Godless morality

[Ihateusernames]

I'm not talking about what is moral based on outcome, I am talking about what is moral based on desired intent.  

Fine, fine, another scenario then.   I'm a paranoid person, and I feel you are trying to kill me, as well as the rest of my family.  It honestly doesn't matter if its based on fact or fiction, that is how I feel.  taking your assumptions of desired intent, doesn't it mean that if I preemptively walk over to your house and murder you I did the 'moral' thing because my desired intent was saving me and my family's life by stopping you from killing us?   I mean if its in self defense, its not wrong to kill is it?

I think placing the emphasis on desired intent is equality as silly as placing it on the outcome.

Also, if a moral system isn't prescriptive, then its kinda just observation and useless to the discuss of what is 'right' and 'wrong' isn't it? Ethical egoism is just a personal choice on how to live life based on ethical nihilistic thought, its statements are as valid as Christianity if ethical nihilism is correct.

-Ihateusernames

[Whitney]

If someone is insane then they are unable to make informed moral choices so it doesn't matter.

I'm getting the feeling that you think in order for a moral theory to be correct that it has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations.  If morals really are just an evolved survival tool then we shouldn't expect any more perfection from morality than we do our own bodies.

[AlP]

Also, words like "should" and "ought" imply there is a 'good' and 'moral' way that is more than just personal opinion (Ie objective vs subjective),

When acting morally, why would one's actions be limited to those things that one "should" do? "Should", when used without any additional qualification, really needs some kind of authority to have any meaning. If you don't believe there is an appropriate authority then "should" doesn't become impossible to justify objectively; it becomes meaningless. Ditto "right" and "wrong". They can still be applied to law of course, because there we can agree on an authority or suffer the consequences, or in other words, deliberately commit the fallacy of appealing to prudence.

[Ihateusernames]

If someone is insane then they are unable to make informed moral choices so it doesn't matter.

I'm getting the feeling that you think in order for a moral theory to be correct that it has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations.  If morals really are just an evolved survival tool then we shouldn't expect any more perfection from morality than we do our own bodies.

I'd say its rather obvious that to be correct a system has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations. If it doesn't work in extremes its a pretty dang fallacious system. You disagree with that?  However if you want to say that the system is purely from evolution, and thus not perfect, nor should we expect it to be, its not much of a 'system' is it.  More of an observation about a random happening.

What I'm getting at is if morals are merely product of evolution, now that we have the mental ability to override our animalistic instincts and the instance strikes that we desire to do something 'immoral' like legally exploit people there is really no philosophic reason not to. Maybe an emotional reason not to, but emotions are trainable.

Like you have said before, though, if a sound argument doesn't fit reality it throws up red flags, and nihilism throws up red flags to me.  Red flags, however, are not a reason for why it is wrong, or what might replace it.

-ihateusernames

[Ihateusernames]

Also, words like "should" and "ought" imply there is a 'good' and 'moral' way that is more than just personal opinion (Ie objective vs subjective),

When acting morally, why would one's actions be limited to those things that one "should" do? "Should", when used without any additional qualification, really needs some kind of authority to have any meaning. If you don't believe there is an appropriate authority then "should" doesn't become impossible to justify objectively; it becomes meaningless. Ditto "right" and "wrong". They can still be applied to law of course, because there we can agree on an authority or suffer the consequences, or in other words, deliberately commit the fallacy of appealing to prudence.

Well, fine.  It means nothing.  The difference between being 'Impossible to justify' and having 'no meaning' seem like mincing words to me, but I agree with you.

Doesn't the phrase "when acting morally" inherently call for an option of "should"? The morally correct action always should be followed. When thinking about murdering someone or not murdering someone, the moral person should not murder.  I think to even say "When acting morally" you have to admit that the only options are limited to should, and should not.  Now I agree one's actions are not completely limited to those things that 'should' be done, but when deviating from the 'should' the person also deviates from the state of "acting morally".

I also agree with the law aspect of your post.  It is deliberately committing the fallacy of appealing to prudence, however enough people do it giving it enough strength that I follow along with them.  

-Ihateusernames

[templeboy]

This is kinda the ends justify the means isn't it? You do realize that "judging on what its effects would be" is basically impossible to do without an objective set of goals that everyone agrees are "good" or "correct" (or if your basing it on theism, that a God says are 'good' or 'holy'). Its like asking me "How tall are you" when everyone has their own opinion on how long one inch is. If you dont have a unified unit to judge something it doesn't work.

I'm only OK to say "the ends justify the means" only if the means are accepted as part of the ends...when we judge an action we do not just judge it on whether it achieves its goals, but also on what the collateral consequences...I'm not sure what your getting at after that...you are saying that it is impossible to quantify somethings goodness? OK, I follow and agree with that, and there is diversity of opinion on what is "good or correct," but surely there is also sufficient consensus that it is quite possible to make headway in improving society? Imperfection and inconsistency of ideology need not be an impediment to improvement.

Do you really look at the Nazi ethical system and think that although their ethical system was different from ours, it was equally as acceptable as everything is relativistic? And if you dont, doesn't it then boil down to a "my opinion against yours" dispute? What makes your opinion more "good" than Hitlers? is it that more people support you right now? If that's the case, that's exactly why I moved my before mentioned scenario into the past where slavery was the norm.

No way, I am not a moral relativist. There was something inherently flawed about the nazi version of ethics; it was based on unsound principles of racial superiority, on resentment and disaffection, on a bastardization of both darwinism and theology, on the lust for power and the dehumanisation of those who did not meet certain "ideals" of the human state.

Ethical egoism may be more tolerable than nihilism, however it seems rather silly when you really think about it. One should act morally because one needs to act morally to survive (even though what "morally" means is still about as clear as that pesky "should")? I do agree that there is a slight possibility that this is what happened in the past, and possibly why morals exist, but in the modern day you can be the most despicably horrible person and survive equally as easily as a saint. I'm not exactly sure how ethical egoism really applies anymore. We as a society keep the most unfit of us alive, basically a gigantic F- you to natural selection, so we pretty much have thrown off the "survival of the fittest" idea for a "survival of any human" type mindset. Throwing away survival of the fittest and ethical egoism doesn't make sense.

Personally ethical egoism seems more of a how morals developed, rather than an explanation of why one should act morally.

-Ihateusernames

A clarification: I studied ethics at university this year, and learned that there is a difference between "ethical egoism" which is a moral theory suggesting that we should seek to act in our own self-interest for a variety of reasons, and as I am sure you can imagine there are plenty of objections. But you and Whitney seem to be talking about something more like what is termed "psychological egoism" which is not a moral theory but a phycological, anthropological idea which suggests that all our actions are ultimately and unavoidably made out of self interest; even the most seemingly altruistic action is ultimately made out of self-interest.

For the record, I subscribe to neither idea, although I find the latter a scary and haunting idea.



But my point about the universe being an ethical nihilist universe was that morality is not a universal property; it is only a property of creatures capable of fear, pleasure, desire and so on...and arguably even only those which are sentient, cultural, forward-thinking such as humans. That does not mean morality is relative , although I might suggest that a hypothetical species which has no sense of pain or suffering or fear would have different moral laws resulting from the different nature of the creatues; I cannot see how this could be applicable to different human cultures.

[AlP]

Well, fine.  It means nothing.  The difference between being 'Impossible to justify' and having 'no meaning' seem like mincing words to me, but I agree with you.

I worry about these things!

Doesn't the phrase "when acting morally" inherently call for an option of "should"? The morally correct action always should be followed.

I think morality, in the general sense, is simply a code of conduct. It comes from the Latin "mores", which means "norms", "customs", "virtues" or "values" according to Wikipedia.

I think "should" used without any qualification, implicit or explicit is meaningless. Appeal to prudence is sufficient qualification to make it meaningful: "you should not throw a loud party late at night if you don't want a visit from the police". You aren't doing things because they're right or wrong, you're doing them to get something or avoid something.

But that's a cynical morality. For me, it's a morality of last resort. My pride is my primary moral guide. I want what I do to be something I am proud of. When I'm gone, what I have done will be my only mark. The aesthetics come first.

When thinking about murdering someone or not murdering someone, the moral person should not murder.  I think to even say "When acting morally" you have to admit that the only options are limited to should, and should not.  Now I agree one's actions are not completely limited to those things that 'should' be done, but when deviating from the 'should' the person also deviates from the state of "acting morally".

That would be black and white thinking. There are many courses of action. The broader question is more like "what now?" (which is meaningful) than "should I?" (which is not). One course of action would be to analyze why one is so greedy as to be seriously contemplating murdering someone. And if that doesn't work out then there's always the appeal to prudence.

[Whitney]

I'd say its rather obvious that to be correct a system has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations. If it doesn't work in extremes its a pretty dang fallacious system. You disagree with that?  However if you want to say that the system is purely from evolution, and thus not perfect, nor should we expect it to be, its not much of a 'system' is it.  More of an observation about a random happening.

When a system has evolved to work in general then there is no reason to expect it to work in extremes.  For instance, most kids can learn in a normal classroom setting yet their are exceptions where kids either need more help or more challenging work...does that mean the classroom system is wrong (we are assuming a good teacher)?  No, it just means that it doesn't work for all cases.

Aside from maybe math; nothing about this world is perfect.  I it doesn't make any sense to expect an understanding of why morality exists and why one ought to want to act morally should be perfect in so far as it can cover every crazy idea you can come up with.

[AlP]

Crap I just realized my current signature is relevant to this discussion.

From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. It is not the world that is absurd, nor human thought: the absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when my appetite for the absolute and for unity meets the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle.

Or in other words, this project of building a deductive argument for morality based on a foundation that amounts to nothing is absurd. It's impossible but we'll try anyway. We'll feel angst because we can't. Camus said it better.

[Renegnicat]

I hate user names, if it'll make you feel better, you could always consider what I now have as a signature. I'll quote it for you:

The best thing to do is reflect, understand, apreciate, and consider.

Don't expect to find a deductive argument for it, but if you can use it, feel free.  

[AlP]

Well said Renegnicat.

This just happened. A couple of hours ago I went out for a smoke. I smoke in different places but often on the steps of a church a block from me. I met Kate. Kate is beautiful. She was wearing a dress that let me see a lot of Kate. Kate asked me for a smoke. I warned her that they were menthols but she still wanted one. I realized as I tried to light her cigarette that she was very drunk. The first cigarette she tried to light backwards, meaning the filter end not in her mouth. The second time she extinguished the lighter. The third time she managed to light it.

Kate is a nurse. That was the third coherent sentence I got from her after her request for a cigarette and her name. Then she staggered close to me and indicated a desire to go home. She didn't specify who's home and damn she felt good. It turns out she'd been at a party and that she lives on my block. I half walked and half carried her in that direction. She seemed to like the contact and tried, drunkenly, to flirt with me.

I think I'll never know Kate because she was so drunk I doubt she'll ever remember. She got home safely. Her roommates were initially suspicious of me but eventually realized I was simply bringing her home. Tomorrow, I expect she will regret what lead to the hangover. But she won't regret what she did with me, if she even remembers.

So getting back on topic, we could look at this as "should" or "should not". I think she would have willingly had sex with me. So should I have had sex with her? I wanted to. I don't think I would have done anything wrong by the prevailing moral rules of society. But this misses a bigger picture. I want to do things that I will be proud of, things that people can look at and see that I have undeniably and objectively done. It's easy to do what you want but being what you want is the project of a lifetime.

[Ihateusernames]

Sorry about the lag in a well due reply from me... I have so much to say! (isn't discourse stimulating? I love it!) anyway, life issues are happening and internet forums happen to not be so high on the scale of importants right now...

I will be making time to reply to everything hopefully later tonight sometime!

[Ihateusernames]

Ok, so I got some time finally, yay! Rousing philosophical discussion time lets get to it!  Sorry for the length, but, you know, its been a while! [/quote]

Sorry, this is just useless.  The word “best” implies something is better than something else.  To say something is better or worse on anything other than personal opinion… meh I’ve already explained this : P. Thanks though. :yay: !

Ethical nihilist side:  Yes, you were an idiot to deny yourself if you feel that what you gained (pride) was less than what you would have gained (orgasms and whatnot.)  If you feel like you gained (pride) more from not doing it than you would have (orgasms and stuff), then obviously you were following ethical nihilism in that you do whatever you get more positive feelings from.  But then again, there is no should, or should not.  You have to accept that both are just opinions of what to do, so equally as valid.  In fact, taking her home and murdering her wouldn’t have been more ‘wrong’ than what you did, because there is no such thing as wrong.

Theistic morality side:  It may have been wrong to sleep with her.  It may have not been wrong, but there is the possibly that it was, so in all honestly you did the morally correct thing in taking the safer road...etc.  Obviously theistic morality brings up questions outside the realm of this thread.

Anyway… no one has really challenged the fact that ethical nihilism is the logical outworking of atheism.  I have heard no one explain how it isn’t.  I've only really been presented with something to the extent of “but we shouldn’t live like ethical nihilism is true because it leads to social instability."  I personally couldn’t care less about living to further social stability as I have no children, so who cares about the future past my death, and acting 'moral' is just a barrier to my personal interests in so many ways.

-Ihateusernames

PS: Please pardon any slight typos or extraneous words… I really, really, REALLY don’t feel like proof reading this time! : D as well as thanks again for (hopefully) reading this rather long post! : )

[AlP]

Well that is a long post. It's a good argument. I'll try and get to it tomorrow morning on the bus to work (it's a one hour ride).

[templeboy]

The word “improvement” is intrinsically making the moral judgment that the outcome is "better" than what used to be, instead of just “different”. While you might say that the “different” is more tolerable to you and those like you therefore it is “better”, that’s rather fallaciously based as it turns morals into purely opinion based, which everyone other than strict ethical nihilists disagree with in regards to the extreme cases of murder, rape, torture…etc.

Also, I believe the first part of your paragraph’s admittance of the fact that there is no way to quantify something’s goodness kinda kills your argument as well. How is it exactly logical to say something is “improved” if you admit there is no way of telling something’s goodness?

I don't think you've got it quite right. I am quite prepared to accept that in many ways a nihilistic approach is sound, that does not make it in any way inappropriate, on a more human level, to judge an action as "better" or "worse," based on its expected consequences...and the basis for this argument is more than opinions; just because people have different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions are equaly valid. As (I assume) an atheist, you should be well aware of that principle.
  Thats what it comes down to. Whose opinions are right? Thats why we argue, why we rationalize, we attempt to improve our imperfect models of right and wrong.

This is the same issue as the before paragraph… basically are you really saying the Nazi system was flawed based purely on your opinion or are you assuming some kind of absolute “wrongness” with principles of racial superiority, resentment and disaffection, bastardization of darwinism and theology, lust for power and the dehumanization of those who did not meet certain "ideals" of the human state. If it is the former, why are their opinions “worse” than your’s, rather than just “different”? As you can see it’s the same issue as before… We both need to learn to be more concise I guess! : )

Yeah, same as before, not all opinions are equal- but you will ask, why might I judge mine to be more valid than someone elses, say a nazi? Well, the only way to do it satisfactorily would be to invision a hypothetical intelligent but ignorant and neutral person who responds only to reason, and sell our ideas to him. The fact that there is no such person leaves us in an unsatisfying position....but this is typical of what is ultimately only an abstract cultural construct. Thats why the nihilistic approach is so appealing. Except that the nihilistic approach seems very ineffective on a practical level.

Dammit is all I can say.




I'm struggling to see the connection back to original point though. You were objecting to something about humanism; so perhaps we could get back to humanism...what exactly is objectionable about it?