Atheism and morality

Atheistic philosopher, Joel Marks, has a column on atheim and morality:-
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/80marks.htm

Post reply

4710 views

It doesn't seem to me that there is anything new in Marks's argument. A. J. Ayer said much the same years ago, that words like "good" and "beautiful" do not have objective meanings, and David Hume argued that you cannot derive "ought" from "is". But this doesn't mean that an atheist cannot have morality. A-theism is just a non-belief in supernatural beings like gods, so is not in itself a worldview.-As a Humanist my moral beliefs are based on the assumption that, as Sam Harris expresses it in his new book, what is good is what promotes the flourishment of human life, which is really just a modern more sophisticated version of utilitarianism. This is what is called "normative" ethics. This is the only sort of ethics that makes rational sense.-The way I see it the ethical prerogatives begin with yourself and your family and friends and species, and extend out to other species and life in general, and beyond that to the physical environment and the universe in general. What is good is what works in promoting the widest possible flourishment. Of course this doesn't eliminate ethical dilemmas, where there is a conflict of interests, but it does provide a rational basis for solving such issues.

--
GPJ

Post reply

4624 views


> The way I see it the ethical prerogatives begin with yourself and your family and friends and species, and extend out to other species and life in general, and beyond that to the physical environment and the universe in general. What is good is what works in promoting the widest possible flourishment. Of course this doesn't eliminate ethical dilemmas, where there is a conflict of interests, but it does provide a rational basis for solving such issues.-I have no disagreement with your analysis of the article. In fact, my 'version' of a deity does not follow lines of the religious. There is no proof that morals are dictated by a creator. Ethics are a logical consequence of having to live in a cooperative society with benefit for all.

Post reply

4640 views


> > The way I see it the ethical prerogatives begin with yourself and your family and friends and species, and extend out to other species and life in general, and beyond that to the physical environment and the universe in general. What is good is what works in promoting the widest possible flourishment. Of course this doesn't eliminate ethical dilemmas, where there is a conflict of interests, but it does provide a rational basis for solving such issues.
> 
> I have no disagreement with your analysis of the article. In fact, my 'version' of a deity does not follow lines of the religious. There is no proof that morals are dictated by a creator. Ethics are a logical consequence of having to live in a cooperative society with benefit for all.-But the tribal nature of man brings one thing to bear; he who has the power is the giver of values; 'benefit for all' is just as aptly used by tyrants as preachers... though one may rarely tell the difference.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

4714 views

It doesn't seem to me that there is anything new in Marks's argument. A. J. Ayer said much the same years ago, that words like "good" and "beautiful" do not have objective meanings, and David Hume argued that you cannot derive "ought" from "is". But this doesn't mean that an atheist cannot have morality. A-theism is just a non-belief in supernatural beings like gods, so is not in itself a worldview.
> 
> As a Humanist my moral beliefs are based on the assumption that, as Sam Harris expresses it in his new book, what is good is what promotes the flourishment of human life, which is really just a modern more sophisticated version of utilitarianism. This is what is called "normative" ethics. This is the only sort of ethics that makes rational sense.
> 
> The way I see it the ethical prerogatives begin with yourself and your family and friends and species, and extend out to other species and life in general, and beyond that to the physical environment and the universe in general. What is good is what works in promoting the widest possible flourishment. Of course this doesn't eliminate ethical dilemmas, where there is a conflict of interests, but it does provide a rational basis for solving such issues.-Rational basis yes, but Marks is arguing that there is no objective basis for any morality. Humanism makes a set of normative claims and values, but about things that do not have any 'real' quality outside of the literature and human thought that derives them. -Bringing Nietzsche to bear I can take your claim:
"what is good is what promotes the flourishment of human life" can be widely and wildly interpreted, reinterpreted, and revalued to justify any such treatment of the world or other people in order to propagate "the flourishment of human life." Humanism is no more real than Judeo-Christian ethics.

Post reply

4679 views

JOEL MARKS (conclusion): A helpful analogy, at least for the atheist, is sin. Even though words like 'sinful' and 'evil' come naturally to the tongue as a description of, say, child-molesting, they do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God and hence the whole religious superstructure that would include such categories as sin and evil. Just so, I now maintain, nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality. Yet, as with the non-existence of God, we human beings can still discover plenty of completely-naturally-explainable internal resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus, enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molesting of children, and would likely continue to be so if fully informed, to put it on the books as prohibited and punishable by our society.-Do we really need a professor of philosophy to tell us something so obvious at such enormous length? And what is the relevance of his atheism? Hadn't he realized before that morals not only vary from one society to another, but they also vary from one religion to another, sometimes from one sect to another, from one interpretation of "God's word" to another, and from one period to another? Each society has its own set of rules, and so of course there is no objective right or wrong ... with or without God, there is only human consensus. Atheism and religion are therefore as irrelevant as Marks's gratuitous and arrogant assertion that God doesn't exist.-Like David, I can only endorse George's list of "ethical prerogatives". I would add that I think it a positive advantage that the humanist code is not diverted from its moral and social purposes by the need to interpret ancient texts of dubious origin and value.

Post reply

4709 views

JOEL MARKS (conclusion): A helpful analogy, at least for the atheist, is sin. Even though words like 'sinful' and 'evil' come naturally to the tongue as a description of, say, child-molesting, they do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God and hence the whole religious superstructure that would include such categories as sin and evil. Just so, I now maintain, nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality. Yet, as with the non-existence of God, we human beings can still discover plenty of completely-naturally-explainable internal resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus, enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molesting of children, and would likely continue to be so if fully informed, to put it on the books as prohibited and punishable by our society.
> 
> Do we really need a professor of philosophy to tell us something so obvious at such enormous length? And what is the relevance of his atheism? Hadn't he realized before that morals not only vary from one society to another, but they also vary from one religion to another, sometimes from one sect to another, from one interpretation of "God's word" to another, and from one period to another? Each society has its own set of rules, and so of course there is no objective right or wrong ... with or without God, there is only human consensus. Atheism and religion are therefore as irrelevant as Marks's gratuitous and arrogant assertion that God doesn't exist.
> -No... Nietzsche described this nearly 120 years prior to my ever hearing of Marks. The ugly truth is that of "power."-> Like David, I can only endorse George's list of "ethical prerogatives". I would add that I think it a positive advantage that the humanist code is not diverted from its moral and social purposes by the need to interpret ancient texts of dubious origin and value.-The only thing that I can't get behind in humanism is its essential assertion of pacifism. If we know that the values of humanism are something to enshrine and protect--and other humans wish to cause these values to be destroyed (Muslim Extremists)--than we should be willing to fight preemptively in order to maintain this order. Or, to borrow from Machiavelli: If we will the ends, we necessarily will the means. -Sadly, I've found that the doctrine of "Original Sin" seems much more apt for mankind as a whole than I would like to admit as a non-Christian. I quit Buddhism precisely for the fact that I think that war is necessary, and even good, though this latter epithet will mark me to be tarred and feathered in nearly every "civilized" discussion. We want to enjoy its fruits without its necessary consequences.

Post reply

4608 views

The atheist professor of philosophy Joel Marks has made the (to him) astonishing discovery that morality has no objective basis. I have pointed out (as did George) that there is nothing new in this, and that with or without God, there is only human consensus, and so both atheism and religion are irrelevant.-MATT: No...Nietzsche described this nearly 120 years prior to my ever hearing of Marks. The ugly truth is that of "power".-The power argument is certainly valid, and comes into play particularly when you have a repressive authoritarian regime, so I agree that it's not just a matter of consensus. But even this only reinforces the general philosophical argument that there is no objective basis for morality, for which - as I argued in my original post - Marks' atheism is irrelevant since different groups have different views even of God's will. -As for the subjectivity of our norms, Shakespeare summed it all up 400 years ago, though he certainly wasn't the first! -HAMLET: [...] there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
****************************************************************************-MATT: The only thing that I can't get behind in humanism is its essential assertion of pacifism.
 
Like most "isms", humanism has evolved into various forms, starting way back with Socrates & Co. I believe Erasmus (a Renaissance humanist) was a pacifist. The modern form with which I identify ... and which did not get underway till the nineteenth century ... has as its central core the belief that morality (or what George called "ethical prerogatives") should be based on the welfare of humanity and not fulfilment of the will of God. This is the concept embraced by atheists and agnostics, but there are lots of theists who also call themselves humanists, so the term has remained rather fluid. I think many humanists are pacifists, but I for one accept that there are circumstances in which war is necessary. I have never heard of pacifism being "an essential assertion", but George actually runs a humanist association and knows far more about it than I do. I hope he will log onto this thread to set us right.

Post reply

4735 views

Atheistic philosopher, Joel Marks, has a column on atheim and morality:
> 
> 
> http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/80marks.htm-Interesting. He seems to assert that morals are completely imperative in nature... and his form of "hard atheism" or "amorality" is a very interesting answer to the question of morality. -Morals certainly exist in terms of how we've constructed our institutions, and despite my claim to moral contextualism on my part, I do find room for a sort of universal morality in the fact that none of us is nor ever will be "the only man on earth." However the people in a society determine what morals and laws they will live under.

Post reply

4630 views


> Morals certainly exist in terms of how we've constructed our institutions, and despite my claim to moral contextualism on my part, I do find room for a sort of universal morality in the fact that none of us is nor ever will be "the only man on earth." However the people in a society determine what morals and laws they will live under.-The problem with is statement is much the same as the problem with the statement "science by consensus". I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.

Post reply

4636 views


> > Morals certainly exist in terms of how we've constructed our institutions, and despite my claim to moral contextualism on my part, I do find room for a sort of universal morality in the fact that none of us is nor ever will be "the only man on earth." However the people in a society determine what morals and laws they will live under.
> 
> The problem with is statement is much the same as the problem with the statement "science by consensus". I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.-We can set laws; but where do the laws come from? They come from a general sense of what's right and wrong. Most people do "the right thing." (Whatever that happens to be at that period of time.) We make laws to provide a justification for punishing those who do not. My evidence is the simple fact that we live in groups. We couldn't live in groups if we were each acting as the last man on earth. I use the term "last man on earth" because the only time that morals/ethics of any kind have any meaning whatsoever is in the context of living with at least one other person. -The book "The Lucifer Principle" demonstrates how the powerful in social structures can set things up for people to "do the wrong thing." Wrong, in this context is in the sanctified murder/torture/etc. of other human beings. Hitler is a prime example of a "societal consensus." "Right" was objectifying and persecuting the lesser race(s). -How about the basic questions, such as "When is it appropriate to kill another human being?" The fact of the matter is that what is "right" for this answer is a three-pronged answer:-1. When my life is threatened with the same. 
2. When my family is threatened with the same.
3. When my society is threatened with the same.-How about deception? When is deception appropriate? -There is no black and white response to these questions. The reason is that they are not "binary" in nature. There is no yes/no, or right/wrong. The imposition of say, "The Ten Commandments" is an act of the social organism imposing its collective will; by declaring what is right or wrong; giving up true freedom for safety. -The only way "higher" morality (as it is espoused by pacifists) can exist, is if the human lust for power, (as in, the will to be more) could somehow be willingly relinquished. However, this will is intrinsic to our nature and can be no more subsumed than the hunger of a Lion for the flesh of Gazelle. My drive for a Master's in Computer Science, Warren Buffet's drive for wealth, our own will to truth--are all consequences of our creative soul's drive to dominate.

Post reply

4605 views

We can set laws; but where do the laws come from? They come from a general sense of what's right and wrong. Most people do "the right thing." (Whatever that happens to be at that period of time.) We make laws to provide a justification for punishing those who do not. My evidence is the simple fact that we live in groups. We couldn't live in groups if we were each acting as the last man on earth. I use the term "last man on earth" because the only time that morals/ethics of any kind have any meaning whatsoever is in the context of living with at least one other person. 
> -I forgot to address where our "moral sense" comes from. -As (somewhat) of a counter to dhw; children do seem to have an innate sense for "justice," though justice as interpreted by a small child is always "what is important to it. In this dhw and I fully agree. I do not believe there is a true "moral sense" as in an instinct; I think the society we have won today was a slow evolution from the raw ancient lust to tyranny, to one where the individual is respected above all. An irony here that makes me wish we had a full-Christian on the forum: "How can a God that demands submission to it be compatible with a society that focuses on the betterment of the individual?"-But it is this childish sense of fairness, that starts with the self, coupled with the slowly growing circle of that justice beyond the spirit of "me" that has evolved our political, ethical, and moral systems to the point they have reached today. -Or, put another way, as I have slowly learned what is fair for me and through empathy, extended that knowledge beyond myself to other people I have thus improved the landscape for other people around myself. We can call it the golden mean instead of the "Golden Rule." -Speaking as an only child, the only reason I'm not blindly the slave to my own selfish whims is because in 7th grade, my best friend flat-out told me I was being a mooch. My desire for friendship superseded my desire to have everything for myself and I have thus been extremely cautious ever since. -The "moral" () of the story is that our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines what is "right" or "wrong," even though no objective "right" or "wrong" exists.-If my writing style seems suddenly different, it's because I've been reading Nietzsche again... and I tend to ape his style because I love it so--

Post reply

4581 views

MATT: As (somewhat) of a counter to dhw; children do seem to have an innate sense for "justice," though justice as interpreted by a small child is always what is important to it. In this dhw and I fully agree. -Yes, I think we start off selfish, and gradually learn to consider others.-MATT: I do not believe there is a true "moral sense" as in an instinct; I think the society we have won today was a slow evolution from the raw ancient lust to tyranny, to one where the individual is respected above all. 
-I agree with you about the lack of moral instinct initially, but I'm not convinced about the "raw ancient lust to tyranny" phase of evolution. We can learn a lot about the early stages of human culture from what used to be called "primitive" cultures and even from the behaviour of social animals. We'd need the input of anthropologists and zoologists to guide us through these fields, but from my own dabbling I would be very reluctant to paint early societies in such negative terms. Even on a theoretical level, no society can exist without codes of restraint, and these always involve subordinating the desires of the individual to the needs of the group. Although this can be exploited politically, it's also the basis of what we call morality ... considering the needs of others. "Tyranny" sounds very much in the style of Nietzsche, but what makes you think that all earlier cultures were ruled by tyrants? -MATT: An irony here that makes me wish we had a full-Christian on the forum: "How can a God that demands submission to it be compatible with a society that focuses on the betterment of the individual?"-I think a Christian would probably say it's God's will that all individuals should better themselves, and part of self-betterment is helping one's fellow creatures. Submission to God would merely mean doing good in his name instead of in the name of humanity.-MATT: The "moral" () of the story is that our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines what is "right" or "wrong," even though no objective "right" or "wrong" exists.-Precisely.-MATT: If my writing style seems suddenly different, it's because I've been reading Nietzsche again... and I tend to ape his style because I love it soâ-Mein lieber Freund, wenn Sie meinen Stil nachahmen wollen, dann mÃ¼ssen Sie auf Deutsch schreiben! 
Mit herzlichen GrÃ¼ssen von Ihrem 
Freddy

Post reply

4695 views


> Mein lieber Freund, wenn Sie meinen Stil nachahmen wollen, dann mÃ¼ssen Sie auf Deutsch schreiben! 
> Mit herzlichen GrÃ¼ssen von Ihrem 
> Freddy-Du bist ein Teufel!

Post reply

4701 views


> > Mein lieber Freund, wenn Sie meinen Stil nachahmen wollen, dann mÃ¼ssen Sie auf Deutsch schreiben! 
> > Mit herzlichen GrÃ¼ssen von Ihrem 
> > Freddy
> 
> Du bist ein Teufel!-lol!!!

Post reply

4620 views

dhw,
> 
> I agree with you about the lack of moral instinct initially, but I'm not convinced about the "raw ancient lust to tyranny" phase of evolution. We can learn a lot about the early stages of human culture from what used to be called "primitive" cultures and even from the behaviour of social animals. We'd need the input of anthropologists and zoologists to guide us through these fields, but from my own dabbling I would be very reluctant to paint early societies in such negative terms. Even on a theoretical level, no society can exist without codes of restraint, and these always involve subordinating the desires of the individual to the needs of the group. Although this can be exploited politically, it's also the basis of what we call morality ... considering the needs of others. "Tyranny" sounds very much in the style of Nietzsche, but what makes you think that all earlier cultures were ruled by tyrants? 
> -Tyrant in the ancient sense means those who came to power by their own will; not by hereditary means. So any instance where one group of humans successfully dominated another by force is what I'm looking at. If we look at the world of the ancient Greeks and their city-states; we see an instance of a world where each city-state was in a constant state of survival from the others. This was the birth of our democratic world, for it wasn't until peace had been won (ruthlessly, I might add) that the basic idea of a republic could even exist. I don't know much about earlier societies, but it is clear that ours had a violent and tenuous beginning. If you compare the ancient societies of Athens, Sparta, and eventually Rome; we have a clear example of very violent societies that indeed thrived off of the Art of War. Socrates himself had served Athens as a Phalanx warrior. -Tyrants don't always have to be bad. Julius & Augustus Caesar, to name but two.-If you watch this progression from then to our modern democracies of now, you watch exactly the kind of cultural growth that tracks along with how a small child slowly learns empathy for others. -I can paint a similar picture for ancient China; the kingdom of Qin was noted for being very willing to usurp and shed blood, but its dynasty began a course of greatness that culminated in one of the oldest and longest lasting empires.-So my assertion of a progression from Tyranny to now is less a study of Nietzsche and more an observation of how Western Civilization grew.

Post reply

4650 views

I questioned Matt's view of moral evolution from "the raw ancient lust to tyranny, to one where the individual is respected above all", as I think this misrepresents early, so-called "primitive" cultures. I also took "tyranny" to mean the abuse of power by a cruel and unjust ruler.-MATT: Tyrant in the ancient sense means those that came to power by their own will; not by hereditary means. [...] Tyrants don't always have to be bad.-Ugh, ugh, how is your worldwide fan club supposed to know that you picked on the most recondite meaning of the word? But I'm not so sure that the ancient meaning tells us any more about the evolution of morality than the modern meaning. Perhaps, though, "raw ancient lust" is a better marker for the point I was trying to make. I doubt very much whether even cavemen were allowed to bonk any woman on the head and carry her off to have their wicked way with her, and in the west there is still a lingering prejudice about so-called "primitive" societies ... especially African and South American ... which in fact had very sophisticated social structures and their own strict moral codes. However, I'm only trying to set the record straight. Our discussion concerns the origin and nature of morality, and we both agree that there is no such thing as objective right /wrong, morality has always varied from culture to culture, and is still determined by each society.

Post reply

4649 views

dhw
> 
> Mein lieber Freund, wenn Sie meinen Stil nachahmen wollen, dann mÃ¼ssen Sie auf Deutsch schreiben! 
> Mit herzlichen GrÃ¼ssen von Ihrem 
> Freddy-I remember him making that quote but can't place it. But it is a true statement; I will never know his style truly without knowing German. -But for now I'll stick with my Kaufman's translation(s)... they're as accurate as one can get, and he always seems to offer alternate renderings when needed.

Post reply

4590 views

dhw, 
> 
> MATT: An irony here that makes me wish we had a full-Christian on the forum: "How can a God that demands submission to it be compatible with a society that focuses on the betterment of the individual?"
> 
> I think a Christian would probably say it's God's will that all individuals should better themselves, and part of self-betterment is helping one's fellow creatures. Submission to God would merely mean doing good in his name instead of in the name of humanity.
> -Yes... I do read and reread these responses, especially when the questions are so fruitful. -
I know you're not a Christian... but a deep question I've had for some years is...-Why is man himself--not enough?-Doing good for God's sake? To me this has always seemed the actions of a bad actor. -The self must be in any action. I've never understood why doing good and then attributing that clearly human act to God is something that should even be allowable...-Removing the self from the cause of actions seems to me another cop-out to responsibility. Neither does a man wish to take credit for his bad actions, but now not the good too? -"Never has a man flown so high, yet missed the mark entirely!"--Nietzsche, when critiquing Moses.-But back to my original question, "How can submission to God exist at the same in a society of self-improvement?"-Do you see the same problem with this as I do? The spirit of submission is exactly opposite of that from the spirit of self-improvement. One is "humble." One takes no credit for anything. Takes no risks; at one time one would have said that it "takes the man out of the man." The other is hard, gives criticism as easily as takes it. Is focused on making his spirit submit to his own will. To me I see no way for both of these attitudes to exist within the same body...

Post reply

4663 views

Matt asks the darnedest questions, and as a non-believer (but not an unbeliever) I'm not the man to answer them. We need a conventional theist like Mark, with whom I had long discussions on morality a year or more ago. Nevertheless, I will foolishly have a go.
 
MATT: Why is man himself--not enough?-Fear of death, fear that evil can triumph, hope that there may be compensation for suffering, the need to depend on a higher authority and the need to believe that the higher authority will be good and kind and loving? All of this could be linked to wish fulfilment, but you never know. There are less dreamy reasons available: man has no answers to any of the fundamental questions concerning our existence, and we hate unsolved mysteries. Our intelligence can't explain our intelligence, so...David will tell you the rest.
 
MATT: I've never understood why doing good and then attributing that clearly human act to God is something that should even be allowable...-I don't think it's attributed to God. I think the basic idea is that the believer wants God to be pleased with him. Most believers think they have free will, and God will judge them according to how they use it. However, it's difficult to imagine someone doing good even though he hates other people. Many religious folk I know really do love their fellow creatures but give thanks to God for everything they have and are able to do.
 
MATT: But back to my original question, "How can submission to God exist at the same [time] in a society of self-improvement?" [...] One is "humble." One takes no credit for anything. Takes no risks; at one time one would have said that it "takes the man out of the man." The other is hard, gives criticism as easily as takes it. Is focused on making his spirit submit to his own will... -The Calvinists were probably the best example of how to solve that problem. They thought God had already decided, and although they had to submit to his will, they looked for signs that they were among the chosen ... which involved material success here on Earth. So they went for it. But I guess we have to define what is meant by "self-improvement". I'd view it on different levels, and will take the easiest example, which is little ole me. With my humanist views, I don't actually see any difference between myself and my religious friends, barring the theology (but I don't know any Muslim fundamentalists). Materially, I've been able to raise a family, enjoy a successful career, and now live very comfortably; intellectually, I remain horribly devoid of knowledge on most subjects but have made some progress down through the years; as a human being ... to me the most important aspect of self-improvement ... I'm at ease with myself, and feel that my relations with others are generally very good: I do my best to be kind and helpful, and live cleanly, and I've led a very happy life so far. I also know how small I am in the great scheme of things, so I hope I'm reasonably "humble". A theist might say all these things about himself, but he'll also thank God for being nice to him, and if in trouble he'll pray. In short, I suspect that "submitting" to God, at least in our western society, in some cases brings comfort, confidence, hope, in other cases fear and moral conflict, but generally does not affect the drive towards self-improvement on any level. Of course, though, submission to God entails interpreting what God wants, and that's a pretty flexible arrangement.

Post reply

4766 views

TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.-I'm surprised that you dismiss this argument as "utter rubbish". Do you believe a baby is born with an innate sense of right and wrong? In order to survive, it has to be completely selfish from the moment of its birth. It makes no concessions to anyone. Concessions in the form of consideration for the feelings of others have to be taught, and I would suggest that such concessions are the basis of our morality. What is taught will depend on the environment into which we were born. This need not have anything to do with what is legal or illegal. To take two common examples, adultery is not illegal in my country, whereas it is in Iran. I personally would regard it as wrong, however, because I would be hurting my wife and probably others as well. However, if I had been born an Eskimo before Christian missionaries came along, there would have been circumstances in which adultery was the accepted thing, and it would have been "wrong" to refuse. Similarly, the idea of having sex with a child is repugnant in our society ... morally and legally wrong. But there are many cultures where child brides are still subjected to sex at the onset of puberty or even before. According to some sources, Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old. Do you suppose Mohammed felt guilty? Concepts of morality are inextricably tied to times and to societies. -However, individuals will also have their own personal codes. I doubt if every murderer, rapist, child molester, thief, selfish bastard in Britain or the States has the same concepts of right and wrong 'in his heart' as you or I do. To that degree one could argue that since there is no objective universal criterion, societal consensus can't make a definitive decision morally ... only legally. I would argue, though, that it's a "good" thing we in Britain have a societal consensus which morally and also legally condemns murder, rape, child abuse etc.

Post reply

4581 views

TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.
> 
> DHW:I'm surprised that you dismiss this argument as "utter rubbish". Do you believe a baby is born with an innate sense of right and wrong? -
Ironically, the average(non-insane) person knows innately that murder, rape, etc is wrong. To me, those do not fall under the heading of right/wrong by social consensus. To illustrate that, consider a normal, mentally healthy child that kills his/her first animal. Society makes these particular 'wrongs' illegal, which is, as you pointed out, not the same at all as right or wrong.-For a better illustration of societal right and wrong, consider instead the various taboos on sex, or the prohibitions/sanctions against drugs and alcohol, or our attitude toward warfare. I like these three examples because they do a good job illustrating the shades of grey that humanity normally manages to goon up as well as being things that are not implicitly good or bad, right or wrong. -Warfare, though I do not agree with it in the form it takes in our society(i.e. fighting over economic/political power) can be a force for good when suppressing the actions of a hostile aggressor that is trying to destroy your society. Yet, if you absolutely have no other choice than to go to war, you go with all of your strength and determination and leave no enemy to threaten your society again, while doing your best to spare the innocents should there be any. -You mentioned about women being engaged in sexual relationships as soon as they finished puberty as an example. I do not personally see anything wrong with it, PROVIDED that the young woman has had the proper upbringing and knows full well what she is getting into. My great grandmother married at 13 and was married to her husband until he died some 50+ years later. In our current society, I do not think children are raise with the same sense of responsibility and hard work ethic that she was, so at the moment, I do not think that it would be healthy for a modern american girl to be engaging in sexual relations at that young age. However I think it is something that is more to the individual than society.

Post reply

4586 views

Balance,
> You mentioned about women being engaged in sexual relationships as soon as they finished puberty as an example. I do not personally see anything wrong with it, PROVIDED that the young woman has had the proper upbringing and knows full well what she is getting into. My great grandmother married at 13 and was married to her husband until he died some 50+ years later. In our current society, I do not think children are raise with the same sense of responsibility and hard work ethic that she was, so at the moment, I do not think that it would be healthy for a modern american girl to be engaging in sexual relations at that young age. However I think it is something that is more to the individual than society.-The entire modern notion of "childhood" is barely 100 years old.

Post reply

4612 views

TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.-I have had difficulty with this, and Matt has provided an excellent summary of his view and mine: -"[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines what is 'right' or 'wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists.-In your last post, Tony, you have given us several examples relating to sex, drugs, war etc., all of which seem to me to confirm Matt's view and mine. Concepts of right and wrong change according to different circumstances, different times, and different societies/cultures. Right and wrong, moral/immoral, legal/illegal may not always be the same, but they do often coincide ... in our own society, for example, murder, rape, child abuse, theft would fit into all three categories. You say you like the categories of sex, drugs and war because they illustrate shades of grey "that humanity normally manages to goon up as well as being things that are not implicitly good or bad, right or wrong." You could hardly state the case more clearly that there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. "Humanity" in the form of our culture or society makes the evaluation. And unless that society is governed by one of Matt's famous tyrants (I would include despotic religious leaders under that banner), the decision will be by consensus (with the possible exception of war, which depends on a much wider variety of circumstances).-To say that right/wrong does exist and it lies in someone's "heart" sounds to me like a recipe for moral chaos, unless there are enough hearts beating in synch to form a consensus. However, the whole of your last post gives me an uncomfortable feeling that somewhere along the line I have either misinterpreted your statements, or in the original statement quoted above you have not said what you mean. Perhaps you could make it clearer by telling us what you disagree with in Matt's summary, and why.

Post reply

4646 views

TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.-Atheist Sam Harris says we do not need religion for morality:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827822.100-morality-we-can-send-religion-to-the-scrap-heap.html

Post reply

4695 views

As you might expect I largely go along with Sam Harris on the question of whether ethics is open to a scientific approach. -In my previous post I cited A.J.Ayer that "good" cannot have an objective meaning. I meant this in an "absolute" sense. It can become objective if you accept that the purpose of ethics is the flourishment of conscious life in the widest possible way. -Far too much relativism has now come into the discussion. There is no way that the culture of Sparta, or that depicted in Deuteronomy, or the Third Reich, can be called "good" examples of the way to organise society. -Our own societies, in the UK and America, are of course far from perfect, and there is much scope for debate about the best way forward, simply because of our lack of the appropriate scientific knowledge. But as we develop the Science of Ethics progress can surely be made in an objective manner.-I would also question B-M's apparent idea that an Individual can have any meaningful life other than as part of a Society.

--
GPJ

Post reply

4640 views

George, this is not actually a response to your last post, but a request for information. On 18 October at 04.19, Matt complained about humanism's "essential assertion of pacifism". Historically, I know that many humanists have indeed been pacifists, and probably still are, but I was not aware that this was integral to the modern form of humanism. Obviously wars of aggression would be out, but I'm not aware of humanist opposition to wars of self-defence. Since you are much more au fait with these matters than I am, I'd be grateful if you would enlighten us.

Post reply

4716 views

A good discussion of the use of brain scans in criminal cases:-If the site will not let you in without registering, register. It is safe:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827822.400-morality-my-brain-made-me-do-it.html

Post reply

4718 views

A good discussion of the use of brain scans in criminal cases:
> 
> If the site will not let you in without registering, register. It is safe:
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827822.400-morality-my-brain-made-me-do-it.html... those who did not subscribe, the gist of the article is a concern that if brain scans are used in court to explain behaviour, it might not lead to the same results as if the background sociology and history of the defendant were not fully detailed. Bothare needed.

Post reply

4678 views

TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.-
'Society' is an abstract idea, in the purest form, meaning merely a collection of individual relationships. However, in allowing this abstract creation to govern the will of the individual, we make the morality of the individual subservient to the will of the society. Once a society extends beyond a very very few people, it is no longer acting as a moral compass taking its direction from its constituents, but as a legal entity fully equipped with the whipping stick and the ability to wield it. The 'Society', as an entity, is not compelled by morality, right/wrong, good or bad, but by its own survival and power and in this regard it is no different than the entity known as 'religion'. Societal consensus can only define something as right/wrong as applied to its own survival, which supersedes all of an individuals personal freedom. The unfortunate side affect of this is that it allows groups of people to enforce their will on other groups of people within the society, as the society must placate as many as possible in order to ensure its survival as an entity. So I am not in disagreement with your statement that society tries to deem what is moral, only that they fail miserably at it because they put freedom as secondary to survival of an abstract institution by allowing one persons aversion to something to control the actions of another. Individuals in general will do what is right for them. It is not the responsibility of others to condemn, control, or clean up the mess made from those choices. The only role I advocate for society is for protecting its members from force, whether internal or external. I prize my life, and the liberty to live that life as I see fit, and the liberty of others to do the same, above all things. -All of that being said, I understand the need for societal governance, but it is still the bitter pill we all have to swallow to some extent or another. And, in my opinion, is just as harmful as it is helpful.

Post reply

4587 views

TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.
> 
> 
> 'Society' is an abstract idea, in the purest form, meaning merely a collection of individual relationships. However, in allowing this abstract creation to govern the will of the individual, we make the morality of the individual subservient to the will of the society. Once a society extends beyond a very very few people, it is no longer acting as a moral compass taking its direction from its constituents, but as a legal entity fully equipped with the whipping stick and the ability to wield it. The 'Society', as an entity, is not compelled by morality, right/wrong, good or bad, but by its own survival and power and in this regard it is no different than the entity known as 'religion'. Societal consensus can only define something as right/wrong as applied to its own survival, which supersedes all of an individuals personal freedom. The unfortunate side affect of this is that it allows groups of people to enforce their will on other groups of people within the society, as the society must placate as many as possible in order to ensure its survival as an entity. So I am not in disagreement with your statement that society tries to deem what is moral, only that they fail miserably at it because they put freedom as secondary to survival of an abstract institution by allowing one persons aversion to something to control the actions of another. Individuals in general will do what is right for them. It is not the responsibility of others to condemn, control, or clean up the mess made from those choices. The only role I advocate for society is for protecting its members from force, whether internal or external. I prize my life, and the liberty to live that life as I see fit, and the liberty of others to do the same, above all things. 
> 
Good writing. -However--though we'd like to separate our will from that of the social organism, you still haven't answered the critical question; that which we call 'moral sense,' be it a 'feeling' or derived by logic: How is it that we can derive its reality beyond that which the society makes real? -I still hold (and dhw to some degree) maintain that morals are a function of society. You have actually countered yourself already when you defended laws of Deuteronomy in one of our previous discussions, as having a basis in another purely moral concept called "health." In that post you defended anti-adulterousness, the position of being anti-sodom, (in regards to sexual preferences--both hetero and otherwise), and against the virtue of promiscuity. Your position in that thread was that of the "personal welfare," though your real target was the "common good." (Though to paraphrase Nietzsche, "common" and "good" are oxymorons.) -My point is that you appear to adhere to a rather conventional morality yourself, and the challenge of dhw and myself is such that conventional morality is exactly that which is and was delivered to you by the world in which you were raised. You praise the ancients, but also forget that the morals of ancient Greece included male rape as a consequence of war. The story of Spartan boys in the agoge as being male sexual pairs to older Citizens is partly true. The only philosophy allowed in Sparta was that of phobos. (The study of fear.)Some of the boys were subjected to the same treatment that would be expected if they were defeated in the field. -I might agree that each of us as individuals wishes to
1) Not be raped
2) Not have our wives stolen from us
3) Have liberty persist-But the fact of the matter is that without at least one other human being (or the capability to dominate many others) these 3 will be violated as a law of nature.-Morals can only exist in a society, can only persist in the same, and can only be altered by changing the society. -My open challenge to you (and anyone else) is to try and forge a strong challenge to what I just outlined above. I don't see a way or path that moral contextualism is false.

Post reply

4628 views


> Good writing. 
> -Thank you :)-> However--though we'd like to separate our will from that of the social organism, you still haven't answered the critical question; that which we call 'moral sense,' be it a 'feeling' or derived by logic: How is it that we can derive its reality beyond that which the society makes real? 
> -In short, you can't. Morality only exist in context of the interaction of living beings. As an attempt, you could say that it would be morally wrong to slaughter buffalo to extinction even if you were the only human being alive. But that does not mean that societies morality is right or wrong.-> I still hold (and dhw to some degree) maintain that morals are a function of society. You have actually countered yourself already when you defended laws of Deuteronomy in one of our previous discussions, as having a basis in another purely moral concept called "health." In that post you defended anti-adulterousness, the position of being anti-sodom, (in regards to sexual preferences--both hetero and otherwise), and against the virtue of promiscuity. Your position in that thread was that of the "personal welfare," though your real target was the "common good." (Though to paraphrase Nietzsche, "common" and "good" are oxymorons.) 
> -Health is not a moral concept, it is a physical reality. The rest were social standards.-> My point is that you appear to adhere to a rather conventional morality yourself, and the challenge of dhw and myself is such that conventional morality is exactly that which is and was delivered to you by the world in which you were raised. You praise the ancients, but also forget that the morals of ancient Greece included male rape as a consequence of war. The story of Spartan boys in the agoge as being male sexual pairs to older Citizens is partly true. The only philosophy allowed in Sparta was that of phobos. (The study of fear.)Some of the boys were subjected to the same treatment that would be expected if they were defeated in the field. 
> -Is there such a thing as conventional morality? Also, while I will defend the writings of the bible, that does not mean that its morals are my own. It simply means that I can see the logic and rationale behind them. As for the ancients, I praise their wisdom and intellect, not their morality.

Post reply

4640 views

Balance,
> 
> > However--though we'd like to separate our will from that of the social organism, you still haven't answered the critical question; that which we call 'moral sense,' be it a 'feeling' or derived by logic: How is it that we can derive its reality beyond that which the society makes real? 
> > 
> 
> In short, you can't. Morality only exist in context of the interaction of living beings. As an attempt, you could say that it would be morally wrong to slaughter buffalo to extinction even if you were the only human being alive. But that does not mean that societies morality is right or wrong.
> -I will quote you directly:-"TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person."-The "capacity to know the difference between right and wrong" implies that there is an objective morality to begin with. More damningly: "There does exist a 'right/wrong'" implies more directly the claim "There is an objective morality." You march yourself right to the precipice, yet apparently won't commit to the claim? Which is it? The paragraph I reply to and this one are diametrically opposed. I think in the original--the one I quote, you were speaking more the truth as you know it, but amending it later to dhw and I when caught in the logical territory...-
Also "...but not the capacity to do the right thing." implies that man is not capable of free will. Free will is the capacity to do anything at all. I charge that man has the freedom to act as he wills--as long as he is willing to cross the social organism to do. -
> Health is not a moral concept, it is a physical reality. The rest were social standards.
> 
> > My point is that you appear to adhere to a rather conventional morality yourself, and the challenge of dhw and myself is such that conventional morality is exactly that which is and was delivered to you by the world in which you were raised. You praise the ancients, but also forget that the morals of ancient Greece included male rape as a consequence of war. The story of Spartan boys in the agoge as being male sexual pairs to older Citizens is partly true. The only philosophy allowed in Sparta was that of phobos. (The study of fear.)Some of the boys were subjected to the same treatment that would be expected if they were defeated in the field. 
> > 
> 
> Is there such a thing as conventional morality? Also, while I will defend the writings of the bible, that does not mean that its morals are my own. It simply means that I can see the logic and rationale behind them. As for the ancients, I praise their wisdom and intellect, not their morality.-I would say that "conventional" would be "morality of the day." Though I recant the suggestion that you adhere to this. We should sit down and chat more about "health" as a moral concept; rock climbing has health risks all its own for example, yet we don't hear discussions about why someone shouldn't do it. Same-sex intercourse however---As for the ancients and their intellect, good luck separating it from their morality; morality shapes decisions--decisions shape final outcomes. Caesar would have never crossed the Rubicon if he didn't hold his own good higher than that of the Republic. Leonidas would never have been able to lead three hundred Spartans and 1500 Thespians against 200,000 Persians if he wasn't steeled in the arts of phobos, forged by many years of suppressing helots. I praise the morality just as highly as the intellects, because it was the morality that shaped our history. Morals fall in and out of favor, and I fully admit that to my mind, the life of Spartans was not one I would want to endure. But infanticide and suppression of the lower class is precisely what made Spartans who and what they were when Xerxes began his march in 580BCE. How could the intellect and the morals not have coincided?

Post reply

4681 views

Tony has defined society as "merely a collection of individual relationships", and complains that "we make the morality of the individual subservient to the will of the society."-Matt has set you a few problems, but I'd like to approach your post from a slightly different angle. You have, in my view, neatly summed up the basis of morality yourself: "I prize my life, and the liberty to live that life as I see fit, and the liberty of others to do the same, above all things." Morality only comes into play when your liberty to live life as you see fit impinges upon other people's liberty to do the same. Every time you break the moral code prevalent in your society and mine, you violate someone else's right to their own form of happiness: if you murder me, steal from me, rape my wife, abuse my children, cheat me, slander me, cuckold me, break your promise to me, you are removing my liberty to live life as I see fit. I shall never forgive that nasty Fred Nosher for eating those two pieces of chocolate fudge cake, when he knew one of them was supposed to be for me. The fact that he is only two and a half years old may be regarded as a mitigating circumstance, but I rely upon Mr and Mrs N. to deliver a stern lecture informing him that in our society at least, we must consider other people's taste buds. That, in my view, is how we learn morality.-You have made statements suggesting that society has a selfish agenda of its own: it "is not compelled by morality, right/wrong, good or bad, but by its own survival and power'; "it allows groups of people to enforce their will on other groups"; it allows "one person's aversion to something to control the actions of another." This is not an attack on society's role in creating morality, but on what you call "societal governance" and the whole system that puts the many under the authority of the few. Of course that is subject to abuse, and a regime like Hitler's may well pervert what you and I consider to be morally good and right. However, virtually every moral example I've listed above (some of them not illegal but only personal) has evolved over long periods of time as part of a code that strikes a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of everybody else. That is the essence of morality, and ... to link up with the starting point of this thread ... it does not require the subjective interpretation of ancient religious texts, but it does require a consensus among the collection of individuals that constitute a society.

Post reply

4650 views

But society's moral compunction rarely, if ever, stops at the point where my liberty affects yours.

Post reply

4574 views

Tony wrote: "I prize my life, and the liberty to live that life as I see fit, and the liberty of others to do the same, above all things." I too see this as the basis of morality, which comes into play when one person's liberty impinges on that of others. -TONY: But society's moral compunction rarely, if ever, stops at the point where my liberty affects yours.-My apologies, but I don't understand what you mean, unless you're referring to authority's abuse of power ... which is a problem inherent in our social structure, but not in the evolution of the moral codes I referred to in my last post. In particular, I don't understand how this relates to the main point of our discussion: you dismissed the argument that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' as "total rubbish". Your counter to that is that "there does exist a 'right/wrong'", and it lies "in a person's heart". You have now stated categorically: 1) that morality can only exist "in context of the interaction of living beings", and 2) "that does not mean that societies morality is right or wrong."-Matt and I have repeatedly pointed out that there is no such thing as objective right or wrong, and all we have is a societal consensus. Unless you believe that what is in a person's heart is OBJECTIVE (which is a contradiction in terms), you would therefore seem to be in agreement with us. In my post to you on 20 October at 16.42 I wondered if I had misunderstood your original statements, or you had not said quite what you meant. I asked you to tell us whether or not you agreed with Matt's summary, and if not, why not. He wrote: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right' or 'wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." -Let me repeat the request. It may well be that a direct response will wrap this whole discussion up.

Post reply

4709 views

Sorry for the delayed response, but it has been a busy week. -
Let me start by saying that my view on the subject is based on my personal belief that there is a UI of some form. In this context, there is an objective right and wrong from it's perspective, if not from our own. This form of right and wrong is not a moral imperative, it, like the UI itself, simply IS. I think of it it as immutable truth, unchanging, unalterable, untainted by the human influences of short lifespans, finite resources, social stability, or any other concept that we use to moderate our own morality.-This is the version of right and wrong that I think humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older and begin to make exceptions for other people, other circumstances, and our own wants and desires. Again, this is not morality, it is right and wrong. -Morality, as you and David pointed out can only exist where ones persons actions affect someone else. Therefor, the idea that society can determine what is 'right and wrong', to me, is utter rubbish. It can only dictate a form of morality that is conducive to its own existence, but this will always be inherently flawed in many different respects as I pointed out in a previous post. We, as individuals, always will feel where the 'societal morality' fails keenly as a form of injustice, seeing particular taboos as silly, ridiculous, or as a violation of our own ability to choose the way of life which is best for us. This is not referring to 'abuse of power'. While that most certainly plays a factor at the higher levels of social morality, as in the case of laws, here I am referring to even the local non-legal interference that can come in the form of social ostracism or aggression on the basis of your opinion differing from that of the main social animal.

Post reply

4731 views

Tony believes in a UI, from whose perspective there is an objective form of right and wrong which Tony thinks of as an immutable truth, though it's not a moral imperative. "This is the version of right and wrong that I think humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older and begin to make exceptions for other people, other circumstances, and our own wants and desires. Again, this is not morality, it is right and wrong." -First of all, thank you for responding. I'd been a little concerned that our prolonged disagreement might have put you off, but the discussion is interesting and this post raises some complex questions. Firstly, two points I'd like to make in response to the above :-( i) I don't understand why in your last sentence you have distinguished between morality and 'right and wrong'. In my view, and according to every dictionary definition I have seen, the two concepts are inseparable. Nor do I understand what you mean by "not a moral imperative". If the UI's form of right and wrong is not a code relating to our behaviour towards one another, what is its relevance to morality?-(ii) I thought we had agreed that there is no objective right or wrong, but of course if there is a God/UI who sets the standards (see above), he/she/it will have the final word. However, since no-one knows what those objective standards are, they're not much use to us (unless a person is convinced that he has the "right" interpretation). This leads, though, to more questions:-Firstly, you agree that "morality can only exist where one person's actions affect someone else". If the UI's objective form of right and wrong is something "humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older", do you believe that all babies begin by unconsciously knowing how to behave considerately, and then gradually become more selfish as they grow older? If not, when and how do they acquire their understanding?-Secondly, you go on to say: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish." I can't see any logical link here. Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, slander, cheating are all instances of one person's actions adversely affecting someone else, and our society has determined that all of these are wrong, immoral (and in most cases also illegal). Why is this rubbish?-You complain ... in my view quite rightly ... about what we as individuals may see as inherent flaws: societal injustice, silly taboos, ostracism, aggression against people who disagree with prevailing norms. No-one is saying that society's determination of what is 'right' and 'wrong' makes its decisions objective or universally acceptable. There will always be conflicts. But you're passing judgement on values, whereas I'm merely stating where values come from. Hence my asking you why you won't accept Matt's summary: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right or wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." It may be that you intended your reference to a UI to be your response, but then I would have to go back to the question whether you believe all babies are born with innate knowledge of the UI and its objective form of right and wrong, and the all-important question that follows it.

Post reply

4670 views

Not at all. I have just been unbelievably busy this past two weeks. Four birthdays, two out of town trips, and 9 people staying in a two bedroom apt for five days, and an upcoming anniversary. I just haven't had much time to get to my computer.-> (i) I don't understand why in your last sentence you have distinguished between morality and 'right and wrong'. In my view, and according to every dictionary definition I have seen, the two concepts are inseparable. Nor do I understand what you mean by "not a moral imperative". If the UI's form of right and wrong is not a code relating to our behaviour towards one another, what is its relevance to morality?
> -I distinguish between the two because I view right and wrong as an absolute, regardless of whether there is one person or a billion, whereas, as we have repeatedly stated, morality can only exist when there is interaction between two or more conscious beings. So while a society might be able to decide what their 'moral' standard is, that is only governing the social interaction between constituents, not defining an objective right and wrong. Hence the statement: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish."-
> Firstly, you agree that "morality can only exist where one person's actions affect someone else". If the UI's objective form of right and wrong is something "humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older", do you believe that all babies begin by unconsciously knowing how to behave considerately, and then gradually become more selfish as they grow older? If not, when and how do they acquire their understanding?
> -Again there is the distinction in my statement between 'morality' and 'right/wrong'. Considerate behavior is a moral imperative designated by society and not necessarily 'right/wrong'. For example, in the state, we would consider it monstrous to slice someones stomach repeatedly in order to produce a pattern of scarring while in Africa it is a right of passage to some tribes. Is cutting someone else right or wrong? If it is right does that mean anyone who assaults someone with a knife is right? If it is wrong does that mean that surgeons and the Africans should be imprisoned? I do believe that children possess a certain innate understanding of right and wrong, though they do not possess an innate morality as differentiated above. How they acquire it, I don't know. Genetic memory perhaps.-> Secondly, you go on to say: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish." I can't see any logical link here. Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, slander, cheating are all instances of one person's actions adversely affecting someone else, and our society has determined that all of these are wrong, immoral (and in most cases also illegal). Why is this rubbish?
> -As a soldier in Iraq, if I would have drawn my weapon and taken another human life, that would have been murder. Would it have been right or wrong, moral or immoral? Is there justification for murder? Is feeding your children food that is bad for their bodies less abusive than beating them? Or to phrase it differently, is there a moral differentiation between poisoning and beating? Is it abuse to subject a child to movies, games, or lyrics that contain sexual, violent, or drug related themes? Is a reputation a physical thing that can be damaged by falsely spoken words? Is an attack on an abstract, intangible idea something that can be considered wrong? Is cheating in a rigged game really cheating? I am not saying that I disagree with any of these being immoral or illegal but that defining an objective case would be exceedingly difficult in most cases.-> You complain ... in my view quite rightly ... about what we as individuals may see as inherent flaws: societal injustice, silly taboos, ostracism, aggression against people who disagree with prevailing norms. No-one is saying that society's determination of what is 'right' and 'wrong' makes its decisions objective or universally acceptable. There will always be conflicts. But you're passing judgement on values, whereas I'm merely stating where values come from. Hence my asking you why you won't accept Matt's summary: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right or wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." It may be that you intended your reference to a UI to be your response, but then I would have to go back to the question whether you believe all babies are born with innate knowledge of the UI and its objective form of right and wrong, and the all-important question that follows it.-I have agreed with Matt's statement to an extent, only disagreeing with the statement that defining morality also defines right and wrong. Society can only define a moral standpoint, which is as fluid and dynamic as water, and changes as often as the weather. So from my point of view society can not define a right and wrong because right and wrong will not change based on culture, race, societal norms, or any other variable.

Post reply

4625 views

TONY: I have just been unbelievably busy this past two weeks. Four birthdays, two out of town trips, and 9 people staying in a two bedroom apt for five days, and an upcoming anniversary.-I must say I find your autobiography rather more exciting than your views on morality! With that sort of lifestyle, maintaining balance must be a really tricky operation!-Your post at last makes it perfectly clear where all the misunderstandings have arisen. We needn't discuss the various examples (though thank you for taking the trouble to list them), because it all boils down to one simple blind spot ... though whether that is yours or mine, I can't say. As far as you're concerned, the UI has an exclusive monopoly on objective right and wrong, and the rest of us mess around with our fluid, suspect concepts of morality. As far as I'm concerned, morality means concepts of right and wrong, and I don't see any necessity for your distinction between right and wrong on the one hand and morality on the other. We agree that human morality is not objective, and is variable from culture to culture, group to group, and situation to situation. Why, then, can't we say that only a UI would be able to come up with an objective right/wrong, whereas human concepts of right and wrong are fluid and suspect? In the words of our famous compare-the-meerkat.com: "Simples!"

Post reply

4703 views

TONY: I have just been unbelievably busy this past two weeks. Four birthdays, two out of town trips, and 9 people staying in a two bedroom apt for five days, and an upcoming anniversary.
> 
> I must say I find your autobiography rather more exciting than your views on morality! With that sort of lifestyle, maintaining balance must be a really tricky operation! -Trying to keep this juggling act of a life of mine in the air is a struggle, but worth it LOL. -> Your post at last makes it perfectly clear where all the misunderstandings have arisen. We needn't discuss the various examples (though thank you for taking the trouble to list them), because it all boils down to one simple blind spot ... though whether that is yours or mine, I can't say. As far as you're concerned, the UI has an exclusive monopoly on objective right and wrong, and the rest of us mess around with our fluid, suspect concepts of morality. As far as I'm concerned, morality means concepts of right and wrong, and I don't see any necessity for your distinction between right and wrong on the one hand and morality on the other. We agree that human morality is not objective, and is variable from culture to culture, group to group, and situation to situation. Why, then, can't we say that only a UI would be able to come up with an objective right/wrong, whereas human concepts of right and wrong are fluid and suspect? In the words of our famous compare-the-meerkat.com: "Simples!"-That works for me. Though, to answer a minor point, the need to seperate right/wrong and morality, for me, comes from the need to have one defined as absolute, and the other as our attempts to live the best we know how.

Post reply

4619 views

Though, to answer a minor point, the need to seperate right/wrong and morality, for me, comes from the need to have one defined as absolute, and the other as our attempts to live the best we know how.-Here is an article on an atheist philosopher, Philippa Foot, who believes in 'natural goodness'. Her point of view seems reasonable to me.-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/death-of-a-grande-dame-can-we-build-morality-on-the-foundation-of-natural-goodness/#more-15475

Post reply

4760 views

Tony and I have finally reached agreement, apart from one tiny caveat, but David has drawn our attention to the views of Philippa Foot concerning 'natural goodness'. Despite being an atheist, she was apparently driven by: "a life-long quest to show that there is such a thing as objective right and wrong. Throughout her academic life, she was passionately opposed to subjectivism in ethics."-It would be unfair to judge her reasoning by the tiny extracts that the article offers, but it tells us that she regarded vice as a "natural defect", which in itself presupposes that virtue is the natural norm. On the assumption that ethics concerns the manner in which we behave towards another, I would suggest that the criterion for ethical behaviour is the degree to which our conduct either helps others (positive) or at least does not impinge on others (negative) in their efforts to achieve happiness. Since individuals and groups have different ideas of how to achieve happiness, how can there possibly be anything but subjectivity in ethics? Tony reserves the claim of objectivity exclusively for a UI, but no-one can know what a UI thinks or wants, so we are stuck with human interpretations, and the very fact that they vary across an enormous range is in itself proof that humans cannot avoid subjectivism in ethics.-I would go one step further. No-one is going to achieve happiness in this life unless they survive, and the survival instinct is not in the first instance based on furthering or protecting the happiness of others. Philippa Foot's examples from Nature completely ignore the fact that survival in many cases has to be at the expense of others. This includes the plants she takes as one of her examples. The strong ones will grab the water, and the weak ones will die. Her owls will survive by eating little Minnie Mouse. Humans have learned to a degree to channel these instincts, so that under normal circumstances we allow for the feelings and needs of our fellow humans (though not necessarily those of our fellow animals). A baby does not make such allowances. It has to be taught. And so this suggests to me that the unselfishness which lies at the root of ethical behaviour is not the natural norm at all, any more than vice is a natural defect. Behaviour will always depend on individual circumstances and individual attributes, whether innate or developed, and judgement will depend on the criteria held by the judge. The most we can hope for is a general social consensus. -Interestingly, the killer punch comes right at the end of the article. The author writes: "I should add that while Foot insisted that some moral norms were grounded in human nature, she also recognized that other norms were culture-relative." Since human nature varies from one subject to another, and culture from one group to another, what chance objectivity?

Post reply

4746 views

dhw,
> Interestingly, the killer punch comes right at the end of the article. The author writes: "I should add that while Foot insisted that some moral norms were grounded in human nature, she also recognized that other norms were culture-relative." Since human nature varies from one subject to another, and culture from one group to another, what chance objectivity?-Nietzsche would call her position as enumerated at the end of her article pale; her position is no different than Kant or other ethicists in the early 1800's. She's afraid that by admitting no objective or universal moralities that we cannot justify them. Foot's view is rooted in irrational fear. -Nietzsche's work for example would have us accept Athenian morals for what they were; their civilization would never have achieved its greatness. Check out the Melian dialog.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue-The morals that drove Athenian supremacy was the kind of morality that would allow this type of event. Nietzsche liked to point out that while European culture loved to ape all the forms of the Greeks, they forgot that the world that allowed the Greeks their greatness was exactly the kind of "Barbarism" that the modern European at the time would abhor. Though, in much irony, the Greeks viewed all others as Barbaroi; the Melian Dialog would have seen the Athenians blameless in Greek Morals of the time.

Post reply

4672 views

Though, to answer a minor point, the need to seperate right/wrong and morality, for me, comes from the need to have one defined as absolute, and the other as our attempts to live the best we know how.
> 
> Here is an article on an atheist philosopher, Philippa Foot, who believes in 'natural goodness'. Her point of view seems reasonable to me.
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/death-of-a-grande-dame-can-we-build-m... misreads Nietzsche completely... Nietzsche was concerned with how morality actually plays "in the real world," and by no means takes a position that the things he ascribes to "Master Morality" are the right things; but that it is the "Master Morality" that discovered the creation of values for moral actions. She apparently decides that Nietzsche values the worth of an action based on the type of the individual; I can't begin to tell you in how many ways this contradicts what Nietzsche was trying to say. -When she talks about his attribution to "the spontaneity, the energy, the passion of the individual agent..." she's referring directly to "A Genealogy of Morals" where his entire POINT of that book is in the title; where do morals come from? -She takes this as to say that "Nietzschean morality" (Which doesn't exist) means that "the ethics of the noble/strong are the good ethics." Nietzsche simply points out that the morals/ethics that predominate only occur when some entity with power enforces them. -"In my book [Natural Goodness] I take Nietzsche on. I say, 'Look, what you're suggesting might be possible for some race of beings, but not for humans. I know you think that if only people will read you and believe you, human beings will become quite different, but I don't believe a word of that. You want to judge actions not by their type, by what is done, but by their relation to the nature of the person who does them. And that is poisonous." When we think of the things that have been done by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, what we have to be horrified at is what was done. We don't need to inquire into the psychology of these people in order to know the moral quality of what they did....It's wrong-headed to leave aside, as he does, the question of what human beings as such need, or what a society needs in the way of justice, fastening instead on the spontaneity, the energy, the passion of the individual agent...'"-I don't agree that we "have" to be horrified. I worked in an ER for 4 years; most things that would "horrify" most people I can shrug off with ease. The psychology of those people is exactly what's at stake; Hiroshima for example. The consequences and psychology of anyone's actions must constitute the analysis of the act. All moral norms are cultural. -I don't think there's any foundation for universal ethics/morality in what Foot discusses here. (Aside from her shallow reading of Nietzsche.)

Post reply

4675 views

Going back to our discussion of Morals and Morality; I still haven't seen a response yet from you about your seemingly mercurial ideas about Morals. -You've claimed before that "Man is capable of knowing what is right, but is incapable of doing it." -What is it that you think is objectively right, that hasn't been thwarted by history?

Post reply

4631 views

Going back to our discussion of Morals and Morality; I still haven't seen a response yet from you about your seemingly mercurial ideas about Morals. 
> 
> You've claimed before that "Man is capable of knowing what is right, but is incapable of doing it." 
> 
> What is it that you think is objectively right, that hasn't been thwarted by history?-Sorry I have not been very active. My family has been having a round robin bout of a particularly nasty stomach bug. -If I had the answer to the objective morality question, I would be much wealthier and more infamous than I am. I am not certain that history has thwarted anything on a strictly moral basis however. Success, riches, power, and popularity do not depend on moral behavior. -I know it is a bit cliche, but I still think that about 99% of morality boils down to the 'do unto others' ideal. The reason we are incapable of fulfilling it is reason itself. We have a tendency to justify via flawed reasoning any and every action based on what someone/thing else has done or might possibly do. -I hope that sufficiently sets up what I mean by 'know what is right' and why we are incapable of 'doing what is right'. I am afraid I do not know how to express the concept in simpler terms.

Post reply

4627 views

At least you're very honest; I only worry (because I don't know you) how much you take that 'golden rule' for granted? It took 2000 years for western civilization to become as "civilized" as it is now. -Not to mention that we were born into that moral... it's not so obvious otherwise!

Post reply

4641 views

A long and well-referenced discussion of Coyne's recent article on natural morality and an answer from a religious point of view:-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-morality-cannot-be-100-natural-a-response-to-professor-coyne/#more-24664-It certainly appears that morality came from the religions first as our various cultures developed. There is an interesting quote from Buddhist India about 250 B.C.

Post reply

4525 views

An atheist psychologist/researcher invents a theory using any empty chair. Clint Eastwood's speech brings out all sorts of things. I don't buy it, fooling kids to make a point:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2012/09/04/imaginary-presidents-and-imaginary-gods-the-real-empty-chair-effect/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_MB_20120905-A conscience is taught to you by parents who understand the cooperation needed to live in society

Post reply

4055 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Atheism and morality (Introduction)