News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Godless morality

Started by winterbottom, May 06, 2008, 06:36:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tank

Quote from: "MariaEvri"personally I believe we are taught by our parents, our experience and our friends/surroundings
Short, sweet and right on the money  :headbang:
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Sophus

Quote from: "Friedrich Nietzsche"Fear is the mother of all morality.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Thumpalumpacus

I'm not so sure we're all that good.  History tells a different tale.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

NothingSacred

Our societies and species wouldn't survive if we weren't. Human greed and power complexes make us forget that sometimes though.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -William James
Anything worth knowing is difficult to learn- Greek Proverb
what if god ain't looking down what if he's looking up instead-Ani difranco "what if no one's watching

Thumpalumpacus

Perhaps.  Or, perhaps, our success is the result of brains and not morality at all.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

The Magic Pudding

I think humans seek fairness for themselves, but some cheat.
This link talks about monkeys who feel the same.
http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

penfold

Quote from: "MariaEvri"... we are taught by our parents, our experience and our friends/surroundings
Quote from: "NothingSacred"Our societies and species wouldn't survive if we weren't.

I think there is truth in both these statements. That our parents etc... have a profound influence on our morality is above question, after all why else would one find pro-abstinence teenagers? That there is some genetic component arising from our nature as social animals is also undoubtedly true; we have evolved to be social animals, and any society requires a set of rules to function. In this sense we are hard-wired to be moral (moreover that the sociopath may arise from any corner of our society shows that regardless of our nurturing there is an aspect of nature that makes us moral).

How far our morality is nature and how far it is nurture is up for debate, frankly though the question is one that holds little interest for me, and my guess is that the two interplay (ie we are genetically predisposed to adopt the morality of those around us - a point neatly demonstrated by the Stanford prison experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

What is of interest to me is how a secular society should deal with morality. Obviously it cannot be absolute (one needs a God to guarantee an absolute 'good and evil' ), neither can it be logical (logic being methodological and morlaity being axiomatic), neither should it be democratic (regardless of popular opinion it is not okay for a state to kill off an ethnic minority). So how should the secular world approach morality?

Martin TK

I believe that ethics often come from those we emulate, our parents, teachers, coaches, etc.  Morals are bit more complex, I think.  Morality as a whole is about doing what is both good for ourselves and those around us.  I think that originally, when families and groups were not close together or were smaller, morals were those things that were in the best interest of the group.  It didn't serve the group well to steal food, or to kill, or even to lie; those who did those things weren't always seen as criminal, but not doing what is in the best interest of the group.  I believe this grew into a greater sense of right and wrong, again still based on the good of the community/society.  This is perhaps why in some societies today we find groups of people doing things we wouldn't find moral, or why in the past groups of people did things that today we find to not be moral.

I like to use the Spartans as an example.  Here is a group who had no moral issues with killing children who were not fit to grow up to be warriors.  Today, we would find that to be wrong, but in that time, it was right.  So too, are some of the acts that were written about in the Old Testament.  Today, we find that killing women and children is morally wrong, slavery is morally wrong.  This is why I have such a hard time with Christians who want to apply what is written in the OT to today's morality.

Of course I was recently challenged to explain the The Kantian Moral Argument which goes like this:

Kant’s Moral Argument
(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I can see about a dozen things wrong with this, but ask any Christian who has done a little homework and they will argue this to death.
"Ever since the 19th Century, Theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are NOT reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world"   Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

penfold

For atheists the concept of 'burden of proof' is important. Reason dictates that a positive claim must be backed up by evidence. Broadly this central idea belongs to both the sceptic and the scientist. I, for one, try and use this sceptical method in deciding what to believe.

There are some cases where I assent to believe; for example I believe that the universe is atomic; as the evidence is compelling. There are other cases were I withhold belief; for example I do not believe in god(s); as there is no evidence.

What then of other belief claims we all make? If we use the sceptical method to demonstrate the absurdity of theism should we not be equally honest in assessing all our beliefs?

Take my belief that “rape is wrong”. It is a positive claim. So by my own rules I should try and provide evidence for it. I can talk of the infliction of pain and suffering of an individual, however that is not evidence for “rape is wrong” unless I assume “the infliction of pain is wrong”. However if “the infliction of pain is wrong” then it must follow that “the infliction of pleasure is good” (pleasure being the absence of pain). Of course the rapist gets pleasure. So now I have to say that “rape is wrong” because the rape victim's suffering has greater moral weight than the rapist's pleasure. Which means that I imply the further positive claim: “pleasure and pain are measurable in terms of morality” (which is required if we are to compare the moral weight of peoples' pain and pleasure). How should I provide evidence for that? My guess is I can't because pain/pleasure are NOT measurable they are inherently subjective.

We can broaden the above line of reasoning to all moral beliefs; to any claim of the form “x is good/bad”. Further even than this it can apply to all aesthetic beliefs, even political beliefs. In fact it seems to me that my sceptical method is as fatal to any non-empirical belief (ie a belief that is not about the physical world) as it is to God. The great David Hume, for example, used it to undermine the notion of the self.

So my questions are these:

(i) If we apply the sceptical method to god(s) belief, should we not also apply it to other beliefs incapable of empirical evidence?

(ii) And if so should we abandon these non-empirical beliefs as we have God; or is there another way we can justify our non-empirical beliefs?

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "penfold"Take my belief that “rape is wrong”. It is a positive claim. So by my own rules I should try and provide evidence for it.

You're confusing moral truths and epistemological truths.

QuoteI can talk of the infliction of pain and suffering of an individual, however that is not evidence for “rape is wrong” unless I assume “the infliction of pain is wrong”. However if “the infliction of pain is wrong” then it must follow that “the infliction of pleasure is good” (pleasure being the absence of pain).

I have a couple of problems with this passage:

1) Pleasure isn't the absence of pain.  Pleasure is positive enjoyment, which is a different critter.
2) It is entirely possible that the wrong in inflicting pain is not that pain is being inflicted, but that anything at all is being inflicted; i.e., the wrong is in violating the right of the subject to determine his or her own existence.

QuoteOf course the rapist gets pleasure.

This assumption needs to be questioned.  It is possible that the rapist rapes to achieve pleasure, but rather to alleviate an internal need for power, and yet still feels just as crummy at the end of it all.

QuoteSo now I have to say that “rape is wrong” because the rape victim's suffering has greater moral weight than the rapist's pleasure. Which means that I imply the further positive claim: “pleasure and pain are measurable in terms of morality” (which is required if we are to compare the moral weight of peoples' pain and pleasure). How should I provide evidence for that? My guess is I can't because pain/pleasure are NOT measurable they are inherently subjective.

Subjective judgments are still judgments, and there's nothing inherently wrong with them.

QuoteSo my questions are these:

(i) If we apply the sceptical method to god(s) belief, should we not also apply it to other beliefs incapable of empirical evidence?

Of course.

Quote(ii) And if so should we abandon these non-empirical beliefs as we have God; or is there another way we can justify our non-empirical beliefs?

As god is postulated, it should indeed be considered empirically testable; after all, it is claimed he interacts with the physical world on a daily basis (in the Christian and Islamic views).  I have discarded my faith because these tests are failed.

I justify moral truths based on a Utilitarian outlook, myself.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

penfold

@ Thumpalumpacus,  thank you for your reply. Interesting stuff.

First off I don't think I am confusing epistemic truths and empirical truths; rather I was comparing them. The point of that (admittedly long-winded) passage was to show that moral truths cannot be empirically verified. If I claim that my table is 6ft long we can get out a tape measure and check. There is no equivalent for a moral claim.

Your point about pleasure not being the absence of pain is well taken, I have been reading too much Schopenhauer recently. However I could talk of the rapist alleviating the sexual drive, and so the alleviation of suffering. (As for guilt let's suppose the rapist is a pure sociopath). With those tweaks, I think, the problem still stands.

I was a bit confused by your answers to my two questions.

You agreed that we should abandon all non-empirical beliefs:
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote(i) If we apply the sceptical method to god(s) belief, should we not also apply it to other beliefs incapable of empirical evidence?
Of course.

Yet you seem to promote both a 'rights based' system of morality:
Quotethe wrong is in violating the right of the subject to determine his or her own existence
and an utilitarian one:
QuoteI justify moral truths based on a Utilitarian outlook

So can I ask,

Are you saying that either 'rights-based' or 'utilitarian' truths are empirically verifiable as true?

If not then what is your justification for believing them?

Davin

When I ask for evidence or invoke the burden of proof, I'm not actually asking for 100% correctness, just a reasonable justification for me to accept it as true. The question as to whether rape is wrong and/or why rape is wrong really just depends on your idea of what is beneficial and what is detrimental.

Pleasure is not always the consideration because sometimes the one being raped does get some physical pleasure from the act, the problem isn't one of just physical pleasure, the psychological damage that occurs to the person who felt physical pleasure while hating what was being done to them is very damaging and takes a lot of work to get over. Also being forced to be used by someone else for something that people consider to be a very private and selective thing causes psychological problems as well. This is in addition to the other things that happen with rape already mentioned.

If you're looking for evidence that rape is bad, I think it's easy to see that it causes more damage than anything else without even considering side effects like how people are affected when rapes occur frequently around where they live and/or work. Of course I define good as making peoples lives more free, safe and comfortable and bad as anything that prevents those things.

I think those things are very important because those are the things I want because I know my life is better when I have freedom, where I'm safe from harm and when I'm comfortable.

Some of the reasons I think my life is better with those things is because I'm far more efficient at everything and my mind can free up thoughts of stress for thoughts of imagination.

That is as "deep" as I'm willing to discuss "good" and "bad" because if I go any more micro, it will only result in useless meanings that are better reserved for when one is high... like the discussion of what "meaning" means.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

The Magic Pudding

#477
A theist claims the Word is an objective truth.
An atheist should recognise morals as subjective.
I see no reason why I should tie myself in knots considering a rapist's point of view when developing my morals.
Just because morals are subjective doesn’t mean they are not valuable.
They are open to change over time.

Recusant

Why does rape seem to be a favorite subject for this sort of navel gazing?  I've seen it too many times for it to just be a coincidence.  I'm starting to think it's because many young male philosophers don't get laid as much as they would like.

Rape victims have been known to be so traumatized by the experience that they subsequently commit suicide.  Is that empirical enough for you?

*wishes there were a way to dope-slap over the internet*
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


penfold

Quote from: "Recusant"Why does rape seem to be a favorite subject for this sort of navel gazing?  I've seen it too many times for it to just be a coincidence.  I'm starting to think it's because many young male philosophers don't get laid as much as they would like.

Rape victims have been known to be so traumatized by the experience that they subsequently commit suicide.  Is that empirical enough for you?

I didn't mean to cause offence, and apologise if I did. The only reason I brought up rape is that in moral terms it is simple (though you are correct that I get less sex than I would like, but then who doesn't).

Our moral reaction to rape is instant and visceral. I have found that if one uses other examples often the conversation gets sidetracked; so killing detours onto self defence, genocide strays into history, etc... (As for navel-gazing; this is a philosophy forum right? No one is forcing you to take part).

Your point about the trauma to the victim is certainly true. However there is a concurrent benefit to the rapist. So if your empirical measure of morality is pleasure/harm, as you seem to suggest, then you must be assuming that pleasure or harm can be measured. A claim of the form that “rape is wrong because it causes greater harm to the victim than any benefit to the perpetrator”.

Prima facie this seems reasonable; and this utilitarian outlook seems very fashionable amongst the new atheists. However there is a real problem in terms of measuring pleasure. To be empirical about anything one has to have a measurement in a standard unit. As pleasure or harm are inherently subjective they are not capable of measurement. This means utilitarianism cannot claim to be empirical. Bentham's hedonic calculus is a sham.

To take a more subtle example. The benefit cheat can go from a hand to mouth lifestyle to real comfort. The harm done to others measures in the fraction of a penny. How can we tell which of the following moral arguments is correct:

i)While the harm done to each member of society is very small the collective harm outweighs the benefit to the cheat; therefore cheating the benefit system is a moral wrong.
ii)The harm done to society is so small and diffuse that the considerable benefit to the cheat is more significant; therefore cheating the benefit system is not a moral wrong.

 The only way to resolve such a disagreement is by measurement. However we cannot measure pleasure and harm. There is no way to assert the truth of one statement over another. It logically follows that the statement “rape is wrong because the harm to the victim outweighs the benefit to the perpetrator” is not empirically sound.

So, if you will indulge in a spot of navel-gazing. Why is rape wrong?


Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"A theist claims the Word is an objective truth.
An atheist should recognise morals as subjective.
I see no reason why I should tie myself in knots considering a rapist's point of view when developing my morals.
Just because morals are subjective doesn’t mean they are not valuable.
They are open to change over time.

I profoundly agree. My only promlem is this; can't I take your statement “Just because morals are subjective doesn’t mean they are not valuable” and replace it with: "Just because belief in God is subjective doesn’t mean that it is not valuable” and use that to justify my behaviour?