If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[ThinkingSapien]

As of course are rules against murder part of another moral code, but how do we know that breaking a rule in one code is worse than breaking a different rule in a different code? How, for example, can we say that murder is worse than kicking your ball out of the rough to improve your lie?

Good question.

The view of how severe an act some one has committed by breaking a rule is heavily influenced by the expected or possible consequences of breaking that rule and the value that one ascribes to those consequences. As humans our ability to predict the future and the consequences of actions is limited, so those expectations are only a tool and not a guarantee. An act that otherwise isn’t viewed as a moral transgression can still be viewed as a wrong doing if a person holds feelings of guilt for the consequences. An act for which the consequences are far separated from the act may not be seen as a moral decision, such as purchasing a service or good from an entity who uses part of the money to engage in an act that is seen as immoral or destructive. If the purchaser has no knowledge of the consequences then morality isn’t a consideration. If the person does have knowledge of the consequences then the purchase can become a moral decision. In either case the act (making or not making a purchase) is the same.

 

[Spock]

At any rate, I think the concept of “it is wrong to take away something that belongs to me” is inherent in all human beings. Just give a 6 year old a piece of candy, and then take it away and see what happens. In all societies. All throughout history. Same thing. Same behavior. It’s a natural sense of injustice that all of us have.

No, this is also not true. Simple, let’s say “primitive” societies did not have a concept of “mine”. They shared everything, food, shelter, weapons, women, children… some “primitive” tribes even today don’t have a concept on “property” - at least not until they have been polluted by the more “advanced” tribes (nations).

 

[PRmerger]

No, this is also not true. Simple, let’s say “primitive” societies did not have a concept of “mine”. They shared everything, food, shelter, weapons, women, children… some “primitive” tribes even today don’t have a concept on “property” - at least not until they have been polluted by the more “advanced” tribes (nations).

No argument with you here, Spock.

But I dare you to try to give a 6 yr old in this “primitive” society a piece of candy and then take it away, and see what happens.

 

[Spock]

So what argument can you make that someone should not behave that way if it was to his benefit to do so?

Why should I argue against selfishness? It is their prerogative as long as they do not actively hurt others. When they step over the line, the people who are being hurt, will get together and take corrective actions.

As of course are rules against murder part of another moral code, but how do we know that breaking a rule in one code is worse than breaking a different rule in a different code? How, for example, can we say that murder is worse than kicking your ball out of the rough to improve your lie?

Generally the severity of an action is decided by the possibility of reversing of the act, and the consequences of the act. Based upon the biological need of seeking pleasure and the biological necessity to avoid pain, we classify the severity of these actions based upon how much pain they inflict on others. There is also a technological factor involved. If we could revive a slaughtered person, then “murder” would not carry as much weight as it does now. Now these are very simple and obvious arguments. If you would just think about them, you would arrive at the same result.

 

[Spock]

No argument with you here, Spock.

But I dare you to try to give a 6 yr old in this “primitive” society a piece of candy and then take it away, and see what happens.

It all depends on how these children are indoctrinated. By the age of 6, the concept of “mine” may or may not have developed. Just for fun, also consider that children who have never been exposed to chocolates find the taste: “sweet” quite disgusting. It is also an acquired “taste” long so many other things we happen to take for granted… strange, but true. Quite contrary to that nonsense about some “natural law inscribed unto our hearts”, which is being repeated ad-nauseam (I am already starting to puke when I see it).

 

[exnihilo]

No, they do not. And even if they “claimed”, what of it? A claim is just a claim. Here is a local ordinance for you: “it is illegal to feed someone else’s parking meter”. I am not kidding, this ordinance exists. So there are laws which prohibit helping someone else. What kind of morality would that be?

Now I’m really getting confused. You seem to be saying that there is some true morality and you can judge true moral claims and others can not. We cant rely on the traditional understanding of morality which involves the rather simple concept that some things are right and some things wrong.

Regarding this parking law I would disagree with it and think it is revenue generating. But there is a moral argument for it. The lack of awareness of this reasoning can be understood by your misunderstanding of the Golden Rule. Your misunderstanding is common, even among Christians. But it leads to many great errors in thinking.

Besides the two versions of the golden rule are not specific, they are pretty vague. The direct one simply says: “be nice to others”, the inverted one one says: “don’t be mean to others”. So, even if “all” societies adhere to them, the rule is so generic that it is next to meaningless. They must be “translated” to specifics before they can be addressed in a meaningful fashion.

This is a simple and wrong understanding of the rule. If it were actually this it would be unremarkable and a rather worthless rule. The moral claim of the Golden Rule (GR) is so much more than what you make it out to be.

The GR says to do unto other as you would have done unto you. But what is unsaid, but so and must be, is that the analysis must be done as if all parties are acting morally.

This important attribute is easily demonstrated. If the GR meant the simple idea then a criminal when caught should be let free because the legal authorities could say to themselves ‘if I were a criminal I’d want to be saved from my punishment’. Such a rule would then become a tyranny since criminals would avoid punishment and thus actually be encouraged to crime.

What should occur is the legal authorities should say ‘if I were a moral criminal then how should I be treated’. And the answer would be to suffer reasonable punishment for my misdeeds. This means a punishment that is not too severe or too lenient. Of course this is always dependent on the circumstances because all morality, in any system, is dependent on the circumstances. What punishment is just right can be hard to determine, but that is the goal.

When the GR is claimed to be just being nice and not mean it loses its potency. And your mind ignores the rather important concept of justice.

This relates to your parking meter law. The law has every right to say that you can not help someone to avoid the just punishment for violating the law. In fact throughout the law there is a concept that it is wrong to help people get away with a crime. And if the GR is in force then the person who violated the law and stayed too long at a metered space should realize that they were in violation and accept the punishment for this because that is what the moral person would do.

This is how this law is justified and it has a moral argument. Whether or not this law is good in a particular case depends on the circumstances. If there was a person who fed meters on a block all day thus allowing people who parked there early in the morning to not pay the true cost of what they take and thus keep others from being able to use the spaces then this act would be wrong.

Laws have nothing to do with morals. Whatever some people (lawmakers) wish to put into laws and which pass judicical muster will become laws. Sure, the lawmakers will assert “something”. But they do not reflect the “prevailing opinion” in every case. Mostly they are elected because the other side is even less palatable. In the US there are laws against importing non-US-approved drugs for personal use even if those drugs might save the person’s life, and even if those drugs are already approved in the originating country (Canada or Europe, for example).

I agree that many, maybe even most, laws are passed for rent seeking purposes. But they are always presented as good using a moral argument. And it must be pretty convincing because people keep electing politicians, who want to pass laws to cover most human activity (with the sole exception of abortion and formerly immoral sex acts), based on the good things these laws will do. If people weren’t convinced by such flimsy arguments then they would not elect these politicians in the first place. So you run into a problem with your ‘prevailing opinion’ argument because democracy gives us a clear idea of prevailing opinion.

Most people want to put people in jail for growing, selling, or using drugs that are not made by a corporation and prescribed by a doctor (who in essence is taking his cut of the action). Most people want to disallow a business from hiring whoever it wills or engaging in trade with whomever it wills. I disagree with these laws but the people who dont, who are the majority, believe these laws describe right behavior and not conforming to them is doing wrong or immoral.

 

[exnihilo]

Generally the severity of an action is decided by the possibility of reversing of the act, and the consequences of the act. Based upon the biological need of seeking pleasure and the biological necessity to avoid pain, we classify the severity of these actions based upon how much pain they inflict on others. There is also a technological factor involved. If we could revive a slaughtered person, then “murder” would not carry as much weight as it does now. Now these are very simple and obvious arguments. If you would just think about them, you would arrive at the same result.

What about someone who has the biological need to have sex with young children? How do you classify that as immoral? What rule do you bend to do that?

How does murder always cause pain? I’m sure sometimes dying causes pain, but not always. People will often say that a person did not suffer in death. In fact dying people, from murder, often suffer far less than those who die of a prolonged illness. So if a murder does not cause pain how is it wrong, under your system?

 

[Spock]

Now I’m really getting confused. You seem to be saying that there is some true morality and you can judge true moral claims and others can not. We cant rely on the traditional understanding of morality which involves the rather simple concept that some things are right and some things wrong.

To be precise: “some things under certain circumstances are right, while under different circumstances they might be wrong”.

The GR says to do unto other as you would have done unto you.

Not exactly. There are two variant of the rule, the direct and the inverse. The direct one says what you quoted: “do unto others as you would them do unto you” - translation: “be nice to others, because you want them to be nice to you”. The inverse rule says: “do NOT do onto others as you would NOT want them unto you” - translation: “do not be bad / unkind / mean to others”. But these are generic guidelines only.

If the GR meant the simple idea then a criminal when caught should be let free because the legal authorities could say to themselves ‘if I were a criminal I’d want to be saved from my punishment’. Such a rule would then become a tyranny since criminals would avoid punishment and thus actually be encouraged to crime.

You try to apply the rule where it is inapplicable. The rules are designed to be guidelines for interacting between people under normal circumstances. Since the criminal already did “unto others, what they did not want them to be done”, therefore the criminal already forfeited his “right” to be treated as he would like to be treated.

This relates to your parking meter law. The law has every right to say that you can not help someone to avoid the just punishment for violating the law. In fact throughout the law there is a concept that it is wrong to help people get away with a crime.

Except there is no “crime” there. If your co-worker is at a long meeting, and cannot take a 10 min break to feed his meter, then your helping hand is not a “crime” in any sense. Don’t forget, everyone is allowed to keep on feeding his own meter.

If people weren’t convinced by such flimsy arguments then they would not elect these politicians in the first place. So you run into a problem with your ‘prevailing opinion’ argument because democracy gives us a clear idea of prevailing opinion.

Actually we do not live in a democracy (I am talking about the US). The definition of democracy is “two wolves and one sheep take a vote about the dinner menu tonight - and the majority rules”. In the US there is a constitutional republic, where neither the majority nor a minority can violate the declared rights of others. (In theory, of course, in reality the trampling of other people’s rights is prevalent.) And most people are simply two apathetic to follow the process and do not vote at all. So you cannot really argue that since the people keep on “accepting” what the politicians dish out, therefore they are in agreement with the laws.

Most people want to put people in jail for growing, selling, or using drugs that are not made by a corporation and prescribed by a doctor (who in essence is taking his cut of the action). Most people want to disallow a business from hiring whoever it wills or engaging in trade with whomever it wills. I disagree with these laws but the people who dont, who are the majority, believe these laws describe right behavior and not conforming to them is doing wrong or immoral.

Well, no one said that we live in a perfect society. Funny that you disagree with these laws (I do, too!), and still say that we should conform to them, because doing otherwise is immoral. Of course the proper way to change them is at the ballot-box. But up until it can be done, a nice and quiet civil disobedience action can and should be used. Also funny that based upon this principle I support the peaceful demonstration in front of the abortion clinics (no matter how strongly I disagree with the protesters).

If we would wish to make a one sentence summary of my preferred legal system (that is what we have been talking about for a while now), it would be: “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. As long as people do not hurt others, they should be allowed to do whatever they please.

 

[Spock]

What about someone who has the biological need to have sex with young children? How do you classify that as immoral? What rule do you bend to do that?

Children cannot consent.

How does murder always cause pain? I’m sure sometimes dying causes pain, but not always. People will often say that a person did not suffer in death. In fact dying people, from murder, often suffer far less than those who die of a prolonged illness. So if a murder does not cause pain how is it wrong, under your system?

People do not want to be killed either. There was a very strange event a few years ago. Two people agreed that one of them will kill the other, and afterwards eat the meat of the killed one. Since it was done with mutual agreement, it was their business. If someone wishes to be helped out of their misery - assisted suicide or euthanasia - it is also their business.

 

[Ender]

Good question.

Thank you … but I don’t think you answered it. I want to know how one can determine whether breaking rule A is as bad as breaking rule B. In the specific example I gave, tell me why murder is worse than cheating at golf. It may seem a silly example - until someone tries to answer it.

Ender

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Children cannot consent.

Nonsense. They are able to permit, approve, or agree to an action. You must mean that they cannot provide* legal* consent to sex, which can exist in various forms in different jurisdictions.

 

[exnihilo]

You try to apply the rule where it is inapplicable. The rules are designed to be guidelines for interacting between people under normal circumstances. Since the criminal already did “unto others, what they did not want them to be done”, therefore the criminal already forfeited his “right” to be treated as he would like to be treated.

So the GR is a universal rule that only applies sometimes? That hardly seems right. What are normal circumstances? Are not violating the rules normal (not right because that is something else) since that is what humans do?

Except there is no “crime” there. If your co-worker is at a long meeting, and cannot take a 10 min break to feed his meter, then your helping hand is not a “crime” in any sense. Don’t forget, everyone is allowed to keep on feeding his own meter.

In your scenario there is no crime. In mine there is. Morality is always about the circumstances. I pointed out there is a situation which would make this law good. I would think the law bad only because it can punish good situations and is just too hard to enforce justly and efficiently.

Actually we do not live in a democracy (I am talking about the US). The definition of democracy is “two wolves and one sheep take a vote about the dinner menu tonight - and the majority rules”. In the US there is a constitutional republic, where neither the majority nor a minority can violate the declared rights of others. (In theory, of course, in reality the trampling of other people’s rights is prevalent.) And most people are simply two apathetic to follow the process and do not vote at all. So you cannot really argue that since the people keep on “accepting” what the politicians dish out, therefore they are in agreement with the laws.

Well, no one said that we live in a perfect society. Funny that you disagree with these laws (I do, too!), and still say that we should conform to them, because doing otherwise is immoral. Of course the proper way to change them is at the ballot-box. But up until it can be done, a nice and quiet civil disobedience action can and should be used. Also funny that based upon this principle I support the peaceful demonstration in front of the abortion clinics (no matter how strongly I disagree with the protesters).

If we would wish to make a one sentence summary of my preferred legal system (that is what we have been talking about for a while now), it would be: “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. As long as people do not hurt others, they should be allowed to do whatever they please.

I think America is a democracy. It is a representative democracy. I agree it was founded as a constitutional republic. But that is no longer the form of government.

I do not vote because I do not approve of the system. I contend that anyone who votes is approving of the system. Of course that is another topic altogether. But I do not think you can so easily dismiss my contention about the law and morality. Many people wanted, and voted for politicians who support, public health care. They did this because they claim we have a moral obligation to provide people with health care.

I would probably generally agree with you about how far the law should go. What is interesting is that early America, with its relative freedom, was very much a Christian nation. There were laws about sex, blue laws and so on but there were not the same restrictions on trade, association etc. It is under the liberal secularism that the number of laws have exploded to cover most areas of human activity (except for sex and abortion).

 

[Ender]

Why should I argue against selfishness? It is their prerogative as long as they do not actively hurt others. When they step over the line, the people who are being hurt, will get together and take corrective actions.

Again, you deflect the question by insisting that it is never truly in one’s interest to act in a way that is harmful to others. That simply isn’t true but even if it was you still have no argument that one should ever act in a way that isn’t in his own best interest. For example, suppose I find a wallet filled with money. What argument do you have that I should return the money instead of taking the cash and tossing the rest?

Generally the severity of an action is decided by the possibility of reversing of the act, and the consequences of the act.

We’re not addressing the severity of an action but its morality; you keep redefining the problem. If I shoot at someone and miss the consequences are nil … does that make that act more moral than stealing a dollar?

Ender

 

[PRmerger]

It all depends on how these children are indoctrinated.

'zactly.

Do you see what you just said, Spock?

Without being “indoctrinated” into their culture’s norms, a child will understand that what is taken away from her is injustice.

By the age of 6, the concept of “mine” may or may not have developed.

Ok. We’ll change it to a 2 yr old. Try to take away a toy from a 2 yr old and see what happens.

Even at 2yrs old she gets the injustice of this!

Just for fun, also consider that children who have never been exposed to chocolates find the taste: “sweet” quite disgusting. It is also an acquired “taste” long so many other things we happen to take for granted… strange, but true.

'kay.

So chocolate is not a universal love.

I don’t get it, but I suppose there are some weird folks out there who don’t get the ecstasy of chocolate. :whacky:

Quite contrary to that nonsense about some “natural law inscribed unto our hearts”, which is being repeated ad-nauseam (I am already starting to puke when I see it).

Your nausea to this concept is quite peculiar.

At any rate, there is indeed a natural law inscribed unto our hearts, and if you can provide an example of a society that declares that it is virtuous and moral to be cowardly, then perhaps you will be able to disprove our assertion.

But try as you might, you have not been able to find any examples of societies that do not submit to this natural law.

 

[PRmerger]

To be precise: “some things under certain circumstances are right, while under different circumstances they might be wrong”.

So, Spock, is this a moral norm that you’re proposing above?

 

[exnihilo]

Children cannot consent.

How is that so? And if so, how is it that at a arbitrary age they suddenly can?

I do not agree that children can not consent. Of course they can. You might say they can not make informed consent. But then suddenly society is determining for the individual when he has enough moral knowledge to make certain decisions.

People do not want to be killed either. There was a very strange event a few years ago. Two people agreed that one of them will kill the other, and afterwards eat the meat of the killed one. Since it was done with mutual agreement, it was their business. If someone wishes to be helped out of their misery - assisted suicide or euthanasia - it is also their business.

Most people do not want to be killed. But your argument was about pain being the measure of morality.

Also not many moralists who say anything consensual is OK were pleading for the state not to prosecute the killer and cannibal.

 

[PRmerger]

No, they do not. And even if they “claimed”, what of it? A claim is just a claim. Here is a local ordinance for you: “it is illegal to feed someone else’s parking meter”. I am not kidding, this ordinance exists. So there are laws which prohibit helping someone else. What kind of morality would that be?

Interesting…

So, it would seem, you’re proposing that it is a good and virtuous thing to help someone else then by feeding someone else’s meter? Why should someone do that?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;8159594:

Good question.

The view of how severe an act some one has committed by breaking a rule is heavily influenced by the expected or possible consequences of breaking that rule and the value that one ascribes to those consequences.

Thank you … but I don’t think you answered it. I want to know how one can determine whether breaking rule A is as bad as breaking rule B. In the specific example I gave, tell me why murder is worse than cheating at golf. It may seem a silly example - until someone tries to answer it.

I thought that I did answer the question. I will try to reword it. But keep in mind that you’ve provided an abstract scenario so at best I can give an abstract answer that is based on the details that you have shared about your scenario. I’m making some unenumerated assumptions in trying to answer the question (ex: I am assuming the person deciding if A is worst than B isn’t psychotic and that the person doing the evaluation doesn’t hold some strong prejudice against the person being murdered, I am assuming that “murder” as used here is not being used to talk about executing a person that has committed mass killings, so on). If the scenario definition is refined or any of these assumptions are broken then my answer could also be refined or changed to match the scenario definition. People think radically different. And as I write this I think about a case where some one killed some one else because of an undesired outcome of an xbox football game. I am also assuming that there’s not some unusual consequence attached to the acts such as some one playing a game of golf and if they don’t win against a cheater than something bad will happen to a loved one.

I would expect some one to evaluate murder as being a worst act than cheating at golf.

The expected outcome for performing an act is an influencing factor in a person deciding to themselves whether or not A is worst than B. The expected outcome of committing murder starts with with the loss of the person who looses their life but doesn’t end there. There is also pain and suffering experienced by the friends, family, and other’s connected to the person that was murdered and potential discomfort, fear, and feelings of insecurity from those that are in physical proximity of where the murder occurred. Once some one’s life is lost there is no way to get it back. The expected consequences of cheating at a golf game (and getting caught) would likely be centered on one’s integrity and if discovered it may be possible to remedy the situation through actions such as removing the person that cheated from the game. Someone with a “no harm no foul” philosophy might think little of cheating at all if that person does not perceive that any harm was done.

 

[Ender]

I’m making some unenumerated assumptions in trying to answer the question…

Yes, make the obvious assumptions; I’m not trying to be tricky here.

I would expect some one to evaluate murder as being a worst act than cheating at golf.

I’m sure we can define many ways in which murder is worse, but we are trying to determine if murder is more immoral, an important distinction unless you are claiming that morality is determined by outcomes.

The expected outcome for performing an act is an influencing factor in a person deciding to themselves whether or not A is worst than B.

If the expected outcome is good for me what is your argument that I shouldn’t do it despite the fact that it may be very bad for you?

The expected outcome of committing murder starts with with the loss of the person who looses their life but doesn’t end there. There is also pain and suffering experienced by the friends, family, and other’s connected to the person that was murdered and potential discomfort, fear, and feelings of insecurity from those that are in physical proximity of where the murder occurred.

Clearly all this is true … what is not clear is why I should care. Much of what you described would also be true of someone who is executed (or even imprisoned) but we don’t hold such punishments to be immoral. You have still not presented guidelines that allow me to determine moral from immoral acts. I suspect you are not simply a consequentialist, believing that which produces “good” outcomes is moral and that which produces “bad” outcomes is immoral, so how can I know good from evil?

Ender

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I hope you don’t mind me quoting you out of order. But I wanted to group some relevant parts.

but we are trying to determine if murder is more immoral, an important distinction unless you are claiming that morality is determined by outcomes…You have still not presented guidelines that allow me to determine moral from immoral acts. I suspect you are not simply a consequentialist, believing that which produces “good” outcomes is moral and that which produces “bad” outcomes is immoral, so how can I know good from evil?

Nope, it’s not consequentialism. The emphasis on consequences before performing an act would lean more towards good will and good intentions which one might classify as a form of deontologism (msp). Someone that attempts to do something with good intentions that results in a negative outcome hasn’t made a moral violation according to this view.

The only guideline I can give you is to take others into consideration before acting and make efforts not to injure another persons health, autonomy, or other aspects of their well being and try to maintain honesty when ever possible.

If the expected outcome is good for me what is your argument that I shouldn’t do it despite the fact that it may be very bad for you?

Depends on what you mean by that question. If you are asking if ethical egoism is compatible with what I described then the answer is “no” since it excludes consideration of others. If you are asking why would you be obligated to follow such a system of behaviour without enforcement the answer is that there’s nothing obligating people to behave this way (as we can see from the world around us there is no shortage of people that don’t act this way). If you are asking what might motivate you to behave this way the motivation would come from value that you hold in the well being of others. More on that in the next section.

That’s not to say that you should be totally selfless and never pursue self interests.

There will be competitive situations in which there is no outcome that is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. In such situations I can’t provide a universal way of weighing the suffering of those involved for making a decision.

Clearly all this is true … what is not clear is why I should care. Much of what you described would also be true of someone who is executed (or even imprisoned) but we don’t hold such punishments to be immoral.

If one holds value in the well being of other humans (including those that are not closely associated with him or herself) then there is some common ground on which to discuss these things. But there exists people that have no concern for the well being of others at all. We call such people “sociopaths” or would say they have “anti-social personality disorder.” For a person that has such a disposition I have no clue how one would get through to them and there is little common ground on which to agree. A person with such a disorder can be an almost perfect example of some one implementing egoism. There are people that specialize in that but it isn’t without it’s challenges. Some sociopaths can learn how to react to make an evaluator believe he or she is “making progress” for the sake of passing a psychiatric evaluation.