Atheist morality

1) I have no theos, and so no theology.
2) I'm a mammal, not an angiosperm. I'm not fruit-bearing, in other words.
3) What possible good would bearing fruit do me? Would I not need vitamin C if I started?

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.

the golden rule is just an example, specifically one that shows that such values can be derived from first principles (as Rouseau did).it is the condition of universality is the key to understanding what is truly moral and to distinguishing {"cookbook" morals and opinions} from {universal morality}. it follows from logic.for instance, on the gay marriage issue: consider a judgment that it is okay for gay couples and only gay couples to get officially married and derive the extensive legal and cultural benefits, but it is illegal for heterosexual couples to do this. this is just taking the usual "cookbook" view and interchanging what should be universal equivalents, taking {A} and {B} and substituting {C} and {D}k?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you've never carried fruit? (be careful of gleeks bearing glyphs)

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!

ps -- see Morality & Politics
and http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/HumanistCode.shtml
for some further thoughts on this matter of universality (and morality)
and http://www.deism.org/freethought.htm
for some discussion about the relationship of deism, agnosticism, atheism, and other kinds of "free thought" philosophies.and if you are interested in the native american influence mentioned, another source for information on that is
Complete Book: "FORGOTTEN FOUNDERS, Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution," By Bruce E. Johansen
perhaps we owe our native brothers more than regrets over poor treatment in the past eh?(note to admin -- sorry about the preponderance of links, but this is an addendum to the previous post, the reference material if you will. I felt it was better as a second post than an edit because it is slightly different topic material)

If behavior by {A} is considered moral, then it should also be moral for {B} -- it must be universally applicableA "cookbook" moral code will claim to apply to everyone but usually will fail the test of universality in practiceLet us consider the effect of non-universality:Murder (wanton killing of another human) is immoral in virtually all codes of behavior, from "cookbook" to rational.We remove universality by restricting this prohibition to a select in-group: murdering {blond white supremacist christians germans} is immoral, but it is okay to kill anyone else.This of course leads to {holocaust\genocide} most foul and heinous. This is not the only example from history where universality was denied and the result was immoral behavior, but it is one people are familiar with. Even the US has had to repeal laws that restricted inclusion in the group: suffragettes voting and civil rights to name the major ones.This is akin to saying that everyone else must behave according to {rule 39} except me: if it is moral there are no exceptions to the rule.Now it is okay for a {group\club\association} to say that in joining this {group\club\association} we agree to behave according to the rules of the {group\club\association} (and that failure to do so is grounds for dismissal). This applies (among many examples) to Boy Scouts, nudist colonies, the "dead poet society" and any of the major religious denominations.That doesn't make those rules moral, even though inside that group there may be no exclusion clauses -- everyone will be expected to comply equally or face the consequences (dismissal).It also doesn't mean that those rules can apply to anyone outside the club (that would of course be ridiculous because they couldn't be dismissed).Ergo to apply to everyone, everyone must belong to the club. We call that club {humanity}.Now consider that to join the club each member must agree to the rules, thus each member must consider the rules valid and accept that the rules apply to them just as much as they apply to all the other members.To join the club of {humanity} each person has to {know\understand\believe} that the rules are just as fair to them as they are to everyone else.The only way that happens is if the rules are universal to begin with.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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

good questions. there is also no one to be good or bad unto. the null solution. yes, it is dependant on the {social\cultural} framework. unless you think morals extend into how we treat the environment ... (I think that is a different issue (but similar): morals are generally only applied to human relations. Perhaps that comes under ethics, and is certainly dependant on understanding ecological relationships.)Rouseau derives it (the "golden" rule). First principles are the foundations of philosophy and logic and are as old as Aristotle. They are generally considered to be self evident truths, although this is debatable (in a debate that turns into an endless regression of how do you know what you know you know). You can google on {aristotle first principle logic} and find a hoard of articles discussing pro and con issues.Also see First principle - Wikipedia Morals (supposedly) apply to all people with equal force -- they claim to be universal. Thus if when {Person A} does {X} to {Person B} it is moral, then if {Person B} does {X} to {Person A} it too is moral.This gets back to the {self evident first principle} aspects. Good. That certainly eliminates the sexist bias in the original. Still does not rule out some coveting, though. How about "Thou shalt not covet another's {A}" or just "don't covet what is not yours" ...excerpted from the buddhist 8 fold path: I hope this helps and humbly await your further questions (but not without some trepidation at my ability to answer).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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

quote:

---

You ARE aware that psychiatrists and psychologists (human trained and educated) have the highest suicide rates of any profession.

---

No, not really: link to more

cricky, now we'll have to bear the onslaught of NRAist propoganda on the right to bear tank busting mortars and multifire canons that would make an iraqii insurgent weep to own.don't you know guns never kill people????This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*26*2005 07:43 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

All morality is derived in it's ultimate source, whether it comes from a {supposedly} final authority or not or the "when in rome do as the romans do" (and the question of whether that only applies to {rome\romans\non-romans}) -- and is to some extent culturally dependant (rather than absolute truth).I take your distinction to be between say "seek to do no harm to others" versus "thou shalt not murder" (as thunder rolls across the sky) .... or do you mean it the other way around? I do think the meanings are very similar but to me the connotations are slightly different, with moral behavior concerned with behavior involving {effects on other people} and ethics involving the broad reach of behavior {affecting life, the universe and everything}. The line does blur: is it immoral to kill a chimpanzee? Or unethical? Does that depend on whether you accept the classification of chimps as hominids? Is it immoral to breed a virus that kills bole-weevils? Or unethical?I do think this comes from the history of {moral codes} being historically derived from religious authoritarian declarations, while ethics is a more intellectual late-comer, based more on philosophy (and logic). But then you also have the issue of {archaic traditional moral} versus {modern derived moral} codes. Muddy indeed. Let me get back to you. I may have overstated this, as the Social Contract is about reciprocity, and thus it may be implicit but not explicitly stated. On a quick google search ("golden rule derived" and the "I'm feeling lucky" button) I got this:http://www.vexen.co.uk/notes/golden.html Rouseau would certainly have been familiar with such a derivation. Or is it that every group makes this claim? You see this mostly in intolerant religious groups that want to impose their religious code on non-believers (the Taliban, Focus on the Family, Tom Delay, etc).I think {archaic traditional moral} fails to be universalized, but that {modern derived morality} has to {be\become} universalized in order to measure up to it's own implied standard of being able to judge good and bad. I think in its ultimate form that it has to be logical. The alternative is that it is subject to the political whims of the moment.Has it been {in\come from} the domain of deductive logic? I'd have to say no, but I would also have to say that a lot of the {issues} that were considered moral issue based on {archaic traditional moral} and which are now seen to be {anachronistic\misogynistic\xenophobic\etc} if not downright wrong are the ones that do not measure up. This gets back to the issue of {culturally dependant} versus {absolute truth} morality. And the social contract (and reciprocity). Each person makes their own determination of what is moral and what is not, their view is based in large part on the culture they {live in\grew up in} and the education they have {received\sought out} regarding {ethics\philosophy\religions\etc}. Each persons moral code is dependant on who they are and what culture they live in.In this sense I agree with you that morals are not in the domain of deductive logic (implying that the same conclusions would always be reached from the same principles) because of the diversity of experience, knowledge and beliefs.As a side issue consider the effect of species on "moral" behavior. Would morals be the same if we had evolved from a herd species like elk or a relatively isolationist species like the orangutang? Would ethics?enough for now, I'm getting too tired to be coherant (if I've not already passed that point), but one final point: I think of it more as a (new?) way of looking at morality rather than a system in itself.and thank you.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You are creating a dichotmy that is not there. Your actions are your morals.

sorry that doesn't provide enough information to be useful.by this argument anyone is moral in everything they do, because they do it.morals are a way to compare behavior (another reason it is culturally bound and irrelevant for hermits), for it is the judgement on behavior being good or bad Actions are good or bad in the context of the culture.For the {cultural judgment} to have equal appeal to all people it must be based on principles that all feel they are covered by equally -- they need to be universalizable to withstand the scrutiny of time.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}