Godless morality

[xSilverPhinx]

Objective morals (such as the law) are extremely important, because otherwise many of us would just fall back into tribal behavior. The best we can do is achieve a rather delicate balance.

This is great.  Thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far to the discussion.
xSilverPhinx â€" So, am I mistaken in thinking  that you are arguing that, regardless of the fact that we cannot identify a single objective moral standard as a feature of the universe, we nevertheless should behave as if there were one, because it would result in greater stability or a greater “quality of life” for everyone?  On what basis do we choose among the possible moral systems to come up with a standard that should apply to everyone?  Metaethically speaking, why would this method be more moral than allowing for different systems that could be more responsive to the different needs of various populations?

Yes, I guess it’s basically that.
For instance: rules against stealing. People have a right to live and survive, right? Well if it were suddenly ok for the group of people who can’t sustain their families start to steal in order to survive, then what’s to keep from all of them doing that? Why wouldn’t a person who thinks they could make more money from stealing not quit their honest job and steal instead? Is it ok to steal (I’m asking this question in reference to whom, because obviously for the thief it’s ok, but for the victim and society it’s not)?

It’s easy to empathize with the desperate who steal in order to survive, but why have we learned not to tolerate it anyways? We value an honest living above stealing (most of us, anyways), even if the thief’s family is starving. We, as the groups that don’t need to steal in order to survive and prize the stability of society so that we can reap the benefits, would much rather turn a blind eye to the starving families of thieves rather than allow them to steal,  and because of that it’s immoral in the eyes of the law.

I think that the prime aims of most objective morals is to protect and maintain stability of the structure of society rather than the individuals or groups that are in them and that’s maybe why not all people or groups will ever have equal quality of life living within the same society. Objective rules serve mainly to avoid throwing societies into chaos. It’s presupposed that individuals and groups will benefit from that. Objective morality also lies on the fact that what benefits individuals and groups will also benefit society, but they’re not the main reason for laws, IMO.

Maybe in the future society will almost reach a breaking point and then it will become objectively immoral to accumulate too much wealth and mandatory redistribution of money and assets will be enforced, who knows?

[JoElite]

Why is "feeling good" the object of morality?  Why is it not something like "self-improvement,"

Good point, personally im looking for self improvement as you say here, but the majority of human being are selfish, its a part of our survival to in some sence value our selves more then others, i would have to claim that if we didnt feel good about making someone els feel good then nobody would even try to make someone els feel  good, but i agree. Self improvment is way better, but not everyone seeks it, thats why im basing this on feeling good

1) Why would maiming a person for life be moral in this case?  Wouldn't it likely deprive them of other pleasures or satisfactions later on, and wouldn't you, by cutting off the finger, be the agent of that deprivation?

Yes yes, but if someone feels pleasure in loosing bodyparts, then who am i to deny them that pleasure ( AGAIN this is unlikely, its kinda childish to abse our arguments on something that probably would never happen )

2) The liklihood of this scenario is in some sense irrelevant.  If you are positing a moral system to be universally applied, it must apply in every case, and thought experiments like this are used to test the soundness of ideas.

Yes it plays a big part, some peoples find pleasure in feeling pain, some peoples dont.. Thats why its easy to make a decision in those cases.
But to take a case that isnt likely to happen makes it much harder, since ive only tried out this on reality.
but if the finger was in some way torturing him then it would be moral to remove it yes.. But if someone wants me to remove his finger for fun... Then i have no idea what i would do.. but basically thats unlikely.

In your hypothetical scenario, how do you propose that we "do the maths"?

if you know yourself well enough then youll know how you would feel in both cases, if you were someone that begged someone els to be rude.. how sad would you be if he decided NOT to be rude.. And the other way around, how would you feel  if someone came up to you and just said you were stupid without any reason.
To know yourself is the best key to unlocking true morality.
You have good arguments but im still gonna stick with, Treat others as you would like to be treated. ( make em feel good, )

[The Black Jester]

I think that the prime aims of most objective morals is to protect and maintain stability of the structure of society rather than the individuals or groups that are in them and that’s maybe why not all people or groups will ever have equal quality of life living within the same society. Objective rules serve mainly to avoid throwing societies into chaos. It’s presupposed that individuals and groups will benefit from that. Objective morality also lies on the fact that what benefits individuals and groups will also benefit society, but they’re not the main reason for laws, IMO.

It might be useful at this point to try to make a few distinctions regarding terms like "law", "morality", and "rules".  In the paragraph above, for instance, you seem to be using these terms somewhat interchangeably.  But I think there may be a difference in the referents of these terms.  For example, the SEP has this to say, in its discussion of the definition of morality:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/)

Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law. Some have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality (Dworkin).

Does this distinction make sense?  Or is it unnecessarily parsing terms?

[xSilverPhinx]

It might be useful at this point to try to make a few distinctions regarding terms like "law", "morality", and "rules".  In the paragraph above, for instance, you seem to be using these terms somewhat interchangeably.  But I think there may be a difference in the referents of these terms.  For example, the SEP has this to say, in its discussion of the definition of morality:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/)

Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law. Some have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality (Dworkin).

Does this distinction make sense?  Or is it unnecessarily parsing terms?

Yeah I was using the terms somewhat interchangeably, and counting the law (both secular and religious) as objective morality but still morality nonetheless. I would vaguely define morality as codes of conduct which help maintain stability which is dependent on the well-being of individuals and groups within a society and that the well-being of individuals and groups contribute to the overall well-being of society. I included them as basically the same idea but on a different social level (beyond particular groups and individuals) and in doing so I fell into the error I try to avoid when thinking about such complex systems, and that is oversimplification.

So rewind… :/

[dogsmycopilot]

Is there any absolute basis for morality? are there good reasons, nevertheless, to be moral?  How do we decide what is moral without some absolute standard to reference?  How should disagreements about moral behavior be decided?  What options are available to us in making our choices?

1. No, there is no absolute morality.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on what you want.
4. Depends on what you want.
5. We can go with nature, law of the jungle kind of stuff or we can have a society that is meant to protect people from nature. We have more of the former but I'd prefer the latter. Any more questions?

[Asmodean]

Why be moral?

Less likely to make enemies if you attempt to be reasonably good to people. Besides, there is some personal satisfaction in doing "the righ thing"

Morals are not universal though, so one mans right thing can be the other's wrong.

[Shine]

I do not think that there is absolute morality with a fixed set of precepts but I do think that there are absolute moral and ethical processes.  Because we are an interdependent species who evolved in social units, I think that "ethics" is the process of balancing the welfare of the individual with the welfare of the group.  Individual moral judgments are determined by the individual trying to balance their own interests in relation to the group, and ethical judgments are determined by the group trying to balance its interests as a whole.  I think that morality is highly subjective to the individual situation and that moral conflicts are an inevitable result of different individuals with different situations and different interests.  Ethics tries to resolve these conflicts and promote social cohesion while simultaneously protecting the individual to the greatest extent possible.  Could the goal of achieving this balance between the group and the individual then be considered an absolute benchmark?

I guess that I am so stuck upon an absolute framework in order to escape the pitfalls of cultural relativism.  If there is truly no standard by which we can condemn or condone an action, how can we logically criticize the brutality prevailed upon individuals in cultures other than our own?  Maybe I am just being intellectually lazy and grasping at the slippery ideal of "social cohesion" as a means of justifying my own revulsion at the violation of human rights in other societies.

But I see where my entire argument is in danger of circularity because who is to say that the balance of group and individual welfare is really that important after all?  I think that I base it on our individual survival being dependent upon the group's survival; however, the group itself is a meaningless abstraction if the individuals themselves become nothing more than pieces of the whole.  Therefore, I think that a balance between the two is an absolute value--completely devoid of any supernatural origin--and the foundation of ethics.

[The Black Jester]

Is there any absolute basis for morality? are there good reasons, nevertheless, to be moral?  How do we decide what is moral without some absolute standard to reference?  How should disagreements about moral behavior be decided?  What options are available to us in making our choices?

1. No, there is no absolute morality.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on what you want.
4. Depends on what you want.
5. We can go with nature, law of the jungle kind of stuff or we can have a society that is meant to protect people from nature. We have more of the former but I'd prefer the latter. Any more questions?

 

[The Black Jester]

But I see where my entire argument is in danger of circularity because who is to say that the balance of group and individual welfare is really that important after all?

I admire the way you write and think, by the way.  You have a facile grasp of concepts and argue well.

You've nicely anticipated my reply.  I would certainly like that to be the case, and I share your concerns (or obsession, if you will) with establishing a rigorous and solid foundation for criticizing such things as human rights violations.  But I'm not certain where we have such a foundation absolutely.

There are other philosophers, for example, who have put forward the idea that the proper goal of humanity is not the survival of the group per se, but the "perfection" of the type.  This consideration results in a morality that is far more cruel than I comfortable with, to greatly understate my response to such propositions, but how does one rebut it as a goal absolutely?  My suspicion is that ulitmately such an arrangement wouldn't merely be unstable, but would eventually eradicate the species.  But I can't prove it.  

Could the goal of achieving this balance between the group and the individual then be considered an absolute benchmark?

I think this is a promising beginning, if we can somehow argue definitively that it is a worthy goal, and the proper aim of morality.  The only problem is, this is precisely where many social systems differ - in the degree to which the individual and her goals are prized over the goals of society.  Many societies feel that the proper balance is weighted far towards the group and away from the individual.  And how do we edjudicate that disagreement?

[dogsmycopilot]

Is there any absolute basis for morality? are there good reasons, nevertheless, to be moral?  How do we decide what is moral without some absolute standard to reference?  How should disagreements about moral behavior be decided?  What options are available to us in making our choices?

1. No, there is no absolute morality.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on what you want.
4. Depends on what you want.
5. We can go with nature, law of the jungle kind of stuff or we can have a society that is meant to protect people from nature. We have more of the former but I'd prefer the latter. Any more questions?

 

Yup.

Unless you want to add some detail to your questions, I suppose.  

The only foundation for rights is the law. You want a right, make a law. Other than that you have no rights, you're an animal just like the rest of us. Half of what has been discussed here is an attempt to derive an ought from an is which will not work. I don't care how many philosophers you gather in a room there is nothing absolute. We share morality to the extent we share goals. Yes, it's more complex than what I wrote but that complexity does not change the simple facts that set the boundaries on this stuff. Even evolutionary tendencies can't be relied upon, after all evolution still gives us an appendix what does it know. We establish morality when we establish law.

[The Black Jester]

Yup.

Unless you want to add some detail to your questions, I suppose.

The only foundation for rights is the law. You want a right, make a law. Other than that you have no rights, you're an animal just like the rest of us. Half of what has been discussed here is an attempt to derive an ought from an is which will not work. I don't care how many philosophers you gather in a room there is nothing absolute. We share morality to the extent we share goals. Yes, it's more complex than what I wrote but that complexity does not change the simple facts that set the boundaries on this stuff. Even evolutionary tendencies can't be relied upon, after all evolution still gives us an appendix what does it know. We establish morality when we establish law.

Just FYI, in case it wasn't clear (not that I'm assuming you care), I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing at the bluntness of your response.  

I take it you feel this discussion is mostly a waste of time.  Fair enough, I will take my lumps...how could I have clarified my questions in order to make the discussion more worthwhile, or is the entire topic merely contemptible (or even beneath contempt)?

There must be some basis, absolute or not, on which to establish the laws you discuss - how should we make those decisions?  Doesn't equating "morality" with "law" just revert the problem of how to make those decisions to another arena without solving it?

Half of what has been discussed here is an attempt to derive an ought from an is which will not work. I don't care how many philosophers you gather in a room there is nothing absolute.

Just for the record, I am aware of the is/ought difficulty, and I do not suggest in any way that I have solved the problem, or even that a solution is possible.  I'm not sure.  Really, Hume was a wonderfully brilliant man, but he is hardly the last word on the subject.  I personally don't believe either that there is any absolute "meaning."  I think meaning, by definition, has to be attributed by sentient beings, it doesn't exist outside of them. Nor have I ever heard a convincing argument that shows how one might derive prescriptions from facts.  I just wonder how, in light of this, people think about moral decision making (or law making if you prefer).  And I'm curious if people disagree with the idea that there are no absolutes...I want to know why they do.  Perhaps they can offer a perspective I haven't considered.  And, also for the record, no, I don't expect that in an Atheist discussion forum we are likely to discover the solutions to these questions - I'm just curious to hear how people other than me think through these things.  

But, if I have honestly wasted people's time I do apologize for having done so, it was not my intention.

evolutionary tendencies can't be relied upon, after all evolution still gives us an appendix what does it know.

Very good point.

[Keithzworld]

What is your view point to where we get our ethics and morals from? Why are we good?

[Tank]

What is your view point to where we get our ethics and morals from? Why are we good?

You first  

[Tom62]

What is your view point to where we get our ethics and morals from? Why are we good?

I think you can buy them at Amazon  

[MariaEvri]

personally I believe we are taught by our parents, our experience and our friends/surroundings