Morality without god

No, that's just not the English language as she is spoke. That's not what conscience means. You may say, if you please, that satisfying one's conscience is one of the rewards, but you cannot reasonably say that conscience is the calculation of the rewards. That is simply not what the word "conscience" means.

The up side of realizing that we are all just a bunch of pooh flinging monkeys motivated by our own selfish desires is that we can then realize that we are all part of the same tribe. We can begin to truly appreciate the nature and benefit of kindness. We can truly forgive people who have trespassed against us. We can fully appreciate the quality of mercy. We can fully appreciate that there but for the grace of god, go I. So to speak.It is all selfish. Which sounds bad but actually works pretty well.

Which definition would you point to?

quote:

---

conscience
   [kon-shuhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3.
an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.

---

By "those...emotions" I take it you mean those of revulsion or aversion that attach themselves to the idea of thieving, murdering or raping, and/or the guilt or self-disgust experienced after those acts.Terming all thieves, murderers and rapists psychopaths seems clearly wrong, given the numbers of humans capable of them; under the right circumstances, I think any human is capable of committing theft, murder and rape with equanimity.Side note: given the numbers of people living at the edge of starvation, and the proclivity of both people and animals to steal when necessary for survival, theft probably doesn't belong in that triad.Perhaps we could call the state of mind that permits those acts a transient psychopathic state, but that state appears universally accessible.I don't mean to be intentionally thick--I recognize you were addressing the ability to commit these acts and feel okay about it as psychopathic. But even here, one has only to look at history (and current events) to find examples of entire nations or populations feeling pretty much okay about stealing from, killing and raping a subset of their own numbers or entire other populations. If psychopathy must be stretched to encompass an entire nation, rather than clinically ill individuals, it seems neither useful nor accurate.So I would say that normal human beings are capable of committing theft, murder and rape and feeling okay about it. That is the human condition, and it is the human condition of both the believer and the atheist. In one sense, the religious are correct in their horror at the "freedom from absolute rule" that permits individuals to act in this fashion--they are merely (and obviously) wrong about their notion that their religious beliefs somehow protect them.An atheist who believes that all "normal" persons, religious and atheist alike, are incapable of these actions and feeling okay about it afterwards are equally wrong, and both are made more vulnerable to the commission of these horrors by their illusions.

It's beyond doubt that some humans are capable of committing, say, murder, and feeling ok about it. It fact some appear to enjoy it and seek it out. But those people are unusual - the majority of us, if we could do it at all, would agonise over it. (We know that people will do awful things if there are conflicting pressures - the Milgram experiments prove it - but they stlll know it's wrong and most dislike it at a gut level.)Even at the low level of telling lies most people are uncomfortable - that's the basis for the lie detector for example.I'm trying to say that morality is physiological as well as cultural and legal. Our mind can overrule our morality emotion, so that we can do things that we know to be wrong, but there's something in us that makes it hard to do.I find it really fascinating because our sense of morality is very easily changed by drugs and brain damage - morality is a brain function in the orbitofrontal cortex and it can be manipulated. I had a thread on it a while back that was centred around the story of Fred who suddenly became a paedophile because of a brain tumour (this was proven). It's here if you're interested:EvC Forum: Biology is Destiny?

Hi Tangle, and thanks for the reply.I too am fascinated by the plasticity of our moral sense in the face of organic disruption--tumors, drugs, injuries, other illnesses; I've previously encountered the Case of Fred, and other, similar cases. I agree that morality is a brain function and can be manipulated.But that brain function is socially mediated. Consider how little time and effort were required to obtain the unsettling Milgram results. And I would reserve the term psychopath for that latter group; I would expect to find organic bases for their condition, whether derived from the brain insults described above or severe, sustained emotional and psychological trauma that result in organic brain defects. In our present state, I believe that it is true--but only transiently. Milgram showed how readily that present state can be disturbed, and events show us how readily large populations can move beyond reservations and reluctance.As to the lie detector...consider how readily and proficiently we indulge in "social" or white lies; also, how common deceptive practices are among our own kind as well as our primate kin. I am skeptical that it is friction from a moral brake that generates the physiological disturbances detected by the polygraph; more likely, it seems to me, it is the anxiety caused by the notion of being confronted with "objective" evidence of our falsehoods. Human beings, in my experience, lie to each other quite blithely and often about all sorts of things.The human moral sense, I believe, is as plastic in the face of social, personal and cultural contexts as it is in the grip of organic brain changes. My reading of history, and my life experiences, suggest to me that the normal human being, subjected to the appropriate social, personal and cultural contexts, can become an enthusiastic thief, murderer and rapist as readily as Fred became a pedophile in the context of his brain tumor.

We know for sure that large quantities of people can be made to do bad things and do them over a period of time. They do tend to require us to believe that the people we do them to are not like us though. We do them to the other tribe, race, religion, family and so on - the more distant we can make our object of the amoral action the easier it gets.I agree that our morality is plastic; we know that it has changed over the generations and I think we all know an understand the Lord of the Flies effect. In fact, we know that we are capable of bad stuff simply because we have invested in rules and methods of enforcement to attempt to contain them.It's going to be a complicated thing this thing that we call morality.

From Message 35: Great... now its subconscious?I disagree that all action is selfish, with an example if a selfless action, and your saying that really there must at least be a subconsous selfishness in there. Well, you could have a willingness sans desire. Right, cause you know my subconscious motivation must be desired. I'm not buyin' it. I just think its stupid to eliminate the 'selfless' description from the act on the opposite side of a dichotomy against something that is plainly selfish. The colloquial sense is better employed and there's no benefit to reimagining it under a lense of everything being selfish. When you're simply willing to do something that you don't desire to and if you had unmotivated actions.From Message 47: Apes. And there's lots of tribes that I am not a part of, even though you can zoom out far enough to lump us all into one. I don't find that particularly realistic, but I guess its good to have ideals. Heh, riiight. All hail the true way. I've heard that one before.You may wish to think that all my actions are selfish, but I maintain that I can act from selflessness. I'll grant you your internal consistancy, but I'm not convinced there's a benefit to adopting your description. Don't give me that true and full appreciation crap, I'd rather get into the underlying biology or psychology behind it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Say that you are at the art gallery and you see a piece of abstract art that you like. I ask you why you like it and you say "I don't know, I just like it." I am using desire in the sense that it is the thing that you most want to do out of your available options. Like when you decide to take some awful tasting medicine instead of remaining sick. The benefit comes from the understanding that being kind is beneficial to the person who is being kind. If it is the correct perspective then the benefit comes from having the correct perspective. If you are willing to do something then you have made a calculation and decided that the action is the most preferred. You might say 'I wish that I didn't have to do this' but in the end you decide that it is the most beneficial course of action.Unmotivated action like the unmotivated decay of an alpha particle? Nonsense. If you were born in rural Afghanistan and raised by the local mullah do you think that you would have turned out to be a catholic?When you appreciate that the cave dwelling luddite is the same creature as you who has had different inputs it makes it harder to drop a bomb on his head and (abe; easier to)reach the conclusion that maybe he needs a pamphlet on personal hygiene instead. Yeah I guess it does sound a little like that. That is not the way I meant it.I am surprised by the resistance to this idea. I expected something like 'Well obviously we are motivated by our desires." So what driver do you assign to acts of kindness?Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

Free will is a precious illusion.To be good, to act selflessly out of an innate goodness--who wants to give that up?

and yet, the second story in the bible is about how the first man steals knowledge of right and wrong from god. it's like... they haven't read their book.

No, I get what you're saying. I'm just disappointed that when you were unable to point to the selfishness of my action, you resorted to: "Oh, well it must be in there somewhere (subconsciously)" I know. You've claimed that motivation requires desire but the definition you posted allows for motivation to be a willingness without desire. They taught me that being kind can make you feel better in kindergarten. I'm disputing that I am unable to act without selfishness. You could say that about everything you're trying to convince me of. A conscious calculation? Not necessarily. An unconscious one? Who knows?But I can decide the most preferred action and then do something else. I know when I'm acting selfishly. And I know when I'm not. I still don't see any reason to consider the times when I'm not as being selfish too. No, like flinching, or blinking. Or, when you go to take your car to the store, but your distracted by something you're thinking about, and then you realize that you're half-way to work instead of the store. What motivated those actions? I'm not buying it. People already know this and it doesn't stop them. This "we're all one big tribe" stuff doesn't really work. I don't assign a general driver to acts of kindness. I think people do them for different reasons. Some of them being selfish and some of them not.

Well, "valid" is such a vague word. Would moral guidelines made up at random be equally moral? is a more specific question.

Hi, Dr A. As much as I loathe ambiguity, I still find it preferable to circularity.Is that why I'm having such a hard time of it?

That's not circular, it's just pointing out the right question.A statement such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (or, alternatively, "Kill thy neighbor and eat him") cannot be judged as true or false, because it is grammatically in the imperative and not the indicative mood. It can, however, be judged as right or wrong --- for exactly the same reason. "Valid" is a weasel word in this context, because it glosses over the fact that there's a difference between the two moods.It is perfectly true that empirical science can't decide between the two imperative sentences I gave in my example, but that's because, as I say, neither sentence is indicative. In the same way, science cannot decide on the truth or falsehood of me telling you: "Stand on one leg and sing the national anthem!" That's not even a sentence that purports to be true. The question you would have to ask yourself is not whether that is a true idea or a false idea, but whether it is a good idea or a bad idea.In this particular case, I think it would be neutral apart from being a complete waste of your time, so it's a slightly bad idea, but my point is that "good" or "bad" are the categories that apply to it, whereas "true" and "false" cannot possibly be categories that could apply to it, since it is not so grammatically constructed that they could apply to it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.