Morality without god

Yeah don't lets confuse the issue.The elements that cause you to make sacrifices that benefit your son are the elements that make you, you. I think this is the diversion point. The point at which my perception of self and my conscious desires are recognized as being different from the natural 'goal' of my existence. It sort of all comes down to answering the question, 'What is the point of life?'
I have been trying to figure out a way to start that thread. I agree and those instincts are based on actions that benefit the individual. Misfiring instinctive behaviour is a much better description of what is happening than calling it selfless behaviour.

Neither does mine. I can see that it actually did happen that way. I can produce a great deal of evidence that supports the theory that it happened that way. I can get from the non-intelligent particles to me without a God.

I may be misunderstanding you but I can't agree with this. I am the sum of my parts. Where does your personhood come from if not from your genes? How can I have a motivation that is different from what my genes dictate me to have?An engine is not a car but a car is not a car without an engine. (abe; even though an engine is still an engine without a car, who builds an engine without a car to put it in and furthermore, an engine doesn't want to go anywhere that a car does not want to go first. OK sorry.) So I have some genes that cause me to feel empathy towards my kin. This benefits me and I have a greater chance of living long enough to propagate. A side effect of this genetic quality is that I will, upon occasion, jump on a grenade and sacrifice myself. That side effect does not benefit the gene more than my living long enough to propagate benefits the gene.What benefit does the gene get from throwing me on a grenade? Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

I am all for keeping it simple but I think that the statements;"Do unto others as you would be done by."and"Do unto others as they would be done by."describe two entirely different things. A subtle difference but one that completely changes the frame of reference and thereby has long reaching consequences.I think that the all around general success and longevity of the golden rule rests on the fact that it references the self. The only frame of reference that is universally possessed.I also think that it does an excellent job of defining all the requirements of moral behaviour.

I am referring to the evidence of natural history. All the evidence that we have that shows our lineage back to but not including our first spark.I do not see any evidence for a prime mover that can not be identified as having been created by our natural tendency to imagine causes for things that we can not see. Again, this may be how a prime mover would choose to reveal himself but it looks like circular reasoning to me.You are saying that I make the assumption that life came about by natural causes but natural causes are the only thing that I actually have evidence for.

So be it. I think that we can only know which things are right by imagining ourselves on the receiving end of the action. I don't know which other metric you can refer to with such intimacy. Because that is the way it works. The emotional response is the control that promotes the behaviour. What we think about it seems to make little difference to our genetically programmed behaviour. (edit;although we can certainly resist or enforce it)Being consciously aware of the fact that it is a natural instinct makes it very easy for me to get behind the idea of being kind to people. When I realize that the behaviour has been selected for over the millennia and that the laws of nature favour cooperation it is easy for me to take up the default position of being kind. I seldom resist the urge to act in a way that might be seen as selfless. I don't think about the fact that it is actually a selfish act I just enjoy the tripping dopamine receptors. I think that it always does and for that reason we should appreciate the opportunity to help others. I can see the baseness of that position but I don't think we really need to be ashamed of the fact.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

When morality is understood to be based on a self centred metric then it actually does apply across all species and reality. It is every bit as moral for a lion to try and kill and eat me as it is for me to kill and eat a cow. I don't exactly feel sorry for the cow but I am aware of it's ability to suffer. It would be moral for an alien species to try and kill and eat me if it was necessary for their survival.It can not be immoral for me to fulfil the requirements of my continued existence. When I am hungry, the immoral act would be to die of starvation. Things are right or wrong, in my opinion, because I decide that they are. Where is your free will if you can not decide what is right or wrong, in your opinion?Every action that you might take is motivated by some self interest. All the way from brushing your teeth to saving a child from a fire. The entire concept of morality comes into it because we recognize the fact that some actions appear selfless. We acknowledge the behaviour as being beneficial to the tribe.

If you examine how it is that you come to the conclusion that any particular act is an act of kindness or mercy you might see more of the strength of my position. Even the ideas of kindness and kind and kin are strong evidence that any concept of morality revolves around the self. I would say this is good evidence in support of the idea that everything in the universe is relative to me as far as I am concerned. As it is for you. Physics has a lot to say about this. I am not sure that I follow you here. I am saying that it is part of our very fabric. I don't see how it can get any deeper in. I certainly don't go around that way. I am forever laughing at my near complete insignificance. I rail back against it but with little success.I actually make a conscious effort to suppress my ego now that I have had plenty of experience with having it suppressed for me. I revel in the fact that doing nice things for other people makes me feel good. It is a win win situation.It might shed some light to look at some examples. Let's play spot the moral consensus.Why is it immoral to commit murder but not to kill in self defense?

Because I do not believe that your or my society would be better off if the Africans were wiped off the map and I don't think that you believe it either. I think that the thought of living on the street in Uganda is so repulsive to you that you are moved to action. Your sense of empathy is so strong that you invest in the remedy. If the reward wasn't there for you I don't think that you would do it. I don't think so. I think that it can be reduced to the emotional mechanisms that control our behaviour.There is a question that I asked in the Where is the point? thread about which instincts we should suppress and which we should indulge and, most importantly, what metric can we use that is not influenced by those instincts? I don't want to mix up the threads but it seems integral to both of them. I would suggest that I would not murder someone because I would not like to be murdered. I think this is the reason most of us are not murderers and not because we think that we will get caught. I suggest that I would kill in self defence for the same reason, that I would rather not be murdered.Edited by Dogmafood, : add a comma

Well, we don't send aid to Africa because it makes us feel bad. It is when we become aware of their suffering and we don't send it that we feel bad.You say that we choose to do what is right. We conclude what is 'right' by referring to how we feel about the various options available to us. Our instinct is to avoid those actions that make us feel uncomfortable. Can you identify how you would decide if some action is right or wrong without referring to yourself and how you feel about the action?It looks to me as though I am saying that the behaviour is instinctive and you are saying that the behaviour is instinctive. If those instincts come from God then what real choice do we have in the matter? If this is the way that God made me then all of the credit goes to him and I am just a juicy machine following instructions. Our instinct is to be selfish. The billions of years of the evolution of life in general has refined the instinct to incorporate the fact that cooperation is beneficial to the individual. From clumping cells to ants to wolf packs to people. I think that all motivations are instinctive. I think that our motivations can be in conflict with each other. Morality is a concept that identifies when our actions reveal that we value the tribe and that our instinct to be selfish includes cooperation.I really think that we need to explore why we suppress some instincts and encourage others and what informs those choices. I am at a loss for an answer to that question.

With regard to why we willingly behave in a charitable manner. You might, I suppose, but you don't do you? Would you enjoy that dinner out if the hungry street girls were watching through the window? I don't think that you would enjoy it because, like most of us, you are thoroughly imbued with a sense of empathy. When seeing the hungry faces look through the window you would, almost unavoidably, see yourself in their position and feel compelled to relieve their suffering. If you were starving yourself you wouldn't be quite so willing to share.The fact that they are actually on the other side of the world is mute because you know that they are there. You can see them in your mind's eye. Having wheels is not always beneficial to the purpose of a car but it is the way that a car works best. Our brains have evolved or were designed to look out for number one. Who is number one by the way? I can not prove that the small voice is not the voice of God but I think that I, and others, can and have supported the idea that it is the same voice that tells you when go to the bathroom or when to cut your grass or when to get out of the way of the approaching bus. Or to punch a bully in the face or to pay your taxes. It is also the same voice that tells some to steal that car or to walk away from the store with too much change.That voice is your conscience or it is the voice of God. In both cases your brain decides what to do by weighing up the benefits of any particular action. The scale is comprised of the sum total of your experience and your default position to stay alive and prosper.Here is a thought. Does God want what is best for you or what is best for Him? Are they the same thing?

That is just your confirmation bias kicking in. That seems a contradiction that you would willingly send your resources to some stranger because it is the right thing to do and yet claim that you see no benefit in it for yourself. Doing the right thing is a benefit.What makes it the right thing to do? Have I missed your answer to this question? Yes you are right. Our willingness to share might be contracted to a smaller group when our own needs are more pressing but we do have an immense capacity for generosity. It makes sense to me that in adversity our appreciation for the benefits of teamwork is magnified.Regarding the question of which theory of the origin of moral behaviour is more plausible. We can look back down the evolutionary line and see the causes for and the benefits of our cooperative behaviour. We can see the motivation behind the creation of a control structure that socially reinforces those instinctive behaviours. The behaviour is codified replete with the threat of punishment. We can see all of the natural mechanisms and motivations that led to the development of the God figure in our psyche.While it is plausible that a real God may have revealed himself this way it seems to me that this is the reification of our own fabricated concept? However implausible it is for inanimate chemicals to spring to life the idea does not require any supernatural input. The only source for such an input is clearly identified as having arisen from our need or desire to identify causes or to imagine them when they are not evident.It occurs to me that not only is cooperative behaviour a naturally emergent quality of living things but that it is a fundamental requirement for living things that begins when the first 2 cells clumped together. Cooperation is integral to life.

Essentially because you have decided that it is the right thing to do. When you do it, even though the apparent benefit goes to some other, there is a sense of having done the right thing. I think that you are underestimating the benefit that you enjoy when you do the 'right thing'. You seem to be making my point for me. For the action to be considered selfish all or most of the benefits are clearly identified as belonging to the actor. When some of the benefit is received by some other person then the action is called kind or generous. When all or most of the benefit is received by another then the action is perceived as selfless.My key point is that there are benefits to the selfless actor that go unrecognised. Mostly by the observer but also by the actor. When you give up your resources to the obvious benefit of others you also gain less obvious benefits for yourself. Such as a sense of having done a good thing. It is a good thing, in your opinion, because you imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action.That sense of having done a good deed is more rewarding than we acknowledge on the surface and it would be because acknowledging it detracts from the idea that it is a good deed. By that standard most of what we do is immoral. For example, when you choose to turn on your air conditioner instead of sending the electricity money (or the money to buy an air conditioner) to someone who could use it for food or shelter. Any resources that we spend on anything that is not essential to our survival are spent immorally. (Run that one past the marketing department!) If that definition of morality is valid then morality is mostly absent from society. In my view it boils down to people doing what they honestly believe is the right thing to do. I maintain that the disadvantages are more than compensated for by our sense of satisfaction with having done the right thing.I am still curious as to where this idea of 'rising above' comes from. I find myself strongly agreeing with this statement and yet there is something wrong with it that I can't quite finger. The most basic drive that I can spot is one of self preservation. That is what drives us and that is what we ultimately refer to when we decide what to do. That is where our hearts live. But self preservation is not as clear cut as it may seem at first blush. There is an assessment of the quality of our existence that usurps mere existence from the pinnacle of our desires. It really isn't much fun to be the king of the hill all by yourself.

I disagree.The authors of the study are using the word 'selfish' in the colloquial sense. They are assuming that more generosity equates to less personal benefit. They do not address the issue of hidden benefits at all. They do not address the question of why our instinct is to be cooperative. The answer to which is because it serves our number one motivation of self preservation.It seems to me that the study completely supports my position.Our tendency to cooperate is instinctive and not based on rational reflective thought. Moral behaviour is not founded on some conscious sense of doing the greater good but on a hard wired instinct to cooperate. Instincts become instincts because they help us to survive and not because we choose them as the superior or moral course of action. (Although, imho, the moral course is the one that best helps us to survive.)If our instinct was to not cooperate and we only cooperated after rational consideration then moral behaviour could be reasonably credited to a conscious awareness of some greater good. In other words, action could be ultimately motivated by something other than selfishness.If moral behaviour is instinctive then it is does not really support the idea that our morality is something that we choose. The idea of morality itself becomes something like an assessment of how well some piece of hardware is running some bit of software.As Omni said previously, nobody wants to give up their free will, myself included, but these conversations always seem to lead there.

I know that it is not kind to laugh at someone's disability but yours is self inflicted and that is comedy gold. That is the closest thing to right that you have written in this thread.