|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Blue Jay writes: But, now everything just feels like arbitrary rules, like I could essentially make up whatever moral guidelines I want, and it would be just as valid as the guidelines that society makes up for me. Yeah, it's nice when everything is concrete and simple.I went through a similar kind of thing. For me, I went from believing in God to believing in good. That is, I liked God because He was good and loving and caring and all that stuff. The idea of a perfect God who understood "being a good person" was a very nice idea. I've just sort of shifted into believing in the ideals themselves without having some sort of God-being there as well. I now like good and loving and caring and all that stuff. And the idea of "being a good person" is still a very nice idea.I simply shifted my belief in God (who exemplified all the virtues) into the actual virtues themselves. Sure, God had the 10 commandments and all the specific rules. But there was no real reason to follow them unless you chose to follow God.Now I have "being good" and a bunch of rules that come with that. But there's no real reason to follow the rules of "being good" unless you choose to want to be a good person. This then forced me into defining what "being good" is, and a way to identify if I'm actually doing it or not. The best I've come up with so far is... not understood by myself well enough to give a concise summary of here But you can read about it... around here... and feel free to ask questions. There's lots of people here that like to talk about this stuff too. Just try to remember... God's commandments were never objective because of them lining up with some map in the stars or something... God's commandments were objective simply because the Bible described them and gave definitions for "being good." They only ever held sway to those who chose to accept the Bible and God. My point is if you find (or even invent) an honest, viable and practical definition of "being good" then your adherence to that standard can be just as objective as God's commandments ever were. But, yeah. In the overall sense, pulling back the curtain and maturing such that you can't go back to the naive ways of "before"... sucks....Then you remember that as an adult you can play video games as much as you want and eat lots of chocolate regardless of it being Hallowe'en... that's kinda cool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
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 I was not unable to point to it. I pointed directly at it. Your sense of reciprocity and fairness. Your grandmother deserves to be happy more than you deserve to play video games. You came to that conclusion. My point is, though, that yes, it must be in there somewhere.
But I can decide the most preferred action and then do something else. No you can't. Whatever you do in the end was the most preferred action. Unless you are mad or have a tumour or something and even then it is the most preferred action as generated by a fucked up brain.
They taught me that being kind can make you feel better in kindergarten. You knew it going in. What they did in kindergarten was to reinforce that fact. To increase the child's conscious awareness that kindness has many more benefits than are immediately apparent. It all comes down to the lesson that it really is better for you if you consider the other person at the first accounting of benefits. That sharing your candy has more value over time than the immediate benefit of eating all or your candy now. It is still all about achieving maximum personal benefit.
I know when I'm acting selfishly. Whatever it is about the human brain that recognizes that sensation as being uncomfortable is the mechanism that gives rise to apparently altruistic behaviour. As no alternatives have been offered I will continue to call it your conscience.
I'm disputing that I am unable to act without selfishness. I am not disputing that you can act in such a way that causes more benefit for others than for yourself (even though all benefits are not always apparent). I am saying that at the root of all of your actions is some perceived benefit to yourself. Even if the benefit to yourself is less than it is to others it is the benefit to self that motivates the action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
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. If you take our moral sense to be whatever maximizes perceived personal benefit then it does not change. Our behaviour varies widely but the goal remains the same. Even if the brain is all messed up by chemical imbalance or physical damage it still tries to act in accordance with it's perceived maximum personal benefit. Always. It seems to me that it is a page one type of essential quality for all things that can be said to have a will to survive.
Free will is a precious illusion. To be good, to act selflessly out of an innate goodness--who wants to give that up? All those willing to face the music instead of dancing to their own tune.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Dogma writes: If you take our moral sense to be whatever maximizes perceived personal benefit then it does not change. Our behaviour varies widely but the goal remains the same. Even if the brain is all messed up by chemical imbalance or physical damage it still tries to act in accordance with it's perceived maximum personal benefit. Always. How would you explain things like the soldier that throws himself on top of a grenade to save complete strangers or the guy that runs into a burning building to save a child he has no personal connection to? How do these fit into the "maximum personal benefit always" paradigm you are advocating? I'm not saying that there aren't evolutionary explanations for these behaviours but I think your "maximum personal benefit always" stance is too simplistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But I can decide the most preferred action and then do something else. No you can't. Yes, I can.
Whatever you do in the end was the most preferred action. Except when it isn't.
Unless you are mad or have a tumour or something and even then it is the most preferred action as generated by a fucked up brain. Wait. Are you now admitting that its possible? Just that there'd be something wrong with me?
I am saying that at the root of all of your actions is some perceived benefit to yourself. That's just not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
How would you explain things like the soldier that throws himself on top of a grenade to save complete strangers or the guy that runs into a burning building to save a child he has no personal connection to? How do these fit into the "maximum personal benefit always" paradigm you are advocating? I would explain it by saying that our sense of the importance of the tribe to our own survival is very strong. That our sense of place in the tribe is very strong. In the extreme case there is a point where the importance of the tribe exceeds the importance of the self but only when there are no alternatives. It is still the most preferred course of action for the individual. The guy who jumps on the grenade does not consciously think about it, he just does it. His conscience demands it. It is phenomenal to me that our brains will actually do this and throw our bodies on a grenade. That we can come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to die. In the case of the burning child most of us would be compelled to save them. Some would try and some wouldn't. The amount of guilt that you would feel for not having tried varies by person. The risk would be rewarded with an enormous sense of having done the right thing but they would not be consciously calculating that reward nor would they be consciously calculating the resulting misery of having let them burn. The calculation is made instantaneously and without awareness which to me means that it is wired in there. Again varying from person to person depending on their experience.
I'm not saying that there aren't evolutionary explanations for these behaviours but I think your "maximum personal benefit always" stance is too simplistic. If being kind is not eventually beneficial to the actor then why else would they do it? What other possibilities are there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
But I can decide the most preferred action and then do something else.
No you can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Dogma writes: That we can come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to die. Best thing for who? How can it be the best thing for the person whose existence has ended?
Dogma writes: If being kind is not eventually beneficial to the actor then why else would they do it? What other possibilities are there? Selfish genes. If, on balance in our ancestral environment, a selfless or even personally damaging (e.g. dying) act results in greater propagation of ones genes then an instinct to behave in ways that are detrimental to the self will evolve. Selfless individuals are ultimately motivated by selfish genes. But selfish genes don't always result in actions which are beneficial to the individual "actor" in the way that you are insisting is necessarily the case. Giving one's life for the good of the "tribe" is not personally beneficial to the dead individual. No matter how you look at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
One question I've been itching to ask these religious people who think that you can't be moral without God, and that mere human laws and customs are insufficient to constrain us ... Well, I'd like to ask them this. One question I would like to ask is, why would you be itching to ask an irrational, emotionally driven question? Consider your above statement. It bypasses the only thing that matters, the simple logic involved in the question, "Is it possible to have morals without an eternally existent God", that would be the absolute standard, from any reasonable standpoint. If the there is no absolute standard, then there is no moral standrd at all. You can call it morals, right or wrong, but that wont make it morality in actuality The point is that there is no logical way to establish that morals are absolute or they are morals at all, without an absolute standard. Logic will not allow it The best you can do is assume you have some so-called standards within the human race. Because when we consider the animal kingdo, aliens, or whatever, the socalled standard we use , becomes, both subjective and contradictory any discussion of actual morals that tries to move past the standard I have just set out is nothing more than banttering and rehtoric From a purely logical standpoint an attempt to define morals without an absolute standard is nothing short of silliness and idiocy Whether you can demonstate from a persons perspective that God exists or not, has nothing to do with this simply set out proposition. If he does not from your perspective, you will always be constrained by the logical proposition that its only matter in motion. If you think you can demonstrate it otherwise, give it a shot. All I need to do is simply disagree with what you have called or discribed as morality to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, you are spinning your wheels So Dr Adequate, emotionlly driven, poorly set out propositions and questions, have nothing to do with what is, purely logical and demonstrable your up. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the there is no absolute standard, then there is no moral standrd at all. You can call it morals, right or wrong, but that wont make it morality in actuality The point is that there is no logical way to establish that morals are absolute or they are morals at all, without an absolute standard. Logic will not allow it I don't get why not.
From a purely logical standpoint an attempt to define morals without an absolute standard is nothing short of silliness and idiocy But why?
If you think you can demonstrate it otherwise, give it a shot. All I need to do is simply disagree with what you have called or discribed as morality to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, you are spinning your wheels Spinning wheels or not, a relative morality can still be moral. We just have to employ our empathy and determine for ourselves what we would be comfortable doing or not. Its not an absolute morality, but its still a morality and its still moral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Consider your above statement. It bypasses the only thing that matters, the simple logic involved in the question, "Is it possible to have morals without an eternally existent God", that would be the absolute standard, from any reasonable standpoint. It's fun to imagine that God is evil, playing a nasty little game with us. Would the absolute morality then be moral? More obviously, we know that morality is plastic and there is no such thing as absolute morality. But as you're so sure that there is such a thing, perhaps you could tell us what it actually is?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Best thing for who? How can it be the best thing for the person whose existence has ended? Of course the answer is dependant on your definition of 'best thing' which will necessarily refer to the self which will also require a definition. If the goal is propagation or fecundity of your genes then your own continued existence is not the ultimate goal.
Selfish genes. If, on balance in our ancestral environment, a selfless or even personally damaging (e.g. dying) act results in greater propagation of ones genes then an instinct to behave in ways that are detrimental to the self will evolve. Selfless individuals are ultimately motivated by selfish genes. This requires that we consider ourselves as a separate entity from our genes. Not just the phenotype/genotype distinction but that the phenotype is something other than the sum of the genes. Is that what you are saying?
But selfish genes don't always result in actions which are beneficial to the individual "actor" in the way that you are insisting is necessarily the case. If it is good for our genes then it is good for us. This is not to say that we do not possess some detrimental genes like the ones that give us cancer but taken as a whole thing. If you are suggesting otherwise then you need to elaborate. I would also point out that you are talking about some fairly rare occurrences. In 99.99161874369 % () of all actions we can easily see that people act in such a way as to maximize their personal benefit. I suspect that it is actually 100 % of the time and that it is only on some rare occasions when it appears to be otherwise. The topical point is that the interests of the self are always at the top of the scale, that is used by the self and generally referred to as the conscience, to make moral judgements. If there is such a thing as absolute morality it is built on this foundation by evolutionary processes. Any concept of God that includes moral direction is a cultural reinforcement of an instinctive tendency.
Giving one's life for the good of the "tribe" is not personally beneficial to the dead individual. No matter how you look at it. Again, if the goal is propagation, then it is obvious how it can be seen as beneficial to the dead individual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
One question I would like to ask is, why would you be itching to ask an irrational, emotionally driven question? Consider your above statement. It bypasses the only thing that matters, the simple logic involved in the question, "Is it possible to have morals without an eternally existent God", that would be the absolute standard, from any reasonable standpoint. If the there is no absolute standard, then there is no moral standrd at all. You can call it morals, right or wrong, but that wont make it morality in actuality The point is that there is no logical way to establish that morals are absolute or they are morals at all, without an absolute standard. Logic will not allow it The best you can do is assume you have some so-called standards within the human race. Because when we consider the animal kingdo, aliens, or whatever, the socalled standard we use , becomes, both subjective and contradictory any discussion of actual morals that tries to move past the standard I have just set out is nothing more than banttering and rehtoric From a purely logical standpoint an attempt to define morals without an absolute standard is nothing short of silliness and idiocy Whether you can demonstate from a persons perspective that God exists or not, has nothing to do with this simply set out proposition. If he does not from your perspective, you will always be constrained by the logical proposition that its only matter in motion. If you think you can demonstrate it otherwise, give it a shot. All I need to do is simply disagree with what you have called or discribed as morality to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, you are spinning your wheels So Dr Adequate, emotionlly driven, poorly set out propositions and questions, have nothing to do with what is, purely logical and demonstrable your up. Dawn Bertot Instead of writing this drivel, you could have tried replying to my post, to which it bears no apparent connection. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes: The point is that there is no logical way to establish that morals are absolute or they are morals at all, without an absolute standard. What is God's absolute standard? The 10 commandments?All instructions found in the Bible? (...including Leviticus and the rest of the Old Testament?) The Golden Rule (...love others as you love yourself?) If you are unable to even say what this "absolute standard" actually is... how do you even know it exists in the first place? What objective thing are you comparing it to in order to show that it is, indeed, "standard"? I have no idea what you're talking about. How can you call it an absolute standard if it's not absolute, or standard?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Dogma writes: If it is good for our genes then it is good for us. This is where you are going fundamentally wrong. By any coherent definition of 'personhood' our genes result in us sometimes doing things which are personally detrimental at times.
Dogma writes: Again, if the goal is propagation, then it is obvious how it can be seen as beneficial to the dead individual. Whose goal is propagation? The childless man who dives on top of a grenade to save the lives of complete strangers? How exactly?
Dogma writes: I would also point out that you are talking about some fairly rare occurrences. In 99.99161874369 % of all actions we can easily see that people act in such a way as to maximize their personal benefit. In most cases the selfish gene and the selfish individual are in accordance. But not always. Which is why I originally posted to point out that your "maximum personal benefit always" stance is too simplistic. If now you are saying that it isn't always the case we have no real argument.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024