A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[Bradski]

I’ll try to refocus again: it is irrational to become morally outraged at anything while also holding that morality is a totally artificial creation of human beings. THERFORE, (if we want to go on saying that our moral outrages are rational), we must admit that our moral positions are rooted in some kind of objective truth.

Did anyone say that morality is a totally artificial creation? Personally I keep emphasising that morality is entirely natural. It got us to where we are now. So if you take all my neighbours food and leave his family with nothing, there is an entirely natural instinct that will kick in to indicate to me that that action is wrong. The sense of it being wrong is not ‘out there’ waiting to be found like the square on the hypotenuse. It was evolved as an evolutionary benefit.

Well, what epistemological method do you suppose the European abolitionists used to determine that the slave trade was wrong and that their society was wrong to legally allow it?

Matthew 7:12 aka The Golden Rule aka Reciprocal Altruism. Which is innate. Inbuilt. We are born with it. As I keep saying.

Because there are Moral Absolutes does not mean that there are ONLY Moral Absolutes.

So not only do we not know how to access moral absolutes or how we know we are correct if we think we have, we don’t even know what aspects of morality are absolute. No doubt you’ll start typing something about honour killings again because, well – who could argue against it being a bad thing! As if that is how we are determine it: ‘It’s obvious and you haven’t got an argument against it’.

But how about picking something that you consider to be a moral absolute where there is no universal agreement and then telling us how you determined it to be so.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since the words “good” and “evil” are undefined, your question is meaningless.

This is a meaningless answer to a so-called meaningless question.

If you need “good” and “evil” defined, you are in desperate need of a dictionary.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is a meaningless answer to a so-called meaningless question.

If you need “good” and “evil” defined, you are in desperate need of a dictionary.

Oh, I know what these words mean for rational people. But to call love to be “evil” if it is expressed in a non-procreative fashion, that is really mind-boggling.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Matthew 7:12 aka The Golden Rule aka Reciprocal Altruism. Which is innate. Inbuilt. We are born with it. As I keep saying.

You are right, but I would not call it “moral”. The trouble is that many animals exhibit similar behavior (forming life-long bonds, helping the weak and sick members of the tribe, etc.), but usually we do not call them “moral” creatures.

 

[goout]

Oh, I know what these words mean for rational people. But to call love to be “evil” if it is expressed in a non-procreative fashion, that is really mind-boggling.

Morality is not “calling” something evil.
Morality is an evaluation of human acts in reference to the good.
If you don’t know what the good is, evaluation is impossible.

For example:
it is good that human beings exist.
It is good to be alive.
Human beings eat as part of their sustenance and flourishing.
Therefore
It is evil to systematically starve a person, and also to ignore their need to eat (sin of omission).

If you can’t see and accept the good of human life, you can’t make this moral evaluation.
Does that make sense?

 

[PRmerger]

So not only do we not know how to access moral absolutes or how we know we are correct if we think we have, we don’t even know what aspects of morality are absolute.

Doesn’t matter.

That you, an atheist, acknowledge that moral absolutes exist is huge. Absolutely huge.

 

[PRmerger]

You are right, but I would not call it “moral”. The trouble is that many animals exhibit similar behavior (forming life-long bonds, helping the weak and sick members of the tribe, etc.), but usually we do not call them “moral” creatures.

Right.

Only if you said that they were obligated to do this would we call them moral actions.

But you do say that for humans, so…

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 7:12 aka The Golden Rule aka Reciprocal Altruism. Which is innate. Inbuilt. We are born with it. As I keep saying.

Of course we are.

Even the Scriptures attest to this (see the Romans verse I cited for Vera).

But you, as an atheist, have no reason to tell another person why he must follow the Golden Rule. It doesn’t fit with your world view that 1) we have no free will
2) we are random beings whose behavior is a result of chemical reactions.

Your moral worldview “We must do unto others” is completely at odds with your theological worldview.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Oh, I know what these words mean for rational people. But to call love to be “evil” if it is expressed in a non-procreative fashion, that is really mind-boggling.

Please give a concrete example of what you are talking about. Sodomy?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Please give a concrete example of what you are talking about. Sodomy?

For example. Or oral sex, contraception, homosexual encounters… any kind of love expressed in a non-procreative fashion. If two people love each other, but they do NOT want to procreate or cannot procreate, you call the physical act “evil”. The synonyms of “evil” are: malevolent, intentionally harmful, vicious, malicious etc…

 

[Mort_Alz]

Your question is premature. You need to give a detailed definition of “moral” and “immoral”, and then present an epistemological method to decide about any specific act, whether it is moral or immoral. Without such a preamble we would surely talk past each other.

Well, no, it’s not premature. I answered your question WITH a question. There’s nothing wrong with starting at the other end and working backwards toward an answer. You’ve said that the question “is action X moral?” is an irrelevant question whereas the question “is action X legal?” is a better one. I disagree and I’ve tried to demonstrate why with the example about the abolitionists and the European slave trade. That is an example where the question “is action X moral?” was the ONLY relevant question; because the slave trade WAS LEGAL. It required a moral initiative outside of the law to effect a change. Now, I KNOW you don’t think the abolitionists were wrong. So, try to figure out why their actions were reasonable, and rational (aka epistemologically sound) since you share their views. I know why they were, but I am interested in your reasoning. I’m not confident that, when pressed, you will be able to come up with an answer that is consistent with your worldview of morality. Now, prove me wrong.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But you, as an atheist, have no reason to tell another person why he must follow the Golden Rule.

“MUST”? What kind of nonsense is that? All we can tell others, that it is a good idea to follow the golden rule, because it is to their own best advantage. “MUST”? You cannot tell even to your brethren that they “MUST” follow the commands of the church. Well, you CAN, but many of them will not listen to you.

It doesn’t fit with your world view that 1) we have no free will
2) we are random beings whose behavior is a result of chemical reactions.

It would do you a world of good if you would actually understand the atheist worldview. Because right now all you do is put your foot into your mouth. I read some books of Josh McDowell, where he attempted to “emulate” the view of atheists, and all he achieved was a huge failure.

Your moral worldview “We must do unto others” is completely at odds with your theological worldview.

“MUST”… again? All we say is “you should not do unto others that you would not want to do them unto you”… there is no “MUST”. And we have no “theological worldview”. But I am wasting my time to explain this to YOU… however the lurkers might benefit from it. And if so, then it was not a complete waste. One can only hope.

 

[Bradski]

Matthew 7:12 again. If you see someone being mistreated then there is an innate, entirely natural feeling that it shouldn’t happen.

If you dig a little deeper, the reason why you think it’s wrong stems from the fact that if you turn a blind eye then so will others if you find yourself in he same predicament.

And again, this isn’t a truth ‘out there’ which we can discover somehow that it is absolutely immoral to enslave someone. It is innate. It is internal.

Now you can claim that it is put there by God. Lots of people do. So be it. I know how it got there and I’m quite happy if other people acknowledge that it is there, but hold that it is divinely inspired.

Apologies…this was in response to Mort’s last post. Vera snuck one in before I replied.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Did anyone say that morality is a totally artificial creation? Personally I keep emphasising that morality is entirely natural. It got us to where we are now. So if you take all my neighbours food and leave his family with nothing, there is an entirely natural instinct that will kick in to indicate to me that that action is wrong. The sense of it being wrong is not ‘out there’ waiting to be found like the square on the hypotenuse. It was evolved as an evolutionary benefit.

Matthew 7:12 aka The Golden Rule aka Reciprocal Altruism. Which is innate. Inbuilt. We are born with it. As I keep saying.

But that is precisely why the argument from morality is used. An “instinct” that says “You shouldn’t rob your neighbor of his only food.”, if true, must come from a source higher than humanity and that source would have to be some kind of intelligence or personality.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Matthew 7:12 again. If you see someone being mistreated then there is an innate, entirely natural feeling that it shouldn’t happen.

If you dig a little deeper, the reason why you think it’s wrong stems from the fact that if you turn a blind eye then so will others if you find yourself in he same predicament.

And again, this isn’t a truth ‘out there’ which we can discover somehow that it is absolutely immoral to enslave someone. It is innate. It is internal.

Now you can claim that it is put there by God. Lots of people do. So be it. I know how it got there and I’m quite happy if other people acknowledge that it is there, but hold that it is divinely inspired.

Apologies…this was in response to Mort’s last post. Vera snuck one in before I replied.

And I don’t have a problem with people saying it came about by evolution just as long as they don’t stop there. Because that only explains the how. Moral statements have character; personality. Irrational processes can’t inform a human conscience, “You shouldn’t do X.” Irrational processes don’t care. They’re irrational. They just do things or don’t do things. They don’t have a mind to care about should or should not. Whatever put the idea, “You shouldn’t do X.” in my mind had to have personality or intelligence; and, since I am subject to the (dare I call it a) command, then that personality has to be higher than me.

 

[Bradski]

But that is precisely why the argument from morality is used. An “instinct” that says “You shouldn’t rob your neighbor of his only food.”, if true, must come from a source higher than humanity and that source would have to be some kind of intelligence or personality.

No, that instinct only needs to serve a purpose to propogate the species. Those who bucked ‘the system’ and did rob their neighbour lost out in the long run. Game theory shows this quite clearly. And those who did not buck the system passed their ‘good neighbour’ genes on so that the majority of future generations exhibited the same behaviour. And hey, look. Civilisation.

That’s how reciprocal altruism evolved. Aka The Golden Rule. Which is precisely what Matthew was talking about.

The instinct needs no intelligence as its source. It is as dumb as a box of rocks. All animals exhibit some form of it. Even bats exhibit altruistic behaviour and I wouldn’t call a bat a great example of moral behaviour.

 

[Mort_Alz]

If you dig a little deeper, the reason why you think it’s wrong stems from the fact that if you turn a blind eye then so will others if you find yourself in he same predicament.

Sorry to quote your same statement twice, but I wanted to zero in on the above statement and first agree with you since I have noticed those thoughts in myself when thinking about moral reasoning, but I’d VERY much like to point out that psychopaths have a perfect solution to this when faced with that fear: disregard it. A psychopath knows with a fair amount of certainty that he likely WON’T ever be in the same predicament, so there is really no reason why he shouldn’t stomp the little guy if he derives some benefit from it. Sure, he knows that if everyone in society behaves this way, then he would be I trouble, but he also knows that most everyone in society DOESN’T behave that way, so there is nothing to fear.

He’s not wrong.

Unless…

Unless human beings having intrinsic value is a truth that is outside of humanity. Unless another human being’s intrinsic value is real regardless of whether or not it is useful to me. Morality has to be more than utilitarian.

 

[Mort_Alz]

No, that instinct only needs to serve a purpose to propogate the species. Those who bucked ‘the system’ and did rob their neighbour lost out in the long run. Game theory shows this quite clearly. And those who did not buck the system passed their ‘good neighbour’ genes on so that the majority of future generations exhibited the same behaviour. And hey, look. Civilisation.

That’s how reciprocal altruism evolved. Aka The Golden Rule. Which is precisely what Matthew was talking about.

The instinct needs no intelligence as its source. It is as dumb as a box of rocks. All animals exhibit some form of it. Even bats exhibit altruistic behaviour and I wouldn’t call a bat a great example of moral behaviour.

Again, paychopaths disregard altruism unless it benefits them individually. They are not wrong to do so because they themselves don’t win even if their altruistic action or sacrifice contributes to genes like theirs going on after them. They are not concerned with that, nor can I think of a utilitarian reason why they should. They will not be alive to enjoy the fruitfulness and success of genes like theirs. Plus, psychopathic and selfish (or immoral) behavior can sometimes ensure that your genes get spread wider and longer within humanity. What if I thought “I owe no woman commitment. Commitment is stupid. I can have as many one night stands as I want with as many women as I fancy. Secondarily, that will produce a lot more offspring than my more morally sound counterparts AND I won’t have my lifespan shortened by all the extra hard work and stress that accompanies parenthood.” Ever hear that Ghengis Khan has remnants of his own genes in like 8% of the population because of all the women he raped? Not a moral guy.

I’m not concerned with the mechanics of how morality could have come into existence through evolution. I’m concerned with whether or not it is actually rational to be concerned with morality.

 

[Bradski]

Sorry to quote your same statement twice, but I wanted to zero in on the above statement and first agree with you since I have noticed those thoughts in myself when thinking about moral reasoning, but I’d VERY much like to point out that psychopaths have a perfect solution to this when faced with that fear: disregard it. A psychopath knows with a fair amount of certainty that he likely WON’T ever be in the same predicament, so there is really no reason why he shouldn’t stomp the little guy if he derives some benefit from it. Sure, he knows that if everyone in society behaves this way, then he would be I trouble, but he also knows that most everyone in society DOESN’T behave that way, so there is nothing to fear.

He’s not wrong.

Unless…

Unless human beings having intrinsic value is a truth that is outside of humanity. Unless another human being’s intrinsic value is real regardless of whether or not it is useful to me. Morality has to be more than utilitarian.

A psycopath is simply an example of someone that doesn’t have these feelings that some things are wrong. They are excellent exceptions that prove the rule. And bear in mind that people who are not psycopaths still know that if they steal or rape then they are doing something wrong. They have just decided that either the punishment is worth the risk or that they won’t be caught. These ‘rules’ are not compulsory, obviously.

But again, with the exception of psychopaths, the sense of what is the best thing to do is innate. And note that I said the best thing, not the right thing. It’s just that the two terms have become synonymous. We inherantly have the sense that some things are good and some are bad and we call those things right and wrong.

Bear in mind that it is quite common in the animal world for the new born to be killed and eaten by the mother or the father. The reasons why they do this are EXACTLY the same as why we exhibit altruistic behaviour. It benefits the species. It’s no good trying to suckle the runt of the litter. Best get rid of it and concentrate on the ones that are likely to make it.

And I guarantee that at some distant point in our history, we did the same. No doubt about it. And it was the bst thing to do, although today we would baulk at describing it as such and would certainly deny that it was the right thing.

Why did we change? Because the civilising effects of those other instincts allowed us to form groups and then tribes and then towns and we were more able to look after the runt. Our sense of morality changed.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not concerned with the mechanics of how morality could have come into existence through evolution. I’m concerned with whether or not it is actually rational to be concerned with morality.

You might as well ask if it is rational to be concerned with jealousy or your desire for sugar or while you salivate when you smell food or why adolescents think of nothing but the opposite sex.