Atheist morality

What's the difference between "honest" and "open" ? I'd say, when I'm honest but not open, I tend to meet the same people as when I'm dishonest and not open.But when I'm honest and open, I tend to get taken advantage of. I was just 'lecturing' about this about 20 minutes ago...I truly believe this is the difference between "explicit" knowledge and "implicit" knowledge. Morality is not a set of rules. Socrates was wrong to judge that those who could not state what morality and judgement is didn't "know" what it is. I agree with you. True morality is not based on rules. It is an implicit system. It is not a belief, but what we do.Ben

The problem is not naivete; it's that, in order to be honest and open, you have to expose things that others can (and do) take advantage of. That happens whether you're naive to what people will do with it or not.The only solution I know of is to be dishonest or to be guarded. I don't know of any way to be open and honest, yet not be taken advantage of. If you do, I'd appreciate to hear about it.

I don't get it. Even if we grant that the golden rule is universal, I don't understand how you got to this point. Why is "universality the basic feature of all moral discourse?"Is the premise that the "Golden Rule" is the basis of all morality in a social system, and for anything else to be called morality, then it must be derived from the Golden Rule? Thus, since the "Golden Rule" is "universal," all morals must be universal?I'd appreciate a bit more explanation on this point. I feel lost.

NOT YET I think I understand. I guess I read into what you said that somehow "cookbook" morals and opinions are somehow lesser than "universal morals." If not, then I don't see why exploring "universal morals" would be important.But I don't get the premise of why "universal morals" are important. In other words, I don't get why you're bringing up this distinction in the first place. Is it just to correct some people who say they have "universal morality," or is it to define a set of principles which are somehow "higher" than others?I think understanding these things helps me understand the big picture. Thanks!

RAZD,Thanks for the links and info in this thread. I've read through a bit, and I'm understanding a bit better... but of course, that means I have many more questions.After reading a bit about Rosseau's "Social Contract", I think it's heavily influencing what you say. Is that right? Also, is this entire line of your thinking dependent on the participants being within a society (and thus governed by Rosseau's "Social Contract") ? Because when alone, there's no need for a "Social Contract", and no need for judgement of good and bad? Can you explain a bit more (like what first principles it's derived from, or a reference to where I can read more about it)? I read just about all of the links you provided, and I didn't find anything that explains WHY universality and logic have anything to do with moral discourse.Which brings me to another thought. Is this a "prescriptive" discussion about morals? Are there any moral systems that adhere to logic and universalizability? If not then why do you call this system "moral", i.e. what does it have to do with existing moral systems? Why isn't this universalizable? Is it because it's not parameterized? What similar kinds of "universalizable" statements exist that are similar to this "cookbook" one? How about "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's {A}" ?I've got some more higher-level questions, but they depend on your answers to these questions. I think I'm starting to catch on.Thanks!
Ben

RAZD,Thanks for the answers. Still struggling, so I'll try and be more explicit (read wordy) this time.First of all, I want to make explicit that I think your presentation here is a prescriptive account of morality, and not a descriptive account. Do you have any problem with this statement? Yes, somehow you caught onto the direction I was thinking. Nice! As far as I know, morals are a system for determining right and wrong. As such, I think it's important to know how we treat environmental concerns, including other animals.By the way, I looked up Wikipedia on "morality" and "ethics," and I honestly couldn't understand the difference. So I don't understand how you're trying to divide between the two. Can you make the distinction for me? Sorry, what I was asking for is kind of two things:
- What are the specific first principles which are being used to derive the "golden rule" ?
OR
- What book / section does Rousseau do his derivation? If I knew that, I could read the section and see his derivation, and see what first principles he's using. OK, we're getting there. You say "supposedly." I want to ask, according to whom? Is it part of the definition of morality? Or is it just that a specific group of people make this claim about their morals?I can't find any reason, given the dictionary and Wikipedia descriptions of morality, to think that Morals are supposed to apply to all people with equal force, or that they're supposed to be universal in any other way.This is extremely important to me, because I personally don't think that morality is in any way the domain of deductive logic.
When Socrates asks those around him "what is justice?" I think he's showing a lack of deductive "declarative" knowledge about morality. However, that's not the only kind of knowledge out there.As people say, "I know good and bad when I see it" and, to a large degree, I think they're right. And that is DESPITE the fact that I know most (I would say all) people make mistakes, or, when you examine their patterns with logic, seem illogical or even contradictory.I'm working on a good way to formulate and express all this, but in the meantime I really want to understand your methodology. As I see it, you're proposing a new system of morality, not describing an existing one. Either way I'm interested, I'm just trying to understand clearly all the places we diverge and, importantly, why we diverge. I'll get back to this in the future. Rather than start presenting my own view, I want to focus on your view and find out how it works. So I'll keep listening for now and add this to my model of how your proposed morality works.Thanks!
Ben