morality for atheists?

[baggie]

I am pretty agnostic but I was reading "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard. Pretty awful book, but there were a few bits in there that made me wonder. One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings). Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system? Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome

[Some Friggin Guy]

Actually, morality was never really a creation of religion. It's a simple matter of personal protection.

Example: This is my stuff. I do not want someone else taking my stuff that I have worked so hard for. It is safe to assume that someone else has worked just as hard for their stuff, so I will not try to take it from them without giving them something in return.

[Bluefire]

Religions morality is simply a morality of submission. Eg. obey god because in the end, he is the one with the ultimate power.

Several secular systems along the same lines can and have been devised. Eg. obey the king/dictator/whatever because he is powerful. Of course, I dont consider any of these objectively rational morality systems.

About your "protoplasm" example: I am a piece of matter, but I am alive, and therefore I most certainly care. And alot of other living things do care. Hopefully you care too.

For some introductory info on the secular morals/ethics I find most rational see:

http://www.objectivistcenter.com/objectivism/what-is-objectivism.asp

and especially their faq on ethics:
http://www.objectivistcenter.com/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-ethics.asp

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by baggie
.... One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber?

Redundant? How can you have one without the other..


Theists want to equate religion with morality, and it is obviously not so. We have millions of religious people behaving badly to illustrate this.

Not to mention God itself..

Joshua 10
8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.
9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night.
10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword..


Does this sound like someone behaving ' morally ' to you ?


Of course the fundies will insist that God does not follow the same morals that we do.. If so, then how do we get our morals from God?

[Michael Redman]

Doing something because you are afraid God will punish you if you don't is not moral behavior. Doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is. I think it's more reasonable to question the morality of Christians who can't see why you would do good without the threat of God's punishment, than to question the morality of non-judeo-christian-muslim people who don't live under that threat, but nevertheless maintain stable, successful society on the basis of mutually understood moral and ethical norms.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Actually, morality was never really a creation of religion. It's a simple matter of personal protection.

Example: This is my stuff. I do not want someone else taking my stuff that I have worked so hard for. It is safe to assume that someone else has worked just as hard for their stuff, so I will not try to take it from them without giving them something in return.

I disagree. The morality I care about is the selfless dedication of people to others, the sacrifice of people such as the fireman in 9/11. One can argue the point from a evolutionary point of view (and I do) that these feelings are just biological adaptions, but the puzzle is then that one should then adopt a very Nietzchian approach and say that really topdog should rule as that is what happens in biology.

Diogenes, there are many replies to your arguments. I have no great liking of the OT god, but the NT version is closer to what is a western ideal. Two quick possible theological replies,
1. the OT scriptures are a mixture of god inspired stuff, legend, self-justification, poetry and history (basically your liberal anglican approach) - just ignore the self-justification stuff and legend and stick to the rest
2. Gods purpose is mysterious and works on longer timesales. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. All will be sorted out in the afterlife.


Blufire
the site you gave was interesting but equates happiness with laissez-faire capitalism - good to see some people still read Ayn Rand. It is an approach to ethics, but suffers from many possible counter arguments. E.g it sets up an axiom "To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself. " - but there is no proof that this is true. I might be equally happy working for a pittance with starving children all my life or being Stalin. I could equally set up many other ethical alternative axioms. But how does one decide which to go down?

[Bluefire]

Huh?!?

Where did you get the idea that it is an axiom?!?

The objectivist axioms are described separately,(Metaphysical axioms: existence, identity, consciousness and then a couple of epistemological axioms)

[Bluefire]

It does _not_ equate happiness with laissez-faire capitalism, though we do claim that achievement of happiness is easier for individuals if he is free.

Laissez-faire capitalism is in the area of politics, happiness is in the area of ethics

[baggie]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Doing something because you are afraid God will punish you if you don't is not moral behavior. Doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is. I think it's more reasonable to question the morality of Christians who can't see why you would do good without the threat of God's punishment, than to question the morality of non-judeo-christian-muslim people who don't live under that threat, but nevertheless maintain stable, successful society on the basis of mutually understood moral and ethical norms.

The problem is that Hitler thought it "right" to get rid of the jews and the slavs. In terms of more achieving more room and recourses for the germanic people he was right. We still need a rational system to say to Hitler that you are ethically wrong.

most christians I know are "moral" not because of fear of punishment, but because they want to follow (their view of) gods example because they love him. It is more how you would want your children to follow your example, through respect and love rather than fear.

Why are you moral? What is right and wrong? I suspect that there are no real answers

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by baggie


The problem is that Hitler thought it "right" to get rid of the jews and the slavs.

How do you know he believed this was ' moral ' behavior?


most christians I know are "moral" not because of fear of punishment, but because they want to follow (their view of) gods example because they love him..

What example is this ? As is in the story of Noah, perhaps ?


Why are you moral? What is right and wrong? I suspect that there are no real answers..


I'ts kind of like pornography, we know it when we see it...
I fail to understand how God or a belief in it, changes the mix in a beneficial way, when you can demonstrate that people behave pretty much the same way, with or without God.
And even God himself demonstrates behaviour that any idiot would find immoral..

[UnrepentantSinner]

The morality argument is the absolute worst - and oddly enough, most proven false - by plain old atheists (as opposed to enforced atheist societies like the Soviet Union). One can use the most rudimentary of logic to validate the Golden, Silver and Brass rule.

The simple fact is that humans are social creatures, not solitary brutes living as they please. If you act s***y within your society, either society sanctions you, or you wind up with a s***y society and no sane person I know wants either. This is an unescapable fact that those who foolishly proffer the morality argument seem to ignore.

What is truly disturbing are theists who claim they'd run amok if they thought there was no deity. My only reaction to them is that if your belief in a god is the only thing controlling you... I'm suggesting you start medication now.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Bluefire
Huh?!?

Where did you get the idea that it is an axiom?!?

The objectivist axioms are described separately,(Metaphysical axioms: existence, identity, consciousness and then a couple of epistemological axioms)

I have not read the site very thoroughly so my reply may have been a little glib (and it is 20 years since I tried to read Rand). I called it an axiom as it seems to be the main basis of where Rand was coming from - please correct me if I am wrong. (the word axiom may not be 100% correct but I think you get my drift). The postulate is a forceful one and one that has merits. My problem with it is that is seems to lead naturally on to Laissez-faire capitalism (politics and ethics are closely intertwined, ones ethics usually determines ones politics, and political actions lead to ethical consequences). It is this part of it that I find worrying.

[Bluefire]

Yes. Objectivist ethics leads naturally to laissez-faire capitalism.

So am I correct in assuming that you're reasoning is somewhere along the lines :

1.) Objectivist ethics leads to capitalist politics
2.) I dont want capitalist politics
3.) Therefore I dont want Objectivist ethics
?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by baggie
E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings).

Hi baggie.

All humans, atheists or non-atheists, cannot escape the need to either find intellectual fulfillment or meaning in life (short of suicide that is). This desire has to be reflected in some sort of ideal, whether the ideal is evolutionary survival or theistic morality.

I don't think any atheist or agnostic would agree that we are "just chunks of protoplasm". We are living creatures capable of creating and understanding things like truth, love and beauty. All we know is inherently meaningful. Meaning exists because our thinking minds exist. And I've never met an atheist or agnostic who didn't care about other person's feelings. It's the most natural thing in the world to do. You have to be a complete sociopath to not care about feelings.

The question could be "why should an atheist/agnositic" care about feelings? And the obvious answer is "because they are human".

Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system?

Theoretically, definitely. The problem for proving this is that the world we live in is indelibly effected and reflective of the history and presence of religion. However, if we take 100 people at a young age, drop them on an island etc etc etc I think it very likely that those people could devise a meaningful ethical system independent of religion. The idea of natural law and conformation to ideals of moral behavior have been defended by even the most religious of philosophers. Morality cannot be something that is inherently foreign to human understanding, that would be preposterous. The idea that morality may be connected to God is an innovative idea, but outside the scope of what is under consideration.

Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture.

That pretty much somes up the culture of every culture that has ever existed. There are always individuals who will follow their own morality and ignore conventional morality. Society must deal with those people as they will.

An atheist can be a moral relativist, or a moral absolutist. Usually they manage to be both, in different things.

Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome.

No, humans have never been cultural relativists, so I think we'll be alright. There may be a contemporary movement that appears to be relativistic in many traditionally non-relativistic moral principles, but they have their own absolutist moral guidelines that they follow. We all can comprehend the notion that you shouldn't kill other people for no reason. When people kill other people, you'll notice that they tend to have what they consider excellent reasons for doing so, or some excuse or other. I don't think that any culture can possibly exist if people killed each other with no need to explain.

-Elliot

[baggie]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
One can use the most rudimentary of logic to validate the Golden, Silver and Brass rule.

The simple fact is that humans are social creatures, not solitary brutes living as they please. If you act s***y within your society, either society sanctions you, or you wind up with a s***y society and no sane person I know wants either. This is an unescapable fact that those who foolishly proffer the morality argument seem to ignore.
now.

excuse my ignorance - what is the Golden, Silver and Brass rule?

The social argument is interesting, but seems to offer no guidance on ethical behaviour. E.g. the "social" thing to do during Nazi Gemany would have been to oppress the Jews - I mean everyone else in society seemed to be doing it. If I had turned round then and loudly pronounced this to be wrong I would have been a s***y troublemaker (but an ethical one)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Actually, morality was never really a creation of religion. It's a simple matter of personal protection.

Example: This is my stuff. I do not want someone else taking my stuff that I have worked so hard for. It is safe to assume that someone else has worked just as hard for their stuff, so I will not try to take it from them without giving them something in return.

What does the example have to do with personal protection?

The example has everything to do with fairness and empathy.

We all probably would define religion differently. I define it as rituals and beliefs shared by a community. As long as there have been communities of people there have been religions.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Bluefire
Religions morality is simply a morality of submission. Eg. obey god because in the end, he is the one with the ultimate power.

On the contrary it is liberating to be free from submitting to either your own pride or the folly of the world.

See, choice is dependent on obedience. You cannot avoid obedience. You have to be obedient to something. You mock those who would be obedient to God, when you are obedient to other things.

But submission is a great word to use, even if it is a loaded word.


Several secular systems along the same lines can and have been devised. Eg. obey the king/dictator/whatever because he is powerful. Of course, I dont consider any of these objectively rational morality systems.

What do you base your objectivly rational morality standards on? If you feel your will is more powerful than someone else's, you'd follow your own will I reckon. In the end we all capitulate to some form of power or another.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by baggie



Diogenes, there are many replies to your arguments. I have no great liking of the OT god, but the NT version is closer to what is a western ideal. Two quick possible theological replies,
1. the OT scriptures are a mixture of god inspired stuff, legend, self-justification, poetry and history (basically your liberal anglican approach) - just ignore the self-justification stuff and legend and stick to the rest..


What are some examples of God's morality in the NT ?

2. Gods purpose is mysterious and works on longer timesales. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. All will be sorted out in the afterlife.

If God's ways are mysterious, how can we know what moral behavior is ? ( as defined by God .. )

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Theists want to equate religion with morality, and it is obviously not so. We have millions of religious people behaving badly to illustrate this.

I guess some theists do.

Religion is so much more than morality. Take Christianity for example. It didn't come up with any radically new moral ideas. It maybe said them in different ways, or highlighted certain ones over others.

Atheists behave badly. So do theists. People behave badly.

I think it was Gandhi who said that if every Christian acted like a Christian the whole world would be Christian. That was just Gandhi's opinion. But it indicates that people cannot separate the behavior of individuals from the ideals of individuals.

If someone gives a class a calculus test and the majority of the class fails the test, do you attack calculus? No, it's better to attack the teacher of calculus, or the students for not studying.

Not to mention God itself..

Joshua 10
8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.
9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night.
10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword..

Does this sound like someone behaving ' morally ' to you ?

Of course most theists do not take the Bible literally, as you apparently do.

Of course the fundies will insist that God does not follow the same morals that we do.. If so, then how do we get our morals from God?

Not exactly sure, but we've always had them. You hold people such as theists to a certain standard and they fail to meet that standard. Where did you get the idea of that standard from?

-Elliot

[baggie]

Originally posted by Bluefire
Yes. Objectivist ethics leads naturally to laissez-faire capitalism.

So am I correct in assuming that you're reasoning is somewhere along the lines :

1.) Objectivist ethics leads to capitalist politics
2.) I dont want capitalist politics
3.) Therefore I dont want Objectivist ethics
?

put laisse-faire in there and that probably sums it up. It seems to me the only real judge of a ethic stance is what it leads to in practice (behavoural ethics? great idea - get it away from these philosophers, BF Skinner would be proud of me)

elliotfc
"And I've never met an atheist or agnostic who didn't care about other person's feelings"
that is true, but if we can explain these feelings by recourse to sociobiology, why not be sociopaths if nobody catches us?

Possible answers
1. We would not be really happy
we may be, but then your ethical system is "whatever makes you truely happy"
2. It is not good for society
Trouble is that what is good for society may not be good for the individual. Hitler was "good" for german society in some ways (he stopped the endless left-right battles plaguing their society(not in a nice way mind you) and got people working)

I sure there are other reasons why I should not be a sociopath?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Michael Redman Doing something because you are afraid God will punish you if you don't is not moral behavior.

For some people, it's a step on the way to a more mature moral behavior, and for other's it's a never-ending pitstop. In the end what matters to society at large is whether or not such people are like 9/11 terrorists or good people who mind their own business. It's a huge spectrum. The idea can result in countless varieties of behavior. They share the idea that there is a standard that must be followed, but they would disagree on that standard. I hope you're not trying to imply that all believers in God think as you say they do above. Some do, some don't. Immoral behavior is self-punishment.

Doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is.

Maybe. What if someone believes the right thing to do is to kill his/her handicapped child? Is that moral behavior?

I think it's more reasonable to question the morality of Christians who can't see why you would do good without the threat of God's punishment, than to question the morality of non-judeo-christian-muslim people who don't live under that threat, but nevertheless maintain stable, successful society on the basis of mutually understood moral and ethical norms.

Ummm...but those sorts of Christians don't frequent this forum. It is always good to have people question your beliefs I think. You may have a point in that your beliefs are more rational/mature than others, but it is still healthy to have your beliefs questioned.

-Elliot

[Bluefire]

Originally posted by elliotfc

What do you base your objectivly rational morality standards on? If you feel your will is more powerful than someone else's, you'd follow your own will I reckon. In the end we all capitulate to some form of power or another.
-Elliot

I base it on observations about human nature, and the basic nature of ethics.

Short story:

Ethics provide us by a code of values to guide our choices, why is that necessary? Because our surviving and living is not an automatic happening. As living beings we need to pursue values that are gainful for us to survive and live well. Man is a volitional being that must choose what to do. Some choices are gainful (good) and some are detrimental (bad).

Identifying virtues then consists of identifying what in principle furthers human existense and well being, and identifying vice is identifying what in principle is detrimental to human life.

This is an extremely short explanation, please consult the link for a slightly longer. I might be able to dig up a more complete one later

[baggie]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What are some examples of God's morality in the NT ?

you know, turn the other cheek, obey the ten commandments, let those without sin cast the first stone. I am sure some Christains could give us a better list

If God's ways are mysterious, how can we know what moral behavior is ? ( as defined by God .. )
[/QUOTE]

I think you have just have to follow Gods prescriptions (i.e ten commandments etc). The key is that the consequences of your actions are not your fault or problem, but Gods to worry about then.

Of course the OT is full of odd stuff that only ultraorthodox jews follow to the letter, so you can pick and choose a bit there

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by baggie
The morality I care about is the selfless dedication of people to others, the sacrifice of people such as the fireman in 9/11. One can argue the point from a evolutionary point of view (and I do) that these feelings are just biological adaptions, but the puzzle is then that one should then adopt a very Nietzchian approach and say that really topdog should rule as that is what happens in biology.

I don't know baggie, interesting idea, but the two ideas are separate. The Nietzschean approach would scoff at the idea of an ubermensch risking his life to save some weakling in a building.

And then there is the idea of *what happens in biology*. See, humans are a special biological case. It's to theorize what happens when it comes to human morality since we can see it all around us. The Nietzschean approach is frankly not very successful in the competition of ideas. People can have a dozen kids and not know who Nietzsche was.

-Elliot

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by baggie
excuse my ignorance - what is the Golden, Silver and Brass rule?

The social argument is interesting, but seems to offer no guidance on ethical behaviour. E.g. the "social" thing to do during Nazi Gemany would have been to oppress the Jews - I mean everyone else in society seemed to be doing it. If I had turned round then and loudly pronounced this to be wrong I would have been a s***y troublemaker (but an ethical one)

I'm sorry, I assume for those not familiar with the Silver and Brass would be able to extrapolate from the well known Golden.

Golden - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Silver - Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
Brass - Do unto others as they do unto you.

To pre-emt your possible "but what if the individual thinks pedophilia or murder is 'normal'" the problem with that is that we don't see any evidence for "non-normative" actions being considered normative within the context of the above rules. It's actually quite simple - I don't wish to be murdered, so I don't murder. I wish to be treated with respect by my fellow man, so I treat my fellow man with respect. My fellow man attacks me, I respond with an appropriate social sanction. It's that easy.

It is in this context that the Holocaust is rejected as a "socially ethical" act. RE: Silver Rule - I do not wish to be oppressed and sent to death camps, therefore I should not support or abide by such actions on the part of my society. If I sincerely wish to claim any logical ethicalism or - given my opinion on the issue - any claim to ethicalism - I should oppose such actions.

On the other hand, if the publically promoted "Final Solution" policy was actually to relocate the Jews to "the East" it would still be unethical (I don't want to be forcibly relocated, therefore I should not support such for others) it's less unethical than murdering them wholesale.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I don't know baggie, interesting idea, but the two ideas are separate. The Nietzschean approach would scoff at the idea of an ubermensch risking his life to save some weakling in a building.


An the ethical athiest approach would be to scoff at the idea of an Ubermensch in the first place.

We're all in this together. That's something atheists do understand.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by baggie
The problem is that Hitler thought it "right" to get rid of the jews and the slavs. In terms of more achieving more room and recourses for the germanic people he was right. We still need a rational system to say to Hitler that you are ethically wrong.

But we HAVE such a system. It is in place. See, the German Nazis did their best to hide the fact that they were exterminating Jews, because they knew such a fact was not just unpalatable but morally offensive to practically the entire world.

The system is quite simply the idea that people are supposed to behave in certain ways. Schools of thought, be they evolutionary or religious, have nothing to really add or subtract from the obvious existence of such a system. The system exists despite our theories, and would exist if the theories didn't exist.

most christians I know are "moral" not because of fear of punishment, but because they want to follow (their view of) gods example because they love him.

Baggie you're new to this forum I take it? People here don't like to discuss the type of Christians you mention. You are adding needless complexity to this black box. They'd prefer to believe that most, if not all Christians, hold the Bible as their religious textbook that must be unquestionably true in every aspect of the word true. If you say you are not that kind of Christian, they will say they are not talking about you and that you make things up as you go along. Best to not get to bothered about people who build straw horses as they go along.

It is more how you would want your children to follow your example, through respect and love rather than fear.

Very well put.


Why are you moral? What is right and wrong? I suspect that there are no real answers

No, because this is not a question that can be put to the scientific method (assuming that is the test that makes something real or not real, you could have a different test and then there could be real answers). If we were only more understanding of each other and didn't demonize each other I think we could come up with some acceptable answers.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc






Of course most theists do not take the Bible literally, as you apparently do.




-Elliot


Absurd...


I was addressing a position that said, Christians get their sense of morality from God. If you do not agree with that position then what is the point of your comment?

If you do agree with that position, I would be interested in how you believe that information is passed on to humans.


And I fully agree that most theists do not take the Bible literally. They have trouble with the silly stuff, like God behaving badly..

[jimlintott]

Many religous fundamentalists have broken logic. ie; If you can't prove god doesn't exist then he must exist. If we show evolution to be wrong then we will have proven that god created everything. I find all my morality from my religion therefore people without religion must be immoral.

Here is my question. Why doesn't the application of religion result in more consistent morality? The morality of the religious (like that of atheists) runs the entire spectrum of behaviour from saint like to evil. The simple answer is that religion is a human creation to help control a population. Morality and ethics (or lack of) are a human condition. Religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is not magic and people will behave however they want to regardless of what they say they believe.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'ts kind of like pornography, we know it when we see it...

Very well put Diogenes!

I fail to understand how God or a belief in it, changes the mix in a beneficial way, when you can demonstrate that people behave pretty much the same way, with or without God.

Another good point. There are particular answers, such as the fact that religious-minded people were behind the abolitionist movement and behind the prohibition of child sacrifice. And then there are the particular individuals who's lives are unquestionably influenced by their religion and who live unquestionably meritorious lives.

I would say, definitely, that religion CAN make you behave in a terrific way if that's what you WANT out of religion. But as a Christian I know that my behavior is not what will get me good with God.

And even God himself demonstrates behaviour that any idiot would find immoral.. [/B]

Alright, let's clear this up.

When you say God, you are clearly or obviously referring to the God of the Bible. Now many theists are not Islamic or Jewish or Christian, and those theists believe morality has something to do with God, so clearly here you are only talking about certain theists.

OK, now that that's clear, you are talking about stories about God, and not God's behavior. You aren't talking about the behavior of God in the world that you see around you, but the behavior of God that you read about in a book. So you find the behavior of God in the Old Testament immoral? Great, so do I. And I am a Christian. So what's the problem? :)

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
The simple fact is that humans are social creatures, not solitary brutes living as they please. If you act s***y within your society, either society sanctions you, or you wind up with a s***y society and no sane person I know wants either. This is an unescapable fact that those who foolishly proffer the morality argument seem to ignore.

But that is morality. The ideals that constitute the world that people want to live in. You've just called certain solitary persons "brutes", which is certainly putting your moral idea on those people. Acting s***y is a moral judgment call. If I proffer a morality argument it is becaues we can't get away from judgmental words, can we? When you condemn the behavior of religious fanatics, you are speaking morally, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What is truly disturbing are theists who claim they'd run amok if they thought there was no deity. My only reaction to them is that if your belief in a god is the only thing controlling you... I'm suggesting you start medication now.

I don't think that they've really thought through that statement, if it has in fact been made. I'm sure it has been made, just never seen it made by a theist.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by baggie


.....you know, turn the other cheek, obey the ten commandments, let those without sin cast the first stone. I am sure some Christains could give us a better list




But those ideas are not unique to Christianity or theism for that matter.. It has been pointed out that it is logical to embrace the behaviour encouraged by the golden rule and the obvious parts of the ten commandments that encourage civil behaviour.

The question still remains; " Why do we need a God in order to establish the criteria for moral behaviour ? "
And if we do, how is that information communicated to us?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by baggie
The social argument is interesting, but seems to offer no guidance on ethical behaviour. E.g. the "social" thing to do during Nazi Gemany would have been to oppress the Jews - I mean everyone else in society seemed to be doing it. If I had turned round then and loudly pronounced this to be wrong I would have been a s***y troublemaker (but an ethical one)

Good point, but consider that the Nazis were actually acting in a moral way, although a really f*cked up moral way.

They had the idea that Jews were sub-human. And if you believe that, you've solved the moral conundrum.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc





OK, now that that's clear, you are talking about stories about God, and not God's behavior. You aren't talking about the behavior of God in the world that you see around you, but the behavior of God that you read about in a book. So you find the behavior of God in the Old Testament immoral? Great, so do I. And I am a Christian. So what's the problem? :)

-Elliot

It certainly doesn't seem I have an argument with you in this matter.

But surely you do not pretend that there are not millions, if not billions of people past and present, who do not hold that the Old Testament is a factual chronicle of the adventures of God and his chosen beople, acting under the direction of same God?

And the question here is ; ' How do those people justify the questioning of how people who do not believe in that God, or any God, get their sense of morality?'

[Bullwinkle]

...where did anybody ever get the idea that "belief in God" equals "moral person"?

We need only look at fundamentally immoral people such as Dubya, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell to know that one profess to believe in God and be corrupt to the core of their being. Dubya is a pathological liar; Cheney and Rumsfeld are consummate opportunists; Fred Phelps is a pathological narcissist and a bully; Robertson and Falwell are on power trips trying to expand their own personal fiefdoms.

Likewise, I'm proud to count among my closest friends atheists who are deeply moral people -- and not afraid to put their lives on the line to protect someone else who may be in imminent danger. Shortly after 9/11, a Muslim was being threatened by some vigilante, fundamentalist Christian in my city; and an atheist friend of mine came between the two and stopped the attack.

A person's religion (or lack thereof) does not make one a "moral person". One's fundamental beliefs -- and how one acts upon those beliefs -- makes one a moral person.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by baggie
"And I've never met an atheist or agnostic who didn't care about other person's feelings"
that is true, but if we can explain these feelings by recourse to sociobiology, why not be sociopaths if nobody catches us?

But that's just it! *if nobody catches us*

If we had no fear or reason to worry about the *if nobody catches us*, you'd have a hell of alot more sociopaths. We can only speculate at percentages.

Fact is humans like order and security. Order and security are necessary to raise children.

Possible answers
1. We would not be really happy
we may be, but then your ethical system is "whatever makes you truely happy"

I think our notions of true happiness, on Earth, are tempered by what we know the situation on Earth to be.

In other words, we know for a fact that nobody can achieve true happiness in our individual lives. So we have to settle for something less. We also need some sort of belief system to make sense of that. The closest we can get to true happiness is not orgiastic hedonism, but contentment with the undeniable fact of limitations in the realization of our desires.

It would be interesting to hear people's opinions on what *true happiness* is. I see true happiness in a two-fold way. The first is the total understanding of the big picture. The second is to be able to love and create where there is no ugliness and corruption.

2. It is not good for society
Trouble is that what is good for society may not be good for the individual. Hitler was "good" for german society in some ways (he stopped the endless left-right battles plaguing their society(not in a nice way mind you) and got people working)

You are right. There is a danger in establishing a purely "what is good for society" morality. I don't think anybody in this forum is a utilitarian however, so you may be preaching to the choir.

I sure there are other reasons why I should not be a sociopath?

Because you know better.

-Elliot

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by elliotfc



You are right. There is a danger in establishing a purely "what is good for society" morality. I don't think anybody in this forum is a utilitarian however, so you may be preaching to the choir.

-Elliot

There is at least one utilitarian on this forum, me. I find that utilitarianism is the best basis for morality in the absence of a belief in a god and thus some sort of divine punishment for breaking the rules. My position is simply that we enjoy many benifits from living is social groups (tribes, clans, nations etc) but in order for those to function they have to have certain rules (such as don't kill each other, don't steal from each other, etc.) if these rules are followed society can flourish. If we didn't have these rules, or were to ignore them on a large scale, society would soon break down which would not be a desirable result. Thus we have morality precisely because it brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people, which is basicly a utilitarian position.

I find the common arguments against utilitarianism a bit short sighted. They often look only at the effects on the people directly involved and not on the effects of society as a whole. It is those effects that would prevent me from, for example, killing one healthy person to provide translplant material to 10 sick people (a very common argument I have heard against utilitarianism).

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Bluefire
Ethics provide us by a code of values to guide our choices, why is that necessary? Because our surviving and living is not an automatic happening. As living beings we need to pursue values that are gainful for us to survive and live well. Man is a volitional being that must choose what to do. Some choices are gainful (good) and some are detrimental (bad).

Identifying virtues then consists of identifying what in principle furthers human existense and well being, and identifying vice is identifying what in principle is detrimental to human life.

This is an extremely short explanation, please consult the link for a slightly longer. I might be able to dig up a more complete one later

It's an excellent explanation.

I do not think it is complete. You've provided a rationalistic way of arriving at morality, but people could think of none of the above and still conform to a highly moral life.

There's the old conundrum of a man observing another man drowning in a lake, it's just the two of them and no other person is watching. The man wants to save the man, but the man also doesn't want to risk personal endangerment. How does he reach a decision? Does the strongest emotion/impulse/instinct win? Or does he make a choice? And what does he base the choice on? And after the choice, will he feel guilt about the choice he made? If ethics is purely gainful in nature and people are most concerned with well being and existence, there really is no decision to make. Accept that part of you knows that the thing to do is to help the guy, even if you might die in the act. I think that is what the thread starter meant by self-sacrifice. It doesn't make any sense unless there is an ideal that exceeds personal self existence or existence of the species. If the drowning man was an 85 year old woman (ha ha ha) she really means nothing to the species, and you might be a virile man who could reproduce.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


An the ethical athiest approach would be to scoff at the idea of an Ubermensch in the first place.

We're all in this together. That's something atheists do understand.

Ubermensch would and must scoff at people who succumb to believing the slavish morality, which would include religion.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I was addressing a position that said, Christians get their sense of morality from God. If you do not agree with that position then what is the point of your comment?

I do agree with that position though. We all get our sense of morality from God. We could all be atheists and we would still get our sense of morality from God.

You equate God with the Bible. I think God is much bigger than the Bible. When I say that you believe in God, I mean it in that you have a very real notion of a God that you continually use to make your points.

If you do agree with that position, I would be interested in how you believe that information is passed on to humans.

If you're looking for a mechanistic explanation I can't give you one. All I know is that just about every human has a notion of morality and that the notion is not radically different from culture to culture. You might have a mechanistic explanation for that fact but you cannot prove it any more or less than I can prove mine. The default answer is the evolved, or that it was necessary for survival. That answer can be used to explain everything, and so can God.

Out of curiosity, if there were no *God behaving badly* moments in the Bible, would you have a different opinion of a religion in particular or a religion in general?

-Elliot

[Michael Redman]

I'm in Nyarlathotep's camp. Certain moral rules are rational, and that's why we see them across all cultures. It isn't hard to figure them out, and it isn't surprising that we see them everywhere. We do better with them then without. Evolution is the ultimate utilitarian. Adopt behavioral norms that slow you down, and you disappear. Figure out how to cooperate for the common good, and prosper. We're the ones that mutated (and/or learned) cooperation-based moral rules, and we're the ones that survived.

Christians who question whether non-christains would have morals seem to ignore the fact that the moral rules they were given from their book are essentially the same rules all society relies on, and always has. Most people have always understood, due to socialization and reason, why the rules are necessary, and beneficial. Anyone who doesn't see this, and follows the rules only because the God's reward/punishment potential, is, in my opinion, a sociopath. Doesn't anyone who feels nonbelievers don't have a basis for morality necessarily believe that it is only the reward/punishment potential of their god that gives them morality? That's kind of scary, if you ask me.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Here is my question. Why doesn't the application of religion result in more consistent morality?

Because there are thousands of different religions.

The morality of the religious (like that of atheists) runs the entire spectrum of behaviour from saint like to evil. The simple answer is that religion is a human creation to help control a population.

Sure it's a human creation. What ideas DON'T help to control a population?

Morality and ethics (or lack of) are a human condition. Religion has nothing to do with it.

If religion has nothing to do with morality why do religions discuss and explain morality? Why do most people associate religion and morality? All religions provide moral codes so you're completely wrong. Anyhow religion is also a human condition. You yourself buy into beliefs and engage in rituals, you yourself have faith in a picture of the past that you will never see.

Religion is not magic and people will behave however they want to regardless of what they say they believe.

I agree with you competely on this point.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The question still remains; " Why do we need a God in order to establish the criteria for moral behaviour ? "

I don't know on what level to answer this question.

From a theistic point of view, you need a God because God exists.

From an atheistic point of view, you don't need a God.

As a theist I can perfectly understand that people who say they don't need a God can deduce moral behavior. As a theist I can do the same, but understand that my deducing is itself a gift from God. As a theist I can't escape God. As an atheist I don't think you can completely escape God either, even though you doubt the existence of God.

And if we do, how is that information communicated to us?

Variety of ways. We all have a conscience, ideas that help us to guide our behavior. Also, God became a human being (Jesus) and communicated many things. God inspires us continually in our creative pursuits, and you can become more and more able to connect with God through prayer and introspection.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
But surely you do not pretend that there are not millions, if not billions of people past and present, who do not hold that the Old Testament is a factual chronicle of the adventures of God and his chosen beople, acting under the direction of same God?

Surely not.

And the question here is ; ' How do those people justify the questioning of how people who do not believe in that God, or any God, get their sense of morality?'

It starts with their belief in the existence of God. And anyone who says that God does not exist has severed the branch that connects them to God, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's one way of looking at it. I'm just speculating here, I don't really know.

Alternatively they could imagine that atheists/agnostics/heretics are just out and out misguided and don't know any better when it comes to where morality comes from.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Bullwinkle
A person's religion (or lack thereof) does not make one a "moral person". One's fundamental beliefs -- and how one acts upon those beliefs -- makes one a moral person.

True. The problem is we all have different moralities in that we emphasize different things, etc.

For example you've went ad hominem on several people in your post Bullwinkle. That is fine with your morality, but not fine in my morality. But I don't think we have radically different moralities at all.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I find the common arguments against utilitarianism a bit short sighted. They often look only at the effects on the people directly involved and not on the effects of society as a whole. It is those effects that would prevent me from, for example, killing one healthy person to provide translplant material to 10 sick people (a very common argument I have heard against utilitarianism).

So in this case you would oppose the killing of one healthy person because that would fundamentally destabilize, or cause problems, in an ordered world?

I oppose utilitarianism because I don't think people can agree on what is good for people. Some utilitarians would ban certain books while others would not. Some utilitarians would give their internal organs away while others would not. Which utilitarians are right and which are wrong? Depends on your morality I guess...

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc

If you're looking for a mechanistic explanation I can't give you one. All I know is that just about every human has a notion of morality and that the notion is not radically different from culture to culture. You might have a mechanistic explanation for that fact but you cannot prove it any more or less than I can prove mine. The default answer is the evolved, or that it was necessary for survival. That answer can be used to explain everything, and so can God.

Ocams Razor..

Out of curiosity, if there were no *God behaving badly* moments in the Bible, would you have a different opinion of a religion in particular or a religion in general?

-Elliot

I only refer to the Bible when people use it to defend their beliefs.

My opinion of religion is that it offers no solutions that cannot be obtained without it, ( as in ' Ocams Razor, above ) and in the meantime, consumes resources that might better be utilized without all the trappings of religion.

I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it weren't for the behavior of supposedly religious people.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it seems to me that 2,000 years is long enough to make any worthwhile point that you have to offer..

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Evolution is the ultimate utilitarian. Adopt behavioral norms that slow you down, and you disappear. Figure out how to cooperate for the common good, and prosper. We're the ones that mutated (and/or learned) cooperation-based moral rules, and we're the ones that survived.

Than how do you explain the fact that religious people/nations reproduce at a muchmuchmuch higher rate than people/nations that believe in evolution? Keep your eyes on Japan and Western Europe. Those societies are approaching a population distribution that is absolutely unheard of in world history. Thankfully in the US we have Catholic Latinos who'll keep us populated.

Evolution is the ultimate EMBRACER of traits. Traits don't want to disappear, they'll stick around and pop up if the situation calls for them. Let's see how those people who don't believe in evolution compete with those who do. In our society basically everyone survives unless they have health problems. If you don't embrace the morals, you learn to play with them and even exploit them.

Anyone who doesn't see this, and follows the rules only because the God's reward/punishment potential, is, in my opinion, a sociopath.

I'm glad that would only be your opinion. Sociopaths are judged to be sociopaths because of their behaviors in society, and not their beliefs.

Doesn't anyone who feels nonbelievers don't have a basis for morality necessarily believe that it is only the reward/punishment potential of their god that gives them morality?

No, not necessarily. It's just that they feel the basis is misguided and incomplete, kind of like believing in ice cubes but ignoring the things that cause ice cubes to come into being.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
My opinion of religion is that it offers no solutions that cannot be obtained without it, ( as in ' Ocams Razor, above ) and in the meantime, consumes resources that might better be utilized without all the trappings of religion.

That's fine. You're a good guy Diogenes, I don't mean that condescendingly. Personally I don't see how using Occam's Razor as a litmus test is superior to using Jesus as a litmus test, but it gets the job done; I may not believe as you do but again, you're a good guy.

As for your opinion on religion, it's definitely complex and tied up with money and all that. All I know for certain is what I see in my own church. I go to over 100 funerals a year, almost that many weddings, I don't know how many baptisms. People approach religion in such monumental life events. That's got to mean something, even if you don't like religion.

I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it weren't for the behavior of supposedly religious people.

They say that the greatest ideas can be twisted to defend the greatest evils, right? Something like that?

Religion appeals to a part of us that is primal and essential. Because of that it will follow that great evil can come out of it. But that's the story of creation. God creates creative beings and some of them do evil. Does that make the act of creation evil? Not necessarily, particularly if you are a created being and think that thought.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it seems to me that 2,000 years is long enough to make any worthwhile point that you have to offer..

Some people get the point, and others don't. Christ himself said that he would be rejected, and the gospels show what that rejection process is like. You can't force anybody to do anything.

-Elliot

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Than how do you explain the fact that religious people/nations reproduce at a muchmuchmuch higher rate than people/nations that believe in evolution?Extremely localized, extremely recent cultural trends that obviously have nothing to do with this discussion.In our society basically everyone survives unless they have health problems. That may be true now, but it certainly isn't indicative of how we got to this point.Sociopaths are judged to be sociopaths because of their behaviors in society, and not their beliefs.No. Sociopaths are mentally ill, regardless of their behavior. Sociopaths are people who do not feel the need to be a part of society, and therefore lack the evolutionary trait that has allowed society to succeed and prosper.No, not necessarily. It's just that they feel the basis is misguided and incomplete,Then they are clearly wrong. Almost the entirety of humanity has functioned just fine without the commandments of the judeo-christian god. Anyone who thinks this underpinning of judeo-christian morality is necessary for success and happiness must necessarily ignore almost all of human experience. kind of like believing in ice cubes but ignoring the things that cause ice cubes to come into being.
-Elliot The believers are the ones ignoring why the rules came into being. They pretend that somehow society before the rulegiving didn't have these rules. Of course, it did. We didn't get our morality from religion. We needed it to get to the point where we could form society, and invent religion, to begin with.

[elliotfc]

Hi Michael.

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Extremely localized, extremely recent cultural trends that obviously have nothing to do with this discussion.

This was in regards to mentioning birth rates.

This is my particular focus of study, so I do know a few things about this subject. That's probably one reason I brought it up. The other reason is that anytime the word Evolution is mentioned you have to consider fertility, likelihood of fertility, rate of fertility, etc.

As for extremely localized, you do the research. As for extremely recent, you don't know what you are talking about.

Spend sometime in nationmaster, I'm definitely not making stuff up when it comes to birth rates. And you don't need to be a scholar or anything to figure out what the deal is in each country.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_bir_rat

No. Sociopaths are mentally ill, regardless of their behavior. Sociopaths are people who do not feel the need to be a part of society, and therefore lack the evolutionary trait that has allowed society to succeed and prosper.

???

People who believe in a God who punishes and rewards are able to do just fine in society. I think. How many such persons (people who think of a God who punishes/rewards) do you think there are in this country or world?

Here is a definition of sociopath
http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/18332.html

Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.

Sociopaths...lack the evolutionary trait...

Well, that would depend on the number of offspring that they have, and how well their offspring are able to do in the world.

Almost the entirety of humanity has functioned just fine without the commandments of the judeo-christian god.

And much more of the entirety of humanity has been able to function without the evolutionist interpretation of morality. What's your point?

I never said that God introcued radically new moral ideas to his Judeo-Christian believing types.

Anyone who thinks this underpinning of judeo-christian morality is necessary for success and happiness must necessarily ignore almost all of human experience.

Depends where you think success and happiness lie. If you think they are earthly ideals, you are right in that Judeo-Christians reject (not ignore) that ideal. Or at least they are supposed to.

The believers are the ones ignoring why the rules came into being.

Are you speaking as someone who observed the rules as they came into being? Dogma dogma dogma.

They pretend that somehow society before the rulegiving didn't have these rules. Of course, it did.

It has most of them, in certain forms, and in peculiar perspectives.

We didn't get our morality from religion. We needed it to get to the point where we could form society, and invent religion, to begin with.

You can only speak for yourself. As far as I am concerned, as long as there have been societies there have been religions. I can't prove that, but I've never seen a society that didn't have a religion. I'm just making an educated opinion. If there have been societies without religion maybe one day we'll be able to prove that, somehow. Not sure how.

-Elliot

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by elliotfc
As for extremely recent, you don't know what you are talking about.As we are talking about evolution here, the trends you are talking about are so recent as to not be worth considering. For how many hundreds of generations has this trend held? None? Dozens of generations? No? 10 generations? No. Extremely recent, and irrelevant, then.Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.Only if there has been some significant evolution happening since the time the idea of god became widepread. I don't know that that's true.And much more of the entirety of humanity has been able to function without the evolutionist interpretation of morality. What's your point?That judeo-christian theology isn't necessary for successful society.I never said that God introcued radically new moral ideas to his Judeo-Christian believing types.You may not have, but it's the premise of those who pose the question of how people without judeo-christian beliefs can have morality. This question is the reason for this thread.You can only speak for yourself. As far as I am concerned, as long as there have been societies there have been religions. I can't prove that, but I've never seen a society that didn't have a religion. I'm just making an educated opinion. If there have been societies without religion maybe one day we'll be able to prove that, somehow. Not sure how.Do you think it's possible that religion predated language? I find it hard to believe. And before you can spend enough time with other people to develop language, you have to have some basic rules of conduct, otherwise no one's going to hang around long enough to make up words, and teach them to others. In fact, other primates have community rules. A simplistic kind of morality. Other community animals have rules as well. They may not be aware of them, but they follow them, or suffer. It seems pretty likely that the rules came first, and religion later.

[Ossai]

elliotfc
As a theist I can't escape God. As an atheist I don't think you can completely escape God either, even though you doubt the existence of God. You're assuming the existence, atheist don't make the assumption to begin with because there is no need for it.

Variety of ways. We all have a conscience, ideas that help us to guide our behavior. Also, God became a human being (Jesus) and communicated many things. God inspires us continually in our creative pursuits, and you can become more and more able to connect with God through prayer and introspection.
No, not everyone has a conscience. A consciousness is a learned response else everyone would have the same conscious guidelines. From simple observation of multiple cultures that assumption is proven false.

Than how do you explain the fact that religious people/nations reproduce at a muchmuchmuch higher rate than people/nations that believe in evolution? Your question is a fallacy of exclusion. Look at the other variables. Does the religion deny the woman / couple the right of birth control either actively or passively? Does the religion promote large families? What is the overall quality of life? How developed are the countries?

Personally I don't see how using Occam's Razor as a litmus test is superior to using Jesus as a litmus test, but it gets the job done; I may not believe as you do but again, you're a good guy. Which version of Jesus?

Religion appeals to a part of us that is primal and essential. Fear!

"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown. " - H. P. Lovecraft

Ossai

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by baggie
One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant.
That's absurd. It's actually God that makes morality redundant, because anything he does is good by executive fiat.

Morality is as objective as mathematics. It is simply the law of reprociticity, otherwise known as the Golden Rule. Self-consciousness + social existance = if I don't want to be smacked on the back of the head, I shouldn't smack others on the back of the head.

Everything else follows.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.

Sociopaths...lack the evolutionary trait...

Both sociopaths and priests are evolutionarly stable strategys.

I'm hoping that advanced technology will deny sociopaths the anonymity they require to flourish, thus changing the environment and ending this particular line of undesirable genetics.

I have much dimmer hopes that we'll be able to get rid of priests.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Ubermensch would and must scoff at people who succumb to believing the slavish morality, which would include religion.

-Elliot

Since I scoff at the concept of Ubermensch, then what a hypothetical person would do is meaningless. I personally don't think that religion constitutes an inherently slavish morality, though if someone adhered to a sufficiently legalistic one, it could be.

I don't think that they've really thought through that statement, if it has in fact been made. I'm sure it has been made, just never seen it made by a theist.

Please, don't accuse me of telling tales out of school. If I had not had Christians in particular tell me this in chatrooms and heard them say it on Christian talk shows, I would not have said there are theists who say this. I try not to create straw men, and such a attribution without first hand experience would be such.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Diogenes


My opinion of religion is that it offers no solutions that cannot be obtained without it, ( as in ' Ocams Razor, above ) and in the meantime, consumes resources that might better be utilized without all the trappings of religion.

You know, I've seen this statement made in a variety of threads in this forum. Just once I'd like to see it put to the test. Has anyone actually heard of any research done that actually measured the value of religion?

It may be true that religion is unnecessary, but then again, it might not. Considering how fact oriented we skeptics are supposed to be, I'm constantly amazed by the amount of opinion thrown around here about the evils of religion. No need to remind me about the Inquisition and the Crusades. I'm perfectly aware of the horrible things that religious fervor can cause. I'm also perfectly aware of the horrible things done in the absence of religion. Who the heck knows which is worse? Alternatively, there are beautiful things done every day in the absence of religion. There are also beautiful things done every day *because* of religion. Who the heck knows which is better?

It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with religion? Like it or not?

Tim

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Rockon

You know, I've seen this statement made in a variety of threads in this forum. Just once I'd like to see it put to the test. Has anyone actually heard of any research done that actually measured the value of religion?

It may be true that religion is unnecessary, but then again, it might not. Considering how fact oriented we skeptics are supposed to be, I'm constantly amazed by the amount of opinion thrown around here about the evils of religion. No need to remind me about the Inquisition and the Crusades. I'm perfectly aware of the horrible things that religious fervor can cause. I'm also perfectly aware of the horrible things done in the absence of religion. Who the heck knows which is worse? Alternatively, there are beautiful things done every day in the absence of religion. There are also beautiful things done every day *because* of religion. Who the heck knows which is better?

It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with religion? Like it or not?

Tim

no

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by baggie
I am pretty agnostic but I was reading "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard. Pretty awful book, but there were a few bits in there that made me wonder. One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings). Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system? Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome
I hate hate hate the people who say "all Atheists are immmoral".

Just a crashcourse through Ethical Philosophy:

Atheists are moral just like everyone else.

Morality developes through society, not through religion.

Morality existed long before religion.

Its absurd to believe Atheists dont have a sentiment for life that everyone has, thats why we wouldnt want to "throw everyone in a gas chamber". To believe that we have no sentiment for life would be a demonstration of unfathomable thickheadedness... no, no, no, I'm being euphemistic, its not thickheadedness, its a form of prejudice (to deny its a form of prejudice would itself be a demonstration of thickheadedness).

Kitties are adorable.

Morals dont exist concretely, they are abstract ideas but nonetheless very important.

There you go, that was your 90 second tutorial through Ethics as brought to you by Yahweh.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by triadboy


no
Prove it.

Tim

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by elliotfc


So in this case you would oppose the killing of one healthy person because that would fundamentally destabilize, or cause problems, in an ordered world?

I oppose utilitarianism because I don't think people can agree on what is good for people. Some utilitarians would ban certain books while others would not. Some utilitarians would give their internal organs away while others would not. Which utilitarians are right and which are wrong? Depends on your morality I guess...

-Elliot

Yes, that is exactly why i would oppose it. Perhaps not a single incident (any more than a single murder or theft noticably destbilizes socirty) but if enough people choose to do it it will. So like many other things the only way to ensure that is to forbid anyone to do it. That's all morality is, an greeement that certain things are not to be done.

I willa gree that the problkem of exactly who decides what is best is the biggest problem inherent to utilitarianism. I think that that is a matter for each culture to decide for itself. The ones that choose wisely will generally prosper, the ones that choose poorly won't. That's just life.

[scribble]

I was once a completely ignorant Christian. I don't say that to suggest that all Christians are necessarily ignorant, but rather that there is a particular breed of Christian that is one of the most unthinking, unintelligent drones conceivable.

The idea that God is necessary for people to be moral is one of theirs. I don't consider it worth the time to even respond to - and if you'd ever been an ignorant Christian like I was, you'd probably realize that in the vast majority of these cases, the debate is pointless.

[Some Friggin Guy]

First, allow me to state what I have stated in another thread: Yesterday I was suffering from exhaustion and a fever, so my wording was not necessarily as well chosen as it should have been.

I forget who said it, but they are right, what I talked about was dealing with empathy, ot personal protection.

In dealing with the selfless acts, like those performed by people on Sept. 11, there was a psychologist named Maslow.

Maslow developed something called the heirarchy of needs. (I am trying to remember high-school psychology, so someone will probably need to fill in some blanks, and quite possibly correct me completely on some, if not all of my points.) At the top of the heirarchym there was something called self actualization, which was, in essence, the ability to put something other than one's own needs as a priority.

Breaking from what I remember Maslow to have taught, my belief is that everyone is at least somewhat self-actualized. Perhaps you have at somepoint loaned someone a quarter. OR maybe you gave someone your last cigarette (if you smoke).

There are those who are fully self actualized. They will put themselves easily in harm's way in order to save another human being.

Now you have a basis for selfless morality without any reference to any kind of supernatural force. I may have completely misattributed where it came from, and for that I apologize, however, I do stand by it as a theory.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by baggie
I am pretty agnostic but I was reading "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard. Pretty awful book, but there were a few bits in there that made me wonder. One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings). Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system? Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome If someone needs religion to keep him or herself from gassing millions, then chew the wafer and drink the wine! Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Oh, that would make those people absolute sociopathic monsters too, by the way...

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Rockon
It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with religion? Like it or not?

I'm a bit of a Pollyanna, but I cannot deny that many people in this world need both societal and institutional controls and sanctions on their behaviors, otherwise they'd run amok or spend time making life s***y for the rest of us. We have laws to prevent crime (societal sanctions) and institutional sanctions like religion, civic and fraternal organizations, the Boy Scouts, etc. add another layer on keeping people from being s***y to each other. Because of this, I don't think religion is inherently detrimental and is, in fact, think it's a good think for many people.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Rockon
It may be true that racism is unnecessary, but then again, it might not. Considering how fact oriented we skeptics are supposed to be, I'm constantly amazed by the amount of opinion thrown around here about the evils of racism. No need to remind me about the Nazis and the KKK. I'm perfectly aware of the horrible things that racist fervor can cause. I'm also perfectly aware of the horrible things done in the absence of racism. Who the heck knows which is worse? Alternatively, there are beautiful things done every day in the absence of racism. There are also beautiful things done every day *because* of racism. Who the heck knows which is better?

It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with racism? Like it or not?


"All you have to do to refute a theist is to parrot his arguments back at him, but replacing the word God with any other word"
- Yahzi Coyote

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm a bit of a Pollyanna, but I cannot deny that many people in this world need both societal and institutional controls and sanctions on their behaviors...

Because of this, I don't think fascismis inherently detrimental and is, in fact, think it's a good think for many other people.
See above.

Unless US is suggesting that he should be ruled by fascists...

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Yahzi

See above.

Unless US is suggesting that he should be ruled by fascists...

Well, fascism is a totalitarian political system with a single ruler (preferrably one who likes hats) controling the state with everyone subordinate to him and the state. Religion, as I suggested above is comprised of wildly divergent denominations, sects and heretical groups that offer moral and ethical guidelines to the individual and either enforce them through the religious body (excommunication, shunning, chastisement, public penetance) or try and get their tenets enacted as law.

If you want to try and equate fascism with religion and point to 1999 Afghanistan, I'll agree. If you want to equate fascism with religion and point to 1999 United States, I must disagree.

However, since my whole point was about how some individuals need something more than logic or legal statutes to keep them from being s***y to their fellow man, I think the whole issue of fascism is a non sequitor.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I hate hate hate the people who say "all Atheists are immmoral".


Atheists are moral just like everyone else.

Morality developes through society, not through religion.

..............................
Morals dont exist concretely, they are abstract ideas but nonetheless very important.



I agree, but I suppose I was looking for a level 2 answer. It is clear that atheists are in practice just as moral as Theists. But why should we be? E.g if I was to sit down tomorrow and write the "Complete Book of ethics and Morals for Atheists", what would I include and why?

Any moral or ethic included will always have some view point e.g. utilitarianism, hedonism. It is clear to me that my ethical feelings (I view myself as very ethical) come from evolution and are advantageous for the propagation of my genes. Why should I then bother listening to them? My sexual urges for instance tell me to have immediate sex with every attractive lady I meet, luckily (for the ladies) I manage to suppress those most of the time.

The problem is that without an "outside golden ethic" then the ethics of a sociopath are just as good in a evolutionary sense as mine. Ok sociopaths are parasites in a social sense, but parasites are just as viable evolutionary as non-parasites, e.g a tape-worm is one of natures success story.

Or put another way, we are all disgusted when we hear that a child has been murdered. I therefore have a moral sense. It is clear to me that child murder is very bad in the most fundamental way possible. But I forget that these are just feelings inserted by my brain. Should I then trust them and why?

I agree that the golden rule (together with the bronze and silver runner ups) are excellent guides. I deeply admire people who give up all to help other people. But again this admiration is just a feeling inserted by my brain to help my genes propagate. aahh

I guess too much self analysis leads to madness.

My hunch is that ethics for an atheist must then boil down to gene propagation? Of course gene progation can lead to wonderful things like the Sistine Chapel and the International Red Cross. It can equally lead to Hitler.

To summarise a rambling thread
God = clear moral guidelines
atheist me: just a gene carrier?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Baggie, I haven't propigated my genes, and don't think I ever will. Care to hazzard a guess as to why I haven't run amok yet?

[baggie]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Baggie, I haven't propigated my genes, and don't think I ever will. Care to hazzard a guess as to why I haven't run amok yet?

Ok several reasons
1. you would be shot. the survival instinct is strong
2. Whether you plan to propagate your genes or not, the programming is still in your brain that suggests it is good to be moral. It is very difficult to rewire your subconcious (I am still a lazy selfish slob, but have been trying hard for years to change, honest)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by baggie
Ok several reasons
1. you would be shot. the survival instinct is strong
2. Whether you plan to propagate your genes or not, the programming is still in your brain that suggests it is good to be moral. It is very difficult to rewire your subconcious (I am still a lazy selfish slob, but have been trying hard for years to change, honest)

Ah, but your citations of what is considered abnormal behavior must be wired in as well, otherwise they are clearly abberations to "nomal" behavior and then not relevent to consideration of what is moral and how we derive moral and ethical conduct for ourselves - except to determine what is non-normal behavior.

Your first comment is mostly correct, but to that I'd add there's a healthy dose of Silver rule in there. Even if I don't have children to stay alive and unincarcerated, I do continue to live and wish to do so in the most non-s***y world possible. To that end, by not being s***y to others, they tend to not be s***y to me.

[baggie]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Ah, but your citations of what is considered abnormal behavior must be wired in as well, otherwise they are clearly abberations to "nomal" behavior and then not relevent to consideration of what is moral and how we derive moral and ethical conduct for ourselves - except to determine what is non-normal behavior.
.

not sure I completely follow (my problem not yours)
My guess is that the "programming" contains instances of positive behaviour (be nice) and bad behaviour to avoid (incest, violence). Of course all programming can be overridden (by another program) when needed, for instance for survival, or by conditioning (Hitler Youth). There are almost certainly people born or made with different or lacking programming (e.g sociopaths).

What we call ethical is just what our programming tells us is. there is no god or platonic morals out there to guide us.

[jimlintott]

I just wanted to respond to a few of elliots points. My comments in bold.


quote:Originally posted by jimlintott
Here is my question. Why doesn't the application of religion result in more consistent morality?



Because there are thousands of different religions.

None of which can claim that their 'flock' has a consistent moral behaviour. Why?

quote:The morality of the religious (like that of atheists) runs the entire spectrum of behaviour from saint like to evil. The simple answer is that religion is a human creation to help control a population.



Sure it's a human creation. What ideas DON'T help to control a population?

So you agree with me then.

quote:Morality and ethics (or lack of) are a human condition. Religion has nothing to do with it.



If religion has nothing to do with morality why do religions discuss and explain morality?

See population control.

Why do most people associate religion and morality?

Indoctrination.

All religions provide moral codes so you're completely wrong.

No, humans provided a moral code. Wrapped it up with ceremony and a magic show and called it religion.

[Michael Redman]

The rules are not just programming planted in your head by evolution, they also work! Following the rules is both instinctual and rational. If we didn't have them implanted (and to some extent we don't) we would (and do) teach them, and reinforce them, or we wouldn't succeed. The sociopathic course is not as successful, or we would be as likely to be sociopaths.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The rules are not just programming planted in your head by evolution, they also work! Following the rules is both instinctual and rational. If we didn't have them implanted (and to some extent we don't) we would (and do) teach them, and reinforce them, or we wouldn't succeed. The sociopathic course is not as successful, or we would be as likely to be sociopaths.

But when you think about it, there is nothing ' instinctual ' about respecting the property or comfort of others.. In fact, exactly the opposite would appear to be true.. ( i.e. it needs to be learned (programmed).. )

Just consider the behaviour of any toddler.. They pick up anything and everything, without concern for who it belongs to or to what extent taking something, might bring discomfort, pain or even death to the rightful owner.

If they do not learn empathy, they become sociopathic, which would seem to be the default rather than the exeption, in the absence of propper guidance..


Proper ( moral ) behaviour only becomes ' rational ', when it is learned that this is the path of least resistance ( in a social sense )...

[baggie]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The rules are not just programming planted in your head by evolution, they also work! Following the rules is both instinctual and rational. If we didn't have them implanted (and to some extent we don't) we would (and do) teach them, and reinforce them, or we wouldn't succeed. The sociopathic course is not as successful, or we would be as likely to be sociopaths.

I agree, but they have worked well in the past when we were basically apemen. There is no guarantee they will work as well in the future, or that there are not even better alternatives. Thus we may have to reexamine our morals, which was one aim of the thread.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Diogenes
But when you think about it, there is nothing ' instinctual ' about respecting the property or comfort of others.. In fact, exactly the opposite would appear to be true.. ( i.e. it needs to be learned (programmed).. )Maybe not directly, but there certainly is a need to garner social acceptance, and stealing from and harming others does not accomplish this.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by baggie
I agree, but they have worked well in the past when we were basically apemen. There is no guarantee they will work as well in the future, or that there are not even better alternatives. Thus we may have to reexamine our morals, which was one aim of the thread. I always say better education is the solution to alll social problems. With a little proper education, every child can be made to realize how they maximize their own utility by cooperating within society. I don't see any need to look for a new morality, as the old one works perfectly well.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I always say better education is the solution to alll social problems. With a little proper education, every child can be made to realize how they maximize their own utility by cooperating within society. I don't see any need to look for a new morality, as the old one works perfectly well.

I agree that the old one works well (most of the time). I am just not quite sure what the old one is, or on what it is based on, or why we have it, or how one would justify it to a martian (all from an atheist point of view). As a scientist/poor philospher I want to peek behind the facade. Your moral stance is perhaps "maximize your own utility by cooperating within society". Mine might be different. Is one better? How does one decide?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Maybe not directly, but there certainly is a need to garner social acceptance, and stealing from and harming others does not accomplish this.

Agreed, but that would make it a ' learned ' and not an ' instinctual ' behavior.. Which was my point..

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by baggie
I agree that the old one works well (most of the time). I am just not quite sure what the old one is, or on what it is based on, or why we have it, or how one would justify it to a martian (all from an atheist point of view). As a scientist/poor philospher I want to peek behind the facade. Your moral stance is perhaps "maximize your own utility by cooperating within society". Mine might be different. Is one better? How does one decide? We have the system we have because it works, and those who have adopted conflicting systems have disappeared. One decides which is better by seeing that one system works, and those that operate counter to it do not. Assuming that they have essentially the same needs, the martians are going to have the same basic set of rules, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have succeeded.

Originally posted by Diogenes
Agreed, but that would make it a ' learned ' and not an ' instinctual ' behavior.. Which was my point.. The behavior is learned to fulfil an instinctual imperative. We have to learn how to eat, but needing to eat is not learned. What, exactly, is the disagreement here?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
We have the system we have because it works, and those who have adopted conflicting systems have disappeared. One decides which is better by seeing that one system works, and those that operate counter to it do not. Assuming that they have essentially the same needs, the martians are going to have the same basic set of rules, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have succeeded.

The behavior is learned to fulfil an instinctual imperative. We have to learn how to eat, but needing to eat is not learned. What, exactly, is the disagreement here?

Are you saying that we would not figure out how to eat if we did not receive some direct guidance... i.e. put a toddler in a room with food and it would starve...?

As opposed to my example above..:
Just consider the behaviour of any toddler.. They pick up anything and everything, without concern for who it belongs to or to what extent taking something, might bring discomfort, pain or even death to the rightful owner.

At what point would the toddler ' instinctually ' start behaving nicely ?

[baggie]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
We have the system we have because it works, and those who have adopted conflicting systems have disappeared. One decides which is better by seeing that one system works, and those that operate counter to it do not. Assuming that they have essentially the same needs, the martians are going to have the same basic set of rules, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have succeeded.



yes but are you sure we have explored all of "ethical possibilities" space? In biology, animals evolve. The dinosaurs were pretty optimal for their time (I am sure they lasted longer than man will) but they are not here now.

I am not really looking for new ethics personally (the old ones suit me and I am too old to change), but it is silly not to even consider the possibility there might be better ones (assuming I had a clue what they could be)

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are you saying that we would not figure out how to eat if we did not receive some direct guidance... i.e. put a toddler in a room with food and it would starve...?I said that the need to eat is inborn, but we learn eating behavior. I said nothing about whether the learning had to be directed from outside, or if we could learn on our own. (Although it is clear that an infant would likely starve to death or choke if placed in proximity to solid food, and given no help in eating.) What does that matter in this discussion?At what point would the toddler ' instinctually ' start behaving nicely ? What are you talking about? Who said that it would?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

What does that matter in this discussion? What are you talking about? Who said that it would?

You said:
The rules are not just programming planted in your head by evolution, they also work! Following the rules is both instinctual and rational.


Isn't this thread about ' morals '?

What is instinctual about following ' good ' ones? ( the rules )

I contend that they are learned/programmed and not instinctual; as you seem to be stating above.

If I misunderstood you, and you don't disagree, then.... we agree..

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Yahzi


"All you have to do to refute a theist is to parrot his arguments back at him, but replacing the word God with any other word"
- Yahzi Coyote
Thanks for proving my point about opinionated drivel so eloquently.

Tim

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
However, since my whole point was about how some individuals need something more than logic or legal statutes to keep them from being s***y to their fellow man, I think the whole issue of fascism is a non sequitor.
Do you need something more?

The fundamental assumption of democracy is that each individual can govern himself. If you are rejecting that notion, then you have just given up on democracy. Hence my reference to fascism.

I realize that the evidence doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the proposition, but I have to believe it on faith. ;)

(Note: The above comment about belief is a joke. Yahzi believes in nothing.)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Rockon

Thanks for proving my point about opinionated drivel so eloquently.

My point was that the ends don't jusify the means.

All you people advocating the continued existance of social control by falsehood and deceit, simply because it is traditionally effective at providing social control, really need to reconsider the whole fascist angle.

[Ossai]

Baggie
E.g if I was to sit down tomorrow and write the "Complete Book of ethics and Morals for Atheists", what would I include and why? Enlightened self interest. I don't want others stealing / murdering / raping / etc me. If I do those things it can, in numerous ways, lead to those things happening to me therefore I shall not steal / murder / rape / etc.

Ossai

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by elliotfc


this is not a question that can be put to the scientific method (assuming that is the test that makes something real or not real, you could have a different test and then there could be real answers...

This is where this thread has gone completely off course...

Morality is real only if the end result is something real. Successful society, happier people, satisfied people...those are not UNREAL things just because they are difficult to define or quantify....
Unreal is "everlasting life." a place in heaven or hell" "god's good graces" --there is just no evidence for those things in the real world whatsoever...they are not realistic ends.

SO the moral question of what is right or wrong can be asked scientifically but only if the question is properly refined and the terms DEFINED....

Similar question-equally incomplete;;What is the RIGHT temperature for water?

For human society's purposes- RIGHT behaviour is that behaviour that leads to the desired ends...thus Nazi behaviour could never be shown to be RIGHT because it led to war, destruction and the end of even what it was trying to achieve...a better Germany--IT DID NOT WORK...utilitarian? just reality. Fascism anywhere can be demonstrably shown to fail--it does not work to achieve what it even says it is trying to achieve--a strong statew--it is inherently weakend because it is not built on reality and real behaviour..People cannot be permanently asked to subjugate their own goals for those of the state above all--it does not work.

The religious types who claim their religion gives them morality are demonstrably dishonest...Ask them with their religion how they separate out the rela rules -(GOLDEN) from the less important ones (keeping kosher for Jews, for example) to the ones to ignore or avoid (stone adulterers, etc)...They pick and choose their rules just like nonbelievers--based on a rational assessment of the desired outcomes and the means to reach them.
We nonbelievers are just more honest about it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

......
The religious types who claim their religion gives them morality are demonstrably dishonest...Ask them with their religion how they separate out the real rules -(GOLDEN) from the less important ones (keeping kosher for Jews, for example) to the ones to ignore or avoid (stone adulterers, etc)...They pick and choose their rules just like nonbelievers--based on a rational assessment of the desired outcomes and the means to reach them.



This is very well put.... Thanks

I don't think this thread has really gone off course though..

I wonder if baggie has his (?) answer ?

[scribble]

Originally posted by baggie
The problem is that without an "outside golden ethic" then the ethics of a sociopath are just as good in a evolutionary sense as mine. Ok sociopaths are parasites in a social sense, but parasites are just as viable evolutionary as non-parasites, e.g a tape-worm is one of natures success story.


If all people were parasites, then there would be no producers for them to feed on. Parasitic tendencies in your own system (ie feeding off other human's efforts) only works as long as someone in the system is producing.

It's that simple. A certain number of sociopaths - or parasites in your example - can be supported in the system. If it were, however, the default, then we would collapse rapidly with no one to provide us something to feed off.

A sociopath as you describe - someone who rejects morals as needless - would be in the same position. As an individual in a sea of moral people, he can survive. As one in a society of all parasites, there is no source to feed off.

I know it's rather Randian of me (as in Ayn, not James) but it sure seems accurate from my perceptions.

-Chris


-Chris

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Ossai


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baggie originally wrote:
E.g if I was to sit down tomorrow and write the "Complete Book of ethics and Morals for Atheists", what would I include and why?
Enlightened self interest. I don't want others stealing / murdering / raping / etc me. If I do those things it can, in numerous ways, lead to those things happening to me therefore I shall not steal / murder / rape / etc.

Ossai
Ossai, please classify the following, in terms of morality, according the rules of "Enlightened self interest." It would be helpful if you could justify the classification.

Abortion?
Capital Punishment?
Prostitution?
Gambling?
Drug Abuse?
War?
Euthanasia?

Tim

[scribble]

I've had many debates on the idea of an 'objective' morality with my roommate, who is quite skilled at completely destroying any point I had hoped to make and sending me crying back to my philosophy books.

The conclusion I'm tempted to draw is that there is no way to defend any concept of a universal morality, but that whatever works for you, works for you.

It is well that many of the rules that allow society to flourish are the ones that many people agree are good to follow. Coincidence, or necessity? Does it matter? Whatever theory we'd put forth from this point, there is no way to test.

-Chris

[DoNotDisturb]

Well, your question is exactly the reason why we have ethical philosophers that do not particularly believe in god, but try to create a system by which we can live with moral standards. Morality for atheists, (and I am one) is basically based on what I learn from my peers. In my opinion, even the ones who have a religion are doomed to some-what a life of 'immoral' acts if he/she does not decide to listen to what is being taught due to lack of good peers. Thus, I believe that peers play a major role in atheist morality.

(however, most of the time, most of the things that people tell me is moral, are derived from religion such as Catholism; my parents are Catholics.)

[baggie]

Originally posted by scribble


If all people were parasites, then there would be no producers for them to feed on. Parasitic tendencies in your own system (ie feeding off other human's efforts) only works as long as someone in the system is producing.

It's that simple. A certain number of sociopaths - or parasites in your example - can be supported in the system. If it were, however, the default, then we would collapse rapidly with no one to provide us something to feed off.

A sociopath as you describe - someone who rejects morals as needless - would be in the same position. As an individual in a sea of moral people, he can survive. As one in a society of all parasites, there is no source to feed off.


-Chris


-Chris

absolutely right. However, we are in our own way parasitic on lower organisms for our survival, carrots and cows included. That is why I cannot condem sociopaths outright

[baggie]

Originally posted by Diogenes



This is very well put.... Thanks

I don't think this thread has really gone off course though..

I wonder if baggie has his (?) answer ?

not really as I doubt that in our meaningless existance there can be an absolute answer - but it is fun trying. In a sense a very closely related question (it may actually be the same question) is does life have a purpose? However this thread has been very useful for me to work out the issues (even if it gave a null answer) and I thank the contributors

[baggie]

Originally posted by scribble
It is well that many of the rules that allow society to flourish are the ones that many people agree are good to follow. Coincidence, or necessity? Does it matter? Whatever theory we'd put forth from this point, there is no way to test.

-Chris

Yes there is a way to test and that is game theory. For instance, in simple evolutionary simulations the bronze rule "do unto others as they did unto you" beats even the golden rule and any others.

[Ossai]

Rockon
Ossai, please classify the following, in terms of morality, according the rules of "Enlightened self interest." It would be helpful if you could justify the classification.
Once the person includes others into their worldview and decides to group with them (ie becomes a part of society) then the group morality also plays role. At some point and in some instances the group code overshadows the individual. However in order to remain in the group with benefits the self must subsume their own want's to advance the group as a whole.

So to broadly answer your question all or none of the below could be considered moral based on the survival and advancement of the group. That isn't to say that instances of the below occur and are sanctioned by the group for the wrong reasons.
Abortion?
Capital Punishment?
Prostitution?
Gambling?
Drug Abuse?
War?
Euthanasia?
The three bolded all deal directly with and are concerned with death. (I know people die in large numbers during war but war's goal usually isn't death but the gain of or protection of resources.) Two of them deal with someone else's ability to decide on the existence of another person. The third deals with a person's right to remove themselves from society, abet in an unusual manner.

Abortion is a personal decision yet opposed by society (at least parts of) yet it is the individual that must ultimately deal with the results of the decision. If the group declares it's more capable of making that decision then the group is responsible for the outcome of the decision.

Capital punishment is nothing more than group survival. It is the only 100% effective deterrent available at this time (and I don’t' mean deterrent of other but the person being punished).

Prostitution, gambling and drug abuse are all matters that the group has deemed unstable. The group feels that the proliferation would undermine it so it has taken steps to protect itself. Now those areas where the above is legal the group, or at least a significant portion of it, has deemed that the benefits out weigh the dangers.

Ossai

[scribble]

Originally posted by baggie


Yes there is a way to test and that is game theory. For instance, in simple evolutionary simulations the bronze rule "do unto others as they did unto you" beats even the golden rule and any others.

I'm not aware of any simulations that are capable of grasping the full depth of human ethics. This is amazing; care to cite an example?

-Chris

[baggie]

Originally posted by scribble


I'm not aware of any simulations that are capable of grasping the full depth of human ethics. This is amazing; care to cite an example?

-Chris

of course we are modelling simple examples at the moment. As the models get better no doubt we could approach something "human like". However, the modelling has concentrated on simple animal like interactions for obvious reasons. See http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/ESS/ESS_index_frmset.html for lots of background.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by baggie
I am pretty agnostic but I was reading "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard. Pretty awful book, but there were a few bits in there that made me wonder. One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings). Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system? Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome



Well first off, that would be a fallacy of composition.

One that leading scientists in evolution and neuroscience have looked into and affirmed that evolution can produce morals, scientists like Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley and philosopher/scientist Daniel C. Dennett.



Basically I personally adhere to a moral foundationalism.


This basically takes similiar form to the foundationalism most are aware of, epistemic foundationalism which involves truths or reasoning beggining with certain self-evident axioms- like sight sensation, sound sensation, the law of noncontradiction, and objectivism.


Only that instead of sensation of sight it proposes a sensation of good/bad and right/wrong.

Many moral systems are moral foundationalist in this sense.

Consider utilitarianism, it proposes that pleasure=right. But how do they argue for this? How do they know an organisms goal is to promote pain, and avoid pleasure?

The answer would be something like "it's obvious". But why is it obvious? I would say because the sensation itself along with its evaluation is self-evident.



Hence right or wrong in the general and moral sense become what I consider ethical data. This data takes the form of emotions, and other pleasure/pain sensations.


Hence liking or disliking something is simply a certain type or quality of pain and pleasure. Though I hesitate to call it pain or pleasure because of the hedonistic assumptions underlying such words.



Thus I believe moral norms are justifed at a self-evident level. Not a cognitive level, but an emotive level.


This means there can be variation of course. What is self-evident to one person may not be to another when it comes to the emotive. But what can be objectively said is that what is self-evident to me, is self-evident to me, even if not to you.


Now what established these moral axioms? I believe evolutionary mechanisms, that are of course expressed through environment. In this sense I am of course making a distinction between proximate causes for adhering to morals (emotions from the brain's point of view) as opposed to ultimate causes (why it evolved, from the genes point of view.)
I distinguishing between ethical explanations and justifications.

To quote Dawkins on a similiar issue:

DR. DAWKINS: Some people are puzzled by the sense in which it's possible to take a deliberate decision to emancipate ourselves from the Darwinian world. Well, we know we do it, because every time we look unreceptive we are doing something anti-Darwinian. What happens is that Darwinian natural selection has built into us sexual desire for obvious good Darwinian reasons. In nature, where there are no contraceptives, sexual desire leads you to copulate. Copulation leads to children. That's all the genes need. In the modern world contraceptives have been invented, so it's possible to enjoy copulation without the follow-up, without having children. And we do. And many of us do it all the time. And it is something which is manifestly and factually counter-Darwinian -- anti-Darwinian, anti the dictates of the selfish genes. We have been given brains which were shaped to enjoy sex. We have also been given brains that have been shaped to enjoy various other kinds of hedonistic pleasures. We have noticed consciously that hedonistic pleasure or other more worthwhile pastimes are sometimes incompatible with having lots of children all the time that you have to look after. And so we get the best of both worlds by consciously deciding to enjoy both the sex and the other things that would have been competed with -- by the need to look after children. We have achieved the best of both worlds from our own brain point of view, but not of course from the gene point of view.


http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/dawk-body.html


I think morals evolved as a consequence of living in a group, and how group members tend to establish certain norms.

Now I am not saying it is genetically determined. I am saying there is a genetic predisposition.

I am also not saying that we merely practice morality because it benefits our Darwinian fitness. I am saying we practice morality because we want to and we want to practice morality because Darwinian mechanisms in the past have wired us that way. Just like sex, genetic mechanisms of the past are what make us like sex today, but that doesn't mean we just have sex to aid our genes.


It is like growth. We are all genetically predisposed to grow. But does that mean without food and water we will still reach our full height? Does that mean that nutrition does not effect growth?

Of course not. Genetic predispositions are of course nurtured through and expressed through the environment.




Again to quote Dawkins:

The phrase "the selfish gene" only means that genes are selfish. It doesn't mean that individual organisms are. On the contrary, one of the main messages of the selfish gene is that selfish genes can program altruistic behavior in organisms. Organisms can behave altruistically towards other organisms -- the better to forward the propagation of their own selfish genes. What you cannot have is a gene that sacrifices itself for the benefit of other genes. What you can have is a gene that makes organisms sacrifice themselves for other organisms under the influence of selfish genes.

I think we certainly benefit from social institutions which encourage us towards moral behavior. It's very important to have law. It's very important to have a moral education. It's very important to try to inculcate into children moral rules, such as "do as you would be done by." It's very important to do moral philosophy, to try work out the principles we want to live. But when you say religious principles, there I think I would part company. I see no reason why they should be religious. But I certainly think that they should be developed by society and not necessarily following biological dictates.



And Matt Ridley:

The conventional wisdom in the social sciences is that human nature is simply the imprint of an individual's background and experience. But our cultures are not random collections of arbitrary habits. They are canalized expressions of our instincts. That is why the same themes crop up in all cultures - themes such as family, ritual, bargain, love, hierarchy, friendships, jealousy, group loaylty, and superstition. That is why, for all their superficial differences of language and custom, foreign cultures are still immediately comprehensible at the deeper level of motives, emotions and social habits. Instincts, in a species like the human one, are not immutable genetic programs; they are pre-dispositions to learn. And to believe that human beings have instincts is no more determinist than to believe they are the products of their upbringing.


Matt Ridley, again:

For St Augustine the source of social order lay in the teachings of Christ. For Hobbes it lay in the sovereign. For Rousseau it lay in solitude. For Lenin it lay in the party. They were all wrong. The roots of social order are in our heads, where we possess the instinctive capacities for creating not a perfectly harmonious and virtuous society, but a better one than we have at present.


http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Matt_Ridley.html



Steven Pinker:

Sometimes the most selfish thing a gene can do is to wire unselfish motives into a human brain - heartfelt, unstinting unselfishness. The love of children (who carry one's genes into posterity), a faithful spouse (who genetic fate is identical to one's own), and friends and allies (who trust you if you're trustworthy) can be bottomless and unimpeachable as far as we humans are concerned (proximate level), even if is self-serving as far as genes are concerned (ultimate level).


http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Matt_Ridley.html


Steven again:

Many of our mental faculties evolved to mesh with real things in the world. Our perception of
depth is the product of complicated circuitry in the brain, circuitry that appears to be absent in other species and even in certain impaired people. But that does not mean that there aren?t real trees and cliffs out there or that the world is as flat as a cartoon.
And this argument can be carried over to more abstract properties of the world. Humans (and many other animals) appear to have an innate sense of number, which can be explained by the utility of reasoning about numerosity in our evolutionary history. That is perfectly compatible with the Platonist theory of number believed by many mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics, according to which abstract mathematical entities such as numbers have an existence independent of minds.
According to this view, the number sense evolved to mesh with real truths in the
world that in some sense exist independent of human knowers. A similar argument can be made for morality. According to the theory of moral realism, right and wrong have an existence and an inherent logic that licenses some chains of argument and not others. If so, our moral sense evolved to mesh with the logic of morality. The crucial point is that something can be both a product of the mind and a genuinely existing entity.


http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Blank_Slate.html#Determinism

Steven Pinker explaining why determisn does not imply amoralism:

The third fear is a fear of determinism: that we will no longer be able to hold people responsible for their behavior because they can they can always blame it on their brain or their genes or their evolutionary history?the evolutionary-urge or killer-gene defense. The fear is misplaced for two reasons. One is that the silliest excuses for bad behavior have in fact invoked the environment, rather than biology, anyway?such as the abuse excuse that got the Menendez brothers off the hook in their first trial, the "black rage" defense that was used to try to exonerate the Long Island Railroad gunman, the "pornography made me to it" defense that some rapists have tried. If there's a threat to responsibility it doesn't come from biological determinism but from any determinism, including childhood upbringing, mass media, social conditioning, and so on.

But none of these should be taken seriously in the first place. Even if there are parts of the brain that compel people to do things for various reasons, there are other parts of the brain that respond to the legal and social contingencies that we call "holding someone responsible for their behavior." For example, if I rob a liquor store, I'll get thrown in jail, or if I cheat on my spouse my friends and relatives and neighbors will think that I'm a boorish cad and will refuse to have anything to do with me. By holding people responsible for their actions we are implementing contingencies that can affect parts of the brain and can lead people to inhibit what they would otherwise do. There's no reason that we should give up that lever on people's behavior?namely, the inhibition systems of the brain?just because we're coming to understand more about the temptation systems.



Pinker again, explaining why it does not lead to the view of morality as a consruct or fiction:

The final fear is the fear of nihilism. If it can be shown that all of our motives and values are products of the physiology of the brain, which in turn was shaped by the forces of evolution, then they would in some sense be shams, without objective reality. I wouldn't really be loving my child; all I would be doing is selfishly propagating my genes. Flowers and butterflies and works of art are not truly beautiful; my brain just evolved to give me a pleasant sensation when a certain pattern of light hits my retina. The fear is that biology will debunk all that we hold sacred.

This fear is based on a confusion between two very different ways to explain behavior. What biologists call a "proximate" explanation refers to what is meaningful to me given the brain that I have. An "ultimate" explanation refers to the evolutionary processes that gave me a brain with the ability to have those thoughts and feelings. Yes, evolution (the ultimate explanation for our minds) is a short-sighted selfish process in which genes are selected for their ability to maximize the number of copies of themselves. But that doesn't mean that we are selfish and short sighted, at least not all the time. There's nothing that prevents the selfish, amoral process of natural selection evolution from evolving a big-brained social organism with a complex moral sense. There's an old saying that people who appreciate legislation and sausages should not see them being made. That's a bit like human values?knowing how they were made can be misleading if you don't think carefully about the process. Selfish genes don't necessarily build a selfish organization.



http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_p3.html

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by baggie

For instance, in simple evolutionary simulations the bronze rule "do unto others as they did unto you" beats even the golden rule and any others.
Emphasis on "simple."

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist [/B]
Awesome quotes! I wish I could whip those out every time I have to explain (yet again) why morality is objective.

[Rayn]

DialecticMaterialist:

I enjoyed the quotes, interesting stuff. However, I do have some questions, if you don't mind answering.

Thus I believe moral norms are justifed at a self-evident level. Not a cognitive level, but an emotive level.


This means there can be variation of course. What is self-evident to one person may not be to another when it comes to the emotive. But what can be objectively said is that what is self-evident to me, is self-evident to me, even if not to you.

How can justification for objective actions be based upon an emotive self-evidence? Moreover, how does one reconcile this outlook in the face of extreme emotional states/mental instability? Basically, I am wondering when such self-evidence is invalidated through the self being an unstable, dynamic entity.

Now what established these moral axioms? I believe evolutionary mechanisms, that are of course expressed through environment. In this sense I am of course making a distinction between proximate causes for adhering to morals (emotions from the brain's point of view) as opposed to ultimate causes (why it evolved, from the genes point of view.)
I distinguishing between ethical explanations and justifications.


You go on to state that you believe we have a genetic predisposition towards ethics-governed behavior, which becomes shaped by the environment. Hence, ethics would be essentially subjective, whereas the need for ethics is objective? So, are you arguing against there being any objective ethical code, so to speak, insofar as you seem to be advocating a cultural relativistic view towards the development of ethics?

Just wondering, any reply would be great. Thanks. :)

[DialecticMaterialist]

How can justification for objective actions be based upon an emotive self-evidence? Moreover, how does one reconcile this outlook in the face of extreme emotional states/mental instability? Basically, I am wondering when such self-evidence is invalidated through the self being an unstable, dynamic entity.

Well it's like if I touch a fire, I feel pain. That's pretty self-evident, and I doubt anyone would question my testimony or their experience. At least not if they were being reasonable.

I don't see why we make a radical distinction between emotions, and sight or sound. All three are just different kinds of sensations, different kinds of data, when it comes down to it.


You go on to state that you believe we have a genetic predisposition towards ethics-governed behavior, which becomes shaped by the environment. Hence, ethics would be essentially subjective, whereas the need for ethics is objective? So, are you arguing against there being any objective ethical code, so to speak, insofar as you seem to be advocating a cultural relativistic view towards the development of ethics?



Well I think the view of ethics being either absolute or relative is a false dillemma.

I think ethical norms reflect our intrinsic traits. And our intrinsic traits can vary a lot without becoming relative.

Like Pinker points out with regards to depth perception. Some people lack the ability to percieve depth, some people lack the ability to see at all. Environment can also effect your ability to percieve depth or see. I can for example keep a person in a dark room his or her entire life. Or I can scoop out his or her eye balls.

But that doesn't mean we now just discard sight or depth perception as subjective.


Likewise our moral sensibilties can be effect by environment and culture, but ultimately I think there are certain general norms the vast majority of us share which is more suuported/imprinted by cultures then dettered by them.

It's like height. We all grow to different heights, and certain cultures, depending on their diet, have their average members grow to a different height. They also have individuals who vary in height inside their own societies due to genes and personal environmental interactions. Height is still considered objective however, despite all this variation, and certain general rules still apply (like between 1-21, you will get taller and taller). And even the variation can be explained in a causal manner (we can attribute short height in person X, with malnurishment for example).

That is to say it is an objective trait, but the trait can vary from person to person due to environmental contingencies in a myriad of ways.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by baggie
I agree, but I suppose I was looking for a level 2 answer. It is clear that atheists are in practice just as moral as Theists. But why should we be? E.g if I was to sit down tomorrow and write the "Complete Book of ethics and Morals for Atheists", what would I include and why?
As I said earlier, morals develope through society. For instance, what if a country finds it morally acceptable to eat pets. Myself, I dont believe you should eat your pets. Conflict would arise if you tried to write a pamphlet where eating pets was treated as moral or immoral. Its one of those "Regional Ethics" things.

As far as book is concerned, I think Locke's 3 Natural rights are a pretty good summation of Atheistic morality: All people have their right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesnt come at the expense of anothers rights to life, liberty, or happiness).

Any moral or ethic included will always have some view point e.g. utilitarianism, hedonism. It is clear to me that my ethical feelings (I view myself as very ethical) come from evolution and are advantageous for the propagation of my genes. Why should I then bother listening to them? My sexual urges for instance tell me to have immediate sex with every attractive lady I meet, luckily (for the ladies) I manage to suppress those most of the time.

The problem is that without an "outside golden ethic" then the ethics of a sociopath are just as good in a evolutionary sense as mine. Ok sociopaths are parasites in a social sense, but parasites are just as viable evolutionary as non-parasites, e.g a tape-worm is one of natures success story.

Or put another way, we are all disgusted when we hear that a child has been murdered. I therefore have a moral sense. It is clear to me that child murder is very bad in the most fundamental way possible. But I forget that these are just feelings inserted by my brain. Should I then trust them and why?

I agree that the golden rule (together with the bronze and silver runner ups) are excellent guides. I deeply admire people who give up all to help other people. But again this admiration is just a feeling inserted by my brain to help my genes propagate. aahh

I guess too much self analysis leads to madness.

My hunch is that ethics for an atheist must then boil down to gene propagation? Of course gene progation can lead to wonderful things like the Sistine Chapel and the International Red Cross. It can equally lead to Hitler.
Dont think like that. Atheist morality has absolutely nothing to do with gene propagation.

To say its all about "the gene pool" is a gross and irresponsible oversimplification.

[DialecticMaterialist]

As both Dawkins and Pinker have pointed out, that kind of reasoning i.e. morals just helped genes so why adhere to them? Represents a failure to distinguish between proximate explanations coming from the brains point of view, and ultimate explanation, coming from the gene's point of view.

[Lord Kenneth]

Morals should be a necessary agreement between all parties to everyone is kept equally safe, and everyone benefits.

[Rayn]

DialecticMaterialist said: Well it's like if I touch a fire, I feel pain. That's pretty self-evident, and I doubt anyone would question my testimony or their experience. At least not if they were being reasonable.

I don't see why we make a radical distinction between emotions, and sight or sound. All three are just different kinds of sensations, different kinds of data, when it comes down to it.

If morals are founded upon our personal ability to feel emotion, then why are they not purely subjective?

Well I think the view of ethics being either absolute or relative is a false dillemma.

Why?

I think ethical norms reflect our intrinsic traits. And our intrinsic traits can vary a lot without becoming relative.

Like Pinker points out with regards to depth perception. Some people lack the ability to percieve depth, some people lack the ability to see at all. Environment can also effect your ability to percieve depth or see. I can for example keep a person in a dark room his or her entire life. Or I can scoop out his or her eye balls.

But that doesn't mean we now just discard sight or depth perception as subjective.

I understand that we don't discard sight/depth perception as purely subjective because one subject is unable to experience them, however, I really cannot see how this relates to emotive learning, which seems to be your basis for the development of an ethical code. That is to say, we develop an ethical code, we do not develop our ability see in a gradual manner, at least after the first few months of birth (that is, as far as I know). Although sight can deteriorate as we age, or we can improve our ability to see through various tricks (as some baseball players do), it is mainly something that is physically determined.

However, our emotive development is almost purely based upon learning from our experience, from observing others react to various situations. Consequently, it is through subjective experience that we develop an ethical code, and despite a "predisposition towards morals" it seems to make the objective aspect of morals rather vacuous, especially if the subjective experience can shape a person such that they abandon moral codes completely.

Likewise our moral sensibilties can be effect by environment and culture, but ultimately I think there are certain general norms the vast majority of us share which is more suuported/imprinted by cultures then dettered by them.

It's like height. We all grow to different heights, and certain cultures, depending on their diet, have their average members grow to a different height. They also have individuals who vary in height inside their own societies due to genes and personal environmental interactions. Height is still considered objective however, despite all this variation, and certain general rules still apply (like between 1-21, you will get taller and taller). And even the variation can be explained in a causal manner (we can attribute short height in person X, with malnurishment for example).

That is to say it is an objective trait, but the trait can vary from person to person due to environmental contingencies in a myriad of ways.

I like your argument, that essentially ethics is a genetic seed, which develops in one form or another in all of us. However, I don't see why such a seed has to exist at all. Couldn't one argue that the seed is found completely subjectively, that our environments inculcate the idea of an ethical code into us, as opposed to it being a piece of the genetic code?

Thanks for any reply.

[DialecticMaterialist]

If morals are founded upon our personal ability to feel emotion, then why are they not purely subjective?


The term subjective has multiple meanings. Yes, as part of the mind they are subjective, but in that sense literally all knowledge is subjective.

But as part of some inner being that is closed off from the rest of reality or as a fiction it is not subjective.

From dictionary.com:

sub·jec·tive [Audio pronunciation of subjective] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.




http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective


Morality is subjective in the first sense, (yet again only to an extent as the mind is part of an external world). But not in the second and forth sense, which is usually what a subjectivist is claiming when they say morality is subjective.

Why?


Why is it a false dillemma? Simply because there are more options, like:utiltarianism, ethical foundationalism, situational objectivism.


I understand that we don't discard sight/depth perception as purely subjective because one subject is unable to experience them, however, I really cannot see how this relates to emotive learning, which seems to be your basis for the development of an ethical code. That is to say, we develop an ethical code, we do not develop our ability see in a gradual manner, at least after the first few months of birth (that is, as far as I know). Although sight can deteriorate as we age, or we can improve our ability to see through various tricks (as some baseball players do), it is mainly something that is physically determined.

So basically because we may develope our sense of sight more quickly, it is less subjective? How does that work?


However, our emotive development is almost purely based upon learning from our experience, from observing others react to various situations. Consequently, it is through subjective experience that we develop an ethical code, and despite a "predisposition towards morals" it seems to make the objective aspect of morals rather vacuous, especially if the subjective experience can shape a person such that they abandon moral codes completely.


That is pure conjecture that is at odds with all research.

If you have any evidence to refute what I quoted from the above neorscientists, cognitive scientists, geneticists and biochemists I'd love to see it. Until then it is merely your speculation vs. their research.


I like your argument, that essentially ethics is a genetic seed, which develops in one form or another in all of us. However, I don't see why such a seed has to exist at all. Couldn't one argue that the seed is found completely subjectively, that our environments inculcate the idea of an ethical code into us, as opposed to it being a piece of the genetic code?


One could argue that, but then one has to explain why all cultures by chance developed moral norms, why morality has held in our society so consistently through the ages, why morals have animal precursors, as well as all the evidence from evolutionary pscyhology, behavioral genetics and cognitive science which seem to imply that at least half our behavior is rooted in genes, with morality being among this.

Again your statements are plausible. Lots of things are possible. It's possible morals just come from the environment....it's possible they come from little angels in our heads...it's possible that they just spontanious pop into our psyche from another dimension...


But the evidence does not indicate that such is probable. And as a man of reason, I prefer to go along with the evidence.

[baggie]

Dilaetcic materialist,

thanks for the postings. the cites have been great. However, it seems on a quick read that some of them are srguing for a moral realism point of view (esp. Pinker in the par that follows "But that does not mean that there aren?t real trees and cliffs out there or that the world is as flat as a cartoon" - e.g. the is an absolute morality.

Now I can tell the difference between "proximate" and ultimate explanations. However, knowing how or why ethics developed and why my brain feel that ethics is important doesn't help one in deciding whether to listen to the voices. In all the quotes you gave people sprinkle words like moral, good etc without really in my mind thinking it on the next level. They assume that 1) certain things are bad (murder, societal disquiet) and then use that to justify the particular moral view or theory they have.

e.g. Dawkins "I think we certainly benefit from social institutions which encourage us towards moral behavior. It's very important to have law. It's very important to have a moral education. It's very important to try to inculcate into children moral rules, such as "do as you would be done by." It's very important to do moral philosophy, to try work out the principles we want to live."

He seems to be arguing from a "what is good for society is good for me" point of view - fine - but I could insert "not" in all his sentences and argue from a libertarian or anarchist point of view.

The points that I hope we can agree on:
1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thought
2. Human beings have adopted various behaviours which help them survive or feel better. These can be codified into rules called ethics. These are manifest in various ways - pain, pleasure, "a bad concious" etc
3. What is good for an individuals comfort or survival may conflict with what is good for the group. Short term benefit may not be the same as long term benefit. Comparing benefits is difficult (a delicious donut or a slim tummy?) Hence the proliferation of various moral theories.

Therefore, I restate my original nihilistic thought - there can be no absolute morality for atheists. I can set up a moral universal where only I matter. Of course my morality will impact on my behaviour and how people treat me, but as long as I am prepared to accept this no one can call me "wrong" or "immoral". They can call me selfish and unlikeable etc and refuse to have anything to with me.

[baggie]

p.s I am not arguing that you should be selfish, only that it there is no real moral argument against it

[hammegk]

Originally posted by baggie
p.s I am not arguing that you should be selfish, only that it there is no real moral argument against it

The basic point imo. Morals in the final analysis are "might makes right".

Historically, religions and their attendent moral systems were easier to enforce by citing sky-daddy - not man - as the source. You don't need sky-daddy; you'll just need more people with truncheons & guns to enforce things to the liking of those currently wielding power.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by baggie
Dilaetcic materialist,

....The points that I hope we can agree on:
1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thought
2. Human beings have adopted various behaviours which help them survive or feel better. These can be codified into rules called ethics. These are manifest in various ways - pain, pleasure, "a bad concious" etc
3. What is good for an individuals comfort or survival may conflict with what is good for the group. Short term benefit may not be the same as long term benefit. Comparing benefits is difficult (a delicious donut or a slim tummy?) Hence the proliferation of various moral theories.

Therefore, I restate my original nihilistic thought - there can be no absolute morality for atheists. ...

The absolute for RATIONAL atheists is that evidence is the ultimate authority to settle all questions including moral ones. The words good, bad, moral etc have no meaning unless the terms are defined. It is neither absolutely good nor bad if humans continue to exist--there is no evidence to support that there is a nonhuman external observer looking for any particular endpoint--thus all such endpoints require a human observer--and thus the survival of human observers...evidence argues that what people would call amoral, or anarchic behaviour would indeed lead to the end of the humans needed to make the outcome have any meaning as moral or good. It is very much like sex--we like sex because it eventually guarantees we will be around. We like morality because it too guarantees that we will be around. Humanoids and their societies of the past that lacked
this moral sense would have killed each other off long ago--and likely did. Sociopaths are aberrations--like asexual people and congenitally infertile people--mistakes happen in nature which can be self destructive---but they can't multiply and dominate.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


The absolute for RATIONAL atheists is that evidence is the ultimate authority to settle all questions including moral ones. The words good, bad, moral etc have no meaning unless the terms are defined. It is neither absolutely good nor bad if humans continue to exist--there is no evidence to support that there is a nonhuman external observer looking for any particular endpoint--thus all such endpoints require a human observer--and thus the survival of human observers...evidence argues that what people would call amoral, or anarchic behaviour would indeed lead to the end of the humans needed to make the outcome have any meaning as moral or good. It is very much like sex--we like sex because it eventually guarantees we will be around. We like morality because it too guarantees that we will be around. Humanoids and their societies of the past that lacked
this moral sense would have killed each other off long ago--and likely did. Sociopaths are aberrations--like asexual people and congenitally infertile people--mistakes happen in nature which can be self destructive---but they can't multiply and dominate.

I am not sure if you agree with my last post or not.

I do not think sociopaths are abberations. They are parasitic, but parasites are in darwinian terms just as good as us. Another way of putting it, sometimes being sociopathic would be the best survival choice. It is true that society can only tolerate a certain level of sociopaths for group survival, but the earth can only support a certain level of humans - it does not mean that humans are "abberant". I see sociopaths as being part of the darwinian personality mix that society needs or produces. E.g aggressive people are a pain, until you get invaded by another country when they become very useful.

I agree with the rest of your post though!

[Fun2BFree]

I guess we basically agree--sociopaths are no more an "aberration" than are moral people---but there is natural selection that allows moral folks to dominate...as for aggressive people being useful---that is not the same thing...one can be aggressive and not sociopathic---and those that fail to see this often pay the price when they embrace a sociopath as useful because they can provide some near term aggressive dominance-eg Hitler--it ultimately brought ruin to the Germans to have such an out of control nutcase running things...though early on he helped build them up...but anything built on such an amoral structure is doomed..the "bad" guys can't hold together for the long haul the way a more moral based group can because those that live by the sword do indeed perish by it--the great progress and successes of the last centuries have been the triumph of those that live by law using might as a tool to support law not as the determinant of what is right.

[DialecticMaterialist]

However, knowing how or why ethics developed and why my brain feel that ethics is important doesn't help one in deciding whether to listen to the voices. In all the quotes you gave people sprinkle words like moral, good etc without really in my mind thinking it on the next level. They assume that 1) certain things are bad (murder, societal disquiet) and then use that to justify the particular moral view or theory they have.


I don't know what you mean by the "next level" exactly. I think the difference is that they start looking at the question as one of concrete examples, i.e. experiences. Not as a quest for ultimate principles.

I think what you are asking is "why should I follow my brain's impulses" and the question is largely meaningless.

Since "should" in that sense implies a compelling or motivating force, and the only source we know of for that is brain impulses. The question is thus akin to asking "why should I follow through with something, once we remove all prescription?" or "why should I do something, once we remove all shoulds?"



He seems to be arguing from a "what is good for society is good for me" point of view - fine - but I could insert "not" in all his sentences and argue from a libertarian or anarchist point of view.

I'm not quite clear what your point is. First off I never got that from what he is saying. Secondly, just because you can change Dawkin's sentences means nothing.

Lastly, your entire approach to the manner seems anti-foundationalist, in which case literally nothing they said would convince you, as you have rejected their case a priori.

That's like if I define life as something possessing a "vital essence", no new data concerning biochemistry could convince me, because by definition, we would have to show what makes complex biochemical processes alive.

The points that I hope we can agree on:
1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thought
2. Human beings have adopted various behaviours which help them survive or feel better. These can be codified into rules called ethics. These are manifest in various ways - pain, pleasure, "a bad concious" etc

2 is a bit confused. Humans do not "adopt" these things willingly. We attain them as genetic predispositions or have them imprinted by our environments.




3. What is good for an individuals comfort or survival may conflict with what is good for the group. Short term benefit may not be the same as long term benefit. Comparing benefits is difficult (a delicious donut or a slim tummy?) Hence the proliferation of various moral theories.


To an extent though I see moral theorizing as more of a cognitive problem.

I do agree there can be a lot of conflicting values though, within and between individuals.

Therefore, I restate my original nihilistic thought - there can be no absolute morality for atheists.

Well that is unless we posit one rule: do what best serves your overall value system i.e. aggregate of moral norms. I see no possible way to supercede this rule.



I can set up a moral universal where only I matter. Of course my morality will impact on my behaviour and how people treat me, but as long as I am prepared to accept this no one can call me "wrong" or "immoral".

Now we jumped right into a non sequitur. How can you set such a universe up? Do you choose your genes? Do you choose how your environment influences you?

And can't the people say you *are* immoral, in that to them, you *are* immoral?

I think your entire position presumes a great degree of free will, and such an assumption is quite dubious.

[Pyrian]

2. It is not good for society
Trouble is that what is good for society may not be good for the individual. Hitler was "good" for german society in some ways (he stopped the endless left-right battles plaguing their society(not in a nice way mind you) and got people working)Your counter-argument only works if you exclude the Jewish population. Take out this rather massive hole in your reasoning and it works just fine.They had the idea that Jews were sub-human. And if you believe that, you've solved the moral conundrum.If and only if Jews actually are sub-human, to which no evidence exists (or ever did).I sure there are other reasons why I should not be a sociopath?Other than the invariably negative consequences of such behavior in the long term? Is it even necessary to have other reasons?I oppose utilitarianism because I don't think people can agree on what is good for people.Shall I then oppose religious morality because people have PROVEN that they cannot agree on what that consists of, and in fact have historically shown themselves all too willing to commit egregious breaches thereof in the argument?Some utilitarians would ban certain books while others would not. Some utilitarians would give their internal organs away while others would not. Which utilitarians are right and which are wrong? Depends on your morality I guess...No, it depends on whether or not they are right. Utilitarianism simply changes the debate from "is it right or wrong" (a question which is difficult if not impossible to objectively answer) to "what are the consequences of establishing this as a rule," a question which has an answer, albeit one that may be very difficult to establish short of experiment.Anyone who doesn't see this, and follows the rules only because the God's reward/punishment potential, is, in my opinion, a sociopath.I'm glad that would only be your opinion. Sociopaths are judged to be sociopaths because of their behaviors in society, and not their beliefs.The one quickly leads to the other. It is those that believe morality consists solely in doing what God says who, in my society at least, preach hatred and condemnation of homosexuals, for example, or the murdering of doctors, or the flying of airplanes into buildings in another society.People approach religion in such monumental life events. That's got to mean something, even if you don't like religion.Sure - but what DOES it mean? I suspect my answer would be dramatically different from yours.This was in regards to mentioning birth rates.Uh, no, you brought that subject up, and although I read your post and the post it replied to several times I never figured out what you were trying to respond to.Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.Of course it has evolutionary benefit, that's the whole point of the utilitarian view, that morality is and always has been beneficial. That's what utilitarianism MEANS.And much more of the entirety of humanity has been able to function without the evolutionist interpretation of morality.No - what is YOUR point? Neither utilitarianism nor evolution hold that belief in themselves are any factor at all. That's a religious thing - which is why the argument applies against you and cannot be turned around.I can't prove that, but I've never seen a society that didn't have a religion.Monkeys. Ants. Every social animal. They do not have concepts that seem to bear any resemblance to religion, but do have distinct and observable values that could easily be described as moral. Would you like examples?If someone needs religion to keep him or herself from gassing millions, then chew the wafer and drink the wine! Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!Amen to that. Judging by many discussions I've had on the subject, there are some amongst humanity that simply will not and perhaps cannot grasp secular morality. Send them to the church, IMO.At what point would the toddler ' instinctually ' start behaving nicely ?When another toddler instinctually attacks him for taking what that other toddler considered to be his. Interestingly, our concepts of personal property and revenge are much more hard-coded than our concepts of others' property and feelings...I don't want others stealing / murdering / raping / etc me. If I do those things it can, in numerous ways, lead to those things happening to me therefore I shall not steal / murder / rape / etc.I like to think of it in terms of societal norms. Do I want to live in a society where stealing, murder, and rape are the norm, for example? Much as I might like to jump some girl, I'd have to say no...The religious types who claim their religion gives them morality are demonstrably dishonest...Ask them with their religion how they separate out the rela rules -(GOLDEN) from the less important ones (keeping kosher for Jews, for example) to the ones to ignore or avoid (stone adulterers, etc)...They pick and choose their rules just like nonbelievers--based on a rational assessment of the desired outcomes and the means to reach them.
We nonbelievers are just more honest about it.Excellent, I'm going to have to remember that argument.Abortion?
Capital Punishment?
Prostitution?
Gambling?
Drug Abuse?
War?
Euthanasia?One of the prime beauties of utilitarianism is that instead of providing clear answers for the difficult moral dilemmas, it actually demonstrates that they ARE difficult moral dilemmas - while religions tend to provide clear answers that large nubers of people aren't happy with.That is why I cannot condem sociopaths outrightInfinite understanding is an admirable trait - but would you want to live with them taking your stuff?For instance, in simple evolutionary simulations the bronze rule "do unto others as they did unto you" beats even the golden rule and any others.That makes sense to me, given that it is the most instinctive response of humanity.1. There is no ultimate morality out there independent of human existance or thoughtIf you replaced "human" with "sentient" I might agree - morality does not apply to rocks. Otherwise, no, I don't see how you can reach this conclusion when there is so much evidence for the darwinistic advantages of cooperation, necessitating an ethical system. do not think sociopaths are abberations. They are parasitic, but parasites are in darwinian terms just as good as us. Another way of putting it, sometimes being sociopathic would be the best survival choice.While it may be possible for a sociopath to be good for himself (actual evidence suggests the contrary BTW), it is not possible for a parasite to be good for a society (as opposed to an aggressive person whom could be good and/or bad, e.g. baboon alpha males who bully their companions but defend them against predators).

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Rayn

If morals are founded upon our personal ability to feel emotion, then why are they not purely subjective?

Because the environment is not subjective.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well the whole statement is equivocation as it uses the term "subjective" in two ways. The first as something inside a mind as opposed to outside, that is something we can agree with. All knowledge and data consists of this. All reasoning, all sight, all sound, all emotion.

But then the term is used in a different manner as something "relative", "socially constructed" or "fictional". Something opposed to fact or anything concrete. That is something entirely different which must be justified on different grounds.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Pyrian
Utilitarianism simply changes the debate from "is it right or wrong" (a question which is difficult if not impossible to objectively answer) to "what are the consequences of establishing this as a rule," a question which has an answer, albeit one that may be very difficult to establish short of experiment.
.

But just knowing th e consequences does not help you as one still has to make an (arbitary) ethical judgement of the relative merits of each outcome -e.g. is it right to kill one innocent person to save ten or a thousand others? That is why I think utilitarianism to be of very limited value

Originally posted by Pyrian
One of the prime beauties of utilitarianism is that instead of providing clear answers for the difficult moral dilemmas, it actually demonstrates that they ARE difficult moral dilemmas

I think it is useful in helping to work out the consequences yes, but not in deciding between the alternatives in the difficult cases. Maybe we need a new thread - does Utiliterianism work in practice?

Originally posted by Pyrian
While it may be possible for a sociopath to be good for himself (actual evidence suggests the contrary BTW), it is not possible for a parasite to be good for a society (as opposed to an aggressive person whom could be good and/or bad, e.g. baboon alpha males who bully their companions but defend them against predators).

I think most sociopaths in practice are quite good at ingratiating and concealing their proclivity - they use people and then drop them when they do not need them any more. I am not talking serial killers here, though some may be sociopaths. Many "successful" business people (e.g. Robert Maxwell) and dictators (Saddam) are possibly sociopathic to some degree. I am sure some sociopaths produce a net return to society (if even by accident) and some don't.

[Fun2BFree]

There seems to be an erroneous assumption that if something exists (like sociopaths) there MUST be a benefit to having that something....this is a very wrongheaded view of natural selection. It most definitely does not select ONLY the beneficial---it allows the beneficial to be the dominant form...in the case of sociopathic behaviour--if it were dominant society could not be what it is--it would be gone or something else entirely...that it exists without becoming extinct is testimony to it's ability to exist--cancer is dangerous-- but it still exists...sociopathy is a -pathy-- a pathology behaviour- it's existence says nothing about what is natural in human behaviour.

The dismissla of utilitarianism is wrong...it is a failure to understand what moral questions really are...Utilitarianism in determining outcomes points out the true question that exists when someone starts talking about morality and right and wrong...such questions are revealed for the nebulous meaningless questions that they are...as meaningless as my question about the right temperature for water. What is right can ONLY be determined by utilitarian consideration of what the desired outcome is...and no matter what you do you will always have a question as to whether what is desired is "right" which is to ask again--right to achieve what outcome?

Example: Is it better to kill 1 or a thousand? If you want to save the most people you get one answer...if you take into account whom you kill- you get a different answer....You cannot possibly divorce such questions from their outcomes.
The key to most moral questions is to allow whenever possible that the choice is wrong that there is a chance to correct it...thus freedom is better than tyranny --if freedom is wrong you can always apply a tyrannical approach -you are free to do so....the opposite is not the case....IF suicide bombing is wrong- you don't get a do over...if it is right.... there is no realistic way of determining if it is right because the rewards do not occur in the real world...thus the default position is to NOT make choices that have no room for correction of error...that "works" best of all the choices.

[COCT]

Although the Golden rule has come up in this thread (and the silver and bronze), the problem with the Golden Rule hasn't been addressed (unless I've over looked it) and that is: The Golden Rule assumes that everyone wants to be treated the same way you want to be treated. We know that's not always true.

Enter the Platinum Rule: Do unto others has they would have done unto them.

This isn't my original concept, but it's a good one.

COCT

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by baggie
I am pretty agnostic but I was reading "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard. Pretty awful book, but there were a few bits in there that made me wonder. One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings). Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system? Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome

Ethics are the mores by which a society survives, they are the ground rules that are a part of society so that we can live in relative peace and safety with many other people. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, probably, but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing. I think there are some ethical rules that are true in almost every civilization that has existed - murder without cause is wrong (unless justified by the society), stealing from other members of the society is wrong, etc. These are in place so that we are able to live with one another.

[Pyrian]

At work recently a bunch of my co-workers took advantage of the laxity of work rules to spend a lot of their time goofing off.

Some of them have been fired, and most of the rest of the people have been subjected to relatively draconian rules about when they work (specific, regulated break times and all that).

Nobody's even suggested applying those rules to me, because I'm well known for working long hours when there is a need. But, in general, these draconian new rules are being applied across all the technicians, even the ones who never ever took advantage of the old system.

From a utilitarian perspective, we want people to work. We've set rules which I'm drawing as a correspondence to moral or ethical rules. But the rules aren't there (in either case) for their own sake, but rather for their effects on our behavior - increased utility in both cases, IMO.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by COCT
Although the Golden rule has come up in this thread (and the silver and bronze), the problem with the Golden Rule hasn't been addressed (unless I've over looked it) and that is: The Golden Rule assumes that everyone wants to be treated the same way you want to be treated. We know that's not always true.

Enter the Platinum Rule: Do unto others has they would have done unto them.
COCT
I don't recall if I addressed it in this thread or not, but I answered it many times.

Perhaps another way to look at it is: why should we follow the Platinum rule? Well, because we want other people to follow it when they deal with us. Ta da. That's the golden rule again.

Part of what we do to others is respect their desires, and treat them as they wish to be treated insofar as it does not violate the golden rule. The golden rule does not have this alleged weakness once you realize that.

Although frankly, the bronze rule would work just as well. If I cheated once, I don't think I would object to being cheated once.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
There seems to be an erroneous assumption that if something exists (like sociopaths) there MUST be a benefit to having that something....this is a very wrongheaded view of natural selection. It most definitely does not select ONLY the beneficial---it allows the beneficial to be the dominant form...in the case of sociopathic behaviour--if it were dominant society could not be what it is--it would be gone or something else entirely...that it exists without becoming extinct is testimony to it's ability to exist--cancer is dangerous-- but it still exists...sociopathy is a -pathy-- a pathology behaviour- it's existence says nothing about what is natural in human behaviour.



I agree that "dangerous" recessive traits are not uncommon. However, it is important to note that some are actually beneficial in half doses (e.g. sickle cell anemia in Malarial areas). Some personality traits (e.g. sociopathy, aggression, aspergers) may also fall into that category. E.g. A hard nosed business man who neglects his family for his work may be a bit apergers/sociopath etc, but the net result for society in increased production could be good.

You say things like "what is natural in human behaviour". I have no idea what that is. I can see examples all around me, from Mother Teresa to Hitler, but that tells me little about ethics or what should be (rather than what is). I suspect that sociopathy (like aggression) is occassionally selected for and thus survives (in small doses). I could be wrong, but that is a study for a sociobiologist, not an ethicist.

You say sociopathy is a pathy - that is true by trivial definition. Homosexuality was once a "pathy". It says nothing again about ethics. Of course I am not arguing for sociopaths rights, but merely that to conclude that arguing that a personality trait (and I picked on sociopathy at random) is wrong without looking more deeply into it, and defining ones ground carefully.

[baggie]

several responders have asked what I meant by looking for a next level explanation. I will try and summarise my scattered thoughts.

Morality
Level 1. Rules: e.g. killing is wrong. Most people operate (probably unconciously) at this level day to day
Level 2 Justifying Rules: Killing is wrong because God says so, or because it goes against the Utilitarian principle. Most people end up here when asked why something is wrong
Level 3 Justifying the principles: Why should I chose utilitarianism over hedonism or God. This is where many philosophers have mainly operated. Pretty useless for day to day decisions, and no one has come up with any definite answers after 2000 years.
Level 4? Can anything really be known or justified? What does it mean to chose etc? What is a "right" or "good"? Even worse track record.

Notice that to my mind ethics is not about WHY people chose the rules, which is why to bring in evolutionary principles is wrong. Leave why to the evolutionists and sociobiologists. Of course if group or genetic survival is your level 2 ethic, then I will happily debate it on level 3.

I find this level hierarchy useful, as it allows me to check most of my ethical statements to try and find any hidden assumptions. It is suprising how easy it is for statements like "killing must be wrong" to creep in and colour your argument. Unless you are looking at level 3 or more, it is not worth arguing about?

[Pyrian]

I tried to use an example to illustrate a very fundamental disagreement, but I don't think it took.

Bluntly, I think rules-based morality is inadequate. The various metallic rules work fairly well in their non-specificity, but you will never be able to make a single set of rules that will cover all the myriad ways in which a person can justify being a goob.