder - and Ihateusernames has a point in the other thread - just because we like something doesn't necessarily mean it has intrinsic value.  Psychopaths, well some psychopaths anyway, enjoy dominating others, have little or no empathy, and thereby have no compunction against causing harm, especially if it serves their ends.  If what pleases you is good, by what measure is their behavior wrong?  I desperately want the behavior of psychopaths to be intrinsically wrong, but what standard can we offer that makes it so?  My emotional revulsion would hardly suffice.

I suppose another question might be, does it matter whether or not, "objectively," their behavior is wrong?  Most will want to protect themselves against such individuals, will take action to do so, and I can see no reason why that behavior would be wrong either.  Does that mean that it's merely the will of the stronger group that, in the end, counts?  That's a little disturbing to me as well.

I'm reading a little on game theory, and it seems to bear on this issue - that there are practical reasons to engage in mutual protection, to have concern for others, to be generous to a point and to refrain from harming other humans, wherever possible, to be honest and forthright in one's dealings.  In short, to engage in behavior typically described as moral.  But I don't see how the contemplation of practical consequences in any way imparts intrinsic "goodness" to a thing.  What do others think?

I would just like to first off second i_am_i's initial statements.

Secondly, it is for the very reasons you have brought up that I believe the dichotomy between deism/theism and ethical nihilism is not a false dichotomy.  A false dichotomy can only happen when there are two options presented that are not mutually exclusive, however I believe that these are.  Either objective values/morals do exist (and the only theory that even comes close to explaining how that can be is deistic or theistic thought) or they are a complete illusion, granted a useful illusion for practical purposes, but an illusion none the less.

Sure you can say that theism/deism are just wrong if you wish (which on an atheistic message board is going to be the almost unanimous position), but that just means that you have selected ethical nihilism out of the dichotomy, not that it was a false dichotomy to start off with.  If this is a point of contention (which I am guessing it will be) in such that "atheism doesn't necessarily lead to ethical nihilism," (as I often here hear--without any justification) I would absolutely love to hear as it would most probably revolutionize large portions of atheistic thought. For one, humanism would absolutely love you, as for right now it is based off of the knowledge "what we say doesn't really hold philosophic water, but... ummm... lets say and do it anyway cus it makes us happy!" purely because of the issue between objective and subjective morality.

To lesson my verboseness, what I'm trying to say is that atheistically speaking, there never has been anything presented that harmonizes the attempt to claim there are 'inherent' or 'objective' moral values in the universe with the claim that there is no god (or even weak atheism--that there probably is no god).

If you, or anyone else, know of somehow to harmonize these two things, please rip me to shreds because it really would greatly strengthen atheistic thought.

-Ihateusernames

[Thumpalumpacus]

I personally think that the essence of a "good" morality lies in the application of the Golden Rule.  

Of course, that renders my standard entirely subjective, and I accept that.  I'm pretty suspicious of any "absolute", especially a pronuciamento in such an ephemeral topic.

[Ihateusernames]

I personally think that the essence of a "good" morality lies in the application of the Golden Rule.  

Of course, that renders my standard entirely subjective, and I accept that.  I'm pretty suspicious of any "absolute", especially a pronuciamento in such an ephemeral topic.

I'm going to psuedo-jokingly pick on you because the golden rule morality came up... with just one simple question:

Should a masochist follow the golden rule?

/end pseudo-joke

[Dregs]

This is going to be sloppily presented as I'm not done with my coffee yet, but here goes.  Morality, right vs. wrong, or how we treat each other IMHO is based on how a group of animals choses to set their societal structure.  Other animals who live in packs, or large grouping exhibit morality towards one and other as its essential to the packs sucess.  There are always members of the pack who decide to go it alone and they will be morally challenged as far as the pack is concerned, but their morals will be based on a loner set of moralities.  Now there are intricacies of this that are harder to explain like how free music lessons to a neighbor benefit a pack society, but some of that has to with chemical releases in the body that make us happy when we act a certain way that can be influenced by nuture and nature.  It's a complicated topic but I think the root cause of "The Golden Rule" is our choice to live as an intertwined society which was made long long ago.

[The Black Jester]

I would just like to first off second i_am_i's initial statements.

Thank you, I really appreciate that.

Secondly, it is for the very reasons you have brought up that I believe the dichotomy between deism/theism and ethical nihilism is not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy can only happen when there are two options presented that are not mutually exclusive, however I believe that these are.

I certainly agree that it is a true dichotomy in the sense that the two options presented are, in fact, mutually exclusive.  My original (obnoxious) retort was meant to question whether or not it was a true dichotomy in the other, related sense that the presented options were the only two available.  Two options can be mutually exclusive, but not jointly exhaustive, and so can be a 'false dichotomy' in the second sense, if not in the first.  However, you go on to argue lucidly here that the options are also jointly exhaustive:

Either objective values/morals do exist (and the only theory that even comes close to explaining how that can be is deistic or theistic thought) or they are a complete illusion, granted a useful illusion for practical purposes, but an illusion none the less.

And no, at the present time I can present no counter-argument to 'rip to shreds' this claim.  You're right, the secular humanists, with whom I have much sympathy, would love to be able to point to objective features of the universe and claim that they have discovered moral properties without recourse to a divine being instilling those properties.  My understanding of the Deontologists is that they have tried to do precisely this.  But my reading of them is a little scant to be able to comment on their success or failure.

And, as you may have heard, Sam Harris is trying valiantly to argue that you can define an 'objective' morality with recourse only to science.  The argument is garnering lots of whooping derision in traditional philosophic circles, usually based on our old friend the 'is/ought' problem - that you can in no way derive prescriptions for behavior from descriptions of the state of the world.  

Here's an article he wrote, if anyone's interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

My reading of his argument is that it is plausible up to a point - but only up to a point.  The gist of it seems to be that since we are beginning (and only just) to develop an understanding of consciousness, we are beginning to develop the tools to be able to define what promotes the actual or potential 'well-being' for beings with consciousness, and therefore "that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science."

He refrains from defining 'well-being' in any but the fuzziest terms, which is part of the reason for the derision on the philosophic front - but he argues that there could be many "peaks" in the "moral landscape" that represent different ways of maximizing conscious 'well-being,' depending upon certain benign individual and cultural proclivities and idiosycrasies.  Whatever our doubts about positive answers, there are some answers to the moral question, he claims, that are patently wrong.  He gives the example of the Library of Alexandria.  While we cannot know what precisely was contained in that library, we can certainly know that it did not include Cather in the Rye.  Why can we not, at the least, do this for morality?

But he seems to define "wrong" as anyone who isn't interested in well-being, and takes for granted that most people will, however fuzzy their definitions of the term, want to promote, in general, the 'well-being' of everyone else.  Or that they should want that, even if they don't.  Because it's best.  Now, I believe there are sensible reasons for thinking along those lines, but I cannot argue that it is because my preferences have any sanction other than my own.

To defend the fuzziness of 'well-being,' he uses the example of the term 'health' and 'life,' both of which are similarly difficult to pin down.  This difficulty does not prevent progress in the medical sciences, so why should uncertainty over the term 'well-being' prevent progress in this hypothetical budding 'science' of morality?  What about psychopaths?  Well, we ignore quacks in physics, why should we not ignore obvious outlier's in morality?  But providing examples of difficulties in other disciplines does not relieve you of the burden of your own similar problems.  It merely points out that the problem is wide-spread.

In the end, even if every single person did agree exactly on what was right and what was wrong, this would merely be a contingent fact about the universe, not a necessary one, and although we would need to explain this curious convergence of opinion, it could be that 'everyone' is simply wrong.  And, again, even if it is most pragmatic for everyone to seek the long term well-being of others, that makes it practical, not intrinsically good.  But the question is...do we need anything more than 'practical.'

But...the article was still an interesting read.

[KebertX]

Atheists are moral for the exact same reason God-Believers are moral.  You see, they think that they are getting their morals from the bible, and that they behave because they know God is watching them.

No one (except Al Qaeda, Orthodox Jews, or the Westboro Baptist Church), draws their morals from scripture.  If all theists actually drew their morals from scripture, they would be stoning all their friends to death, burning people alive, buying and selling slaves, and living in the Dark Ages.  No, theists get there morals from reason, just like everybody else.

We are moral because we are social animals, and in a society, people decide how we should behave toward one another.  To me, 'Moral' just means, 'not causing suffering'.  We get our morals from our ability to reason that within a group of people, it is best that we don't harm each other, so as to function as a whole.  Theists get their morals from the exact same reasoning, and not from the bible.

If anyone thinks the only reason to be moral is religion, then they are quite deluded, and I feel sorry for them.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." ~ Albert Einstein
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke

[Cecilie]

Christopher Hitchens once said: "Morality comes from humanism and is stolen by religion".

[Davin]

Yes, absolute morality doesn't exist. Morality is made up. Morality is subjective. We don't need morality for the human race to survive... though maybe we might need morals to survive given how long babies are weak, how few can be born at a time and how defenseless the mother is during the last few months, but for this argument let's say that morals aren't required for the survival of the human race.

What morals are in their most basic form is; "I won't kill you if you don't kill me." The reason to be moral is to make the society better, which also makes your own life better. The question is, what kind of life do you want to lead, because without morals I really doubt that we'd be having a conversation over the internet, we'd be trying to protect what we think is ours from everyone else. And the few people that group up and create the "protect each other to protect ourselves" moral would be surpassing the people with the "take what you can when you can" moral, because the bigger group can better protect against one person.

Morals aren't just some imaginary construct, they're what helped us develop into the society we see now. If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live, then that is something else to discuss, but the reasons to be moral (read morals directed at bettering the society) should be pretty obvious as you're using one of the benefits from having them right now.

[The Black Jester]

Atheists are moral for the exact same reason God-Believers are moral. You see, they think that they are getting their morals from the bible, and that they behave because they know God is watching them.

No one (except Al Qaeda, Orthodox Jews, or the Westboro Baptist Church), draws their morals from scripture. If all theists actually drew their morals from scripture, they would be stoning all their friends to death, burning people alive, buying and selling slaves, and living in the Dark Ages.

I agree with everything you've said here.  Dawkins makes these points well in The God Delusion.

No, theists get there morals from reason, just like everybody else.

Depends very much on how you define "reason."  If you mean logic - no, I would have to disagree, they don't "get there [sic] morals" from logic.  They may use the logic of predictable consequenses to defend their morals, or to achieve the end for which the moral was established, but they don't derive the morals themselves from logic.  If you have a certain goal - and the final 'end' or goal has to be established by definition (preferences, emotional reactions, self-preservation, mommy-told-you-so, whatever), not logic - then logic and rational thought will help you reach that goal.  But you can't derive the goal.

Morals seem to me to be very much dependant upon, or reactions too, one's cultural context.  Dawkins makes a great argument along these lines, showing how what is abominable in the present was often the norm in the past. And further, he argues that the progress in the morality of society happens entirely apart from religion, often in spite of it, and seems to obey cultural forces (including the influences of specific luminaries) entirely outside traditional supernatural explanations.  I definitely agree with that.  And yes, there does seem to be a lot of cross-cultural overlap in specific morals - which I take as a great place to start when developing a non-religiously based ethical system.  Looking at what needs and goals those common morals serve and deciding if I agree with those goals.

To me, 'Moral' just means, 'not causing suffering'.

Are you a strict pacifist?

[The Black Jester]

Christopher Hitchens once said: "Morality comes from humanism and is stolen by religion".

I absolutely agree with him.  Secular Humanism is perhaps closest to what I would call my own system of moral behavior.

[The Black Jester]

Yes, absolute morality doesn't exist. Morality is made up. Morality is subjective. We don't need morality for the human race to survive... though maybe we might need morals to survive given how long babies are weak, how few can be born at a time and how defenseless the mother is during the last few months, but for this argument let's say that morals aren't required for the survival of the human race.

I actually do think morality is necessary for the human race to survive.  I think morality would never have evolved or survived in the meme pool if it didn't serve a vital function.  I don't think it's just a matter of improving our lives - I think our lives actually depend upon it to a great extent.  I think empathy evolved in service of our survival.  And I personally have a great stake in this (the survival of the human race, and of course myself by extension).  I just don't think the universe cares one way or another what I think.  And no, that may not be relevant as a matter of practical consequence.  I'm just wondering, given that we must determine morality for ourselves, how we can figure out exactly what morals to agree on, or how to come to that agreement or how to define exactly what moral means.  

And the few people that group up and create the "protect each other to protect ourselves" moral would be surpassing the people with the "take what you can when you can" moral, because the bigger group can better protect against one person.

I hear that...again, totally agree...

If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live...

I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

[Davin]

If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live...

I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

Well I can't force or coerce other people into valuing something, but I can express what I value and often why I value it.

[The Black Jester]

If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live...

I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

Well I can't force or coerce other people into valuing something, but I can express what I value and often why I value it.

Fair enough.  It's entirely possible that I'm far too obsessed with rebutting people like Nietzsche.  But he does make me think...