Morality without god

I have to agree with that Phat. It is neither the god nor the police that keep me in line but rather my own conscience.It seems obvious to me that god, religion and the police are products of a hard wired moral sense. We would have no gods if we didn't have the morals first.

All action is selfish. The 'better' becomes the reward.Empathy and compassion are merely tools that are ultimately intended to deliver some reward to the bearer of those qualities. There is no such thing as good or bad without reference to the self.

I think that if the person committing the act recognizes it as a 'nice' action then they are ultimately motivated by some reward. It is a little off to describe it as selfish but in the final analysis I think that is what it is. But selfishness is not a bad thing and in fact it seems to be essential for life to persist.I think that we are just lucky that cooperation and kindness have been selected as being beneficial to our survival. If it were more beneficial to kill all competition then our moral sense would reflect that. Indeed I think that it does reflect that in many cases such as war and starvation.

How would you feel if you didn't spend any time with her?

I have gone to sit with people who were dying. They were unconscious and so did not even know that I was there. I certainly did not enjoy witnessing their death but something compelled me to be there.The term 'motivation' refers to what causes a desire. A desire to do a thing is selfish by definition.

I don think that is stretching it too far. When I act in opposition to my conscience it can be severely uncomfortable.

I agree. Compassion and empathy only apply to those who we consider to be part of our tribe. At some level we recognize the tribe as important to our own survival and so make apparent sacrifices for those people. Doesn't this highlight the fact that the action is motivated by self interest?

I think you are ignoring how bad you would have felt and would likely still feel if you had ignored your inclination and he had subsequently died.

I am suggesting that a reckoning up of benefits is exactly what a conscience is.

You are treating her the way that you would like to be treated. You have a sense of reciprocity even if it is subconscious. It isn't my definition. It is the definition.

quote:

---

motivation/ˌmōtəˈvāSHən/
Noun: 1. The reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way.2. The general desire or willingness of someone to do something.

---

You may wish to think that you are doing things out of the goodness of your heart but I maintain that it is all geared toward self gratification. Retarded? Really?They are both selfish acts and the one that you actually choose to do is the most selfish. I know that this clashes with the colloquial use of the word but that is not my fault. I am not changing any definitions I am just pointing out what actually falls into the category.You are motivated by your desires and nothing else. If you disagree with this perhaps you could identify some other motivation that does not rely on the satisfaction of your desires.

2 kids in a group of 10 each have a bowl of candy. One of them shares with the others and one does not. I agree that one would be called selfish and the other would not. My point is that both of the kids are driven by the same factor that is to satisfy their understanding of what is the right thing to do. One feels good because he shared and the other because he didn't. They both ultimately acted in order to satisfy themselves.My point is that everyone's goal system is driven by their sense of self regardless of what it encompasses. I have no problem with the colloquial use of the terms but which words should I use to make the point that morals are born of and informed by our own sense of self preservation and what is best for the individual.

He satisfied his sense of fairness. If he didn't suffer from that sense then he would have kept the money and satisfied his sense of profit.

No I am not suggesting that. I am confident that he has a highly refined sense of profit that is calculated instantaneously and without error. I am saying that when he did the moral calculus his sense of fairness carried more weight than his desire for profit. As Omni points out, I imagine that there is a point when the profit would outweigh his sense of fairness.So yes, not all desires can be simultaneously satisfied. Conscience is the mechanism that does the calculating and decides which action will bring the greatest reward. What I don't see is this other element that enters the equation and somehow causes people to behave in a manner that they understand to be ultimately detrimental to themselves.Acts of kindness and apparent selflessness are a result of our genetic hardwiring that takes advantage of the fact that cooperation is beneficial. This is the foundation of our moral landscape. God comes into it much later as an attempt to codify and reinforce the behaviour under threat of torture and death.

I don't disagree with what you are saying beyond pointing out that everyone has a conscience.If conscience is a mix of our wiring and our experience then it is just that the religiously motivated conscience has been hijacked. A natural tendency that has been superimposed with the overtly carrot and stick approach of religion.

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.