If there Is no God, Heaven, or objective moral value, Why survive?

[MindOverMatter2]

what is terrible, horrifying and depressing to me, as a subjective being, is that so few people exercise any sense of value for their fellows - precisely because it is no longer the norm to seek comfort in others, but only competition and enmity.

This is no more or less than the expression of your personal taste. You like marmite; but somebody else does not. You can only expect atoms to behave like atoms, nothing more.

I would only expect people to do good towards other people because people have objective moral value.

if I seek the comfort of companions because I need to, emotionally, how is this worth less than if I seek it because I somehow rationally decide that it’s the “right” thing to do?

Good by definition is to give what is owed to a things nature. To be selfish is to retain what ought to be given. Otherwise such ideas are meaningless, and it is irrational to have expectations about how a human should behave. There is no such thing as a selfish or good atom. There are simply events. We can either be true to the nature of those events or live in a fantasy.

If I give comfort to others because I feel empathy for them and because I recognize that this is what I would want from them were I in their circumstances,

People are empathetic because they think its good to be, not simply because they want to be treated a certain way. Given naturalism, empathy is delusional outside of a utility-value advantage. All you are saying is that you behave towards people in a certain way because you would like to be treated a certain way, but there is no guarantee that if you were in a bad situation that people would treat you with value. So why care for that which has no value when it has no advantage? You certainly cannot say that it is “good” to have empathy; except in a utility-value sense. True Naturalism, assuming that it is rational to survive, is in denial of any meaning beyond that which is advantages in the context of finite survival; because anything else is just meaningless emotional blackmail. All that can be said here is that you blindly respond to emotion without thinking whether its is rational to do so or not.

is this worth more or less, in your view, than some rational calculation of their objective value? If others value you because you make them feel good, isn’t that cause for you to feel happy and satisfied in their companionship?

No, because if that is true, then i am just an expendable product to them; an object that they can use for their satisfaction until i am no-longer entertaining or necessary for the fulfillment of their ego fantasy. Feel free to embrace that life if you wish. Thats not my kind of thing, since i don’t believe that it either respects or fulfills my personal nature.

Personally, I don’t want people to simply recognize that I am valuable - I want them to feel that I value them also

You have a utility value for them, and if they knew that, you will find that most people will not respect you.

 

[Sair]

I would only expect people to do good towards other people because people have objective moral value.

If that’s what it takes for you to treat others decently, I’m happy for you to go on believing so.

Good by definition is to give what is owed to a things nature. To be selfish is to retain what ought to be given. Otherwise such ideas are meaningless, and it is irrational to have expectations about how a human should behave. There is no such thing as a selfish or good atom. There are simply events. We can either be true to the nature of those events or live in a fantasy.

Good by definition is what we subjectively value as good - no matter how much you try to pin it down to some kind of independent meaning, ‘good’ is simply an adjective we apply from our own perspective. It is good for the lion if he kills and eats the villager; not so good from the point of view of the other villagers. In any case, it’s still part of the objective nature of the lion to kill humans when he is ageing and unable to chase down swifter prey. Is it therefore good, in your view, for the lion to kill and eat the human?

Events are events - it’s the way we, as subjective beings, respond to events that determines whether they are good or bad, from our perspective. One might even say that understanding of this feature of humanity is indeed what is due to our nature - and right now, you are not giving it!

True Naturalism, assuming that it is rational to survive, is in denial of any meaning beyond that which is advantages in the context of finite survival; because anything else is just meaningless emotional blackmail. All that can be said here is that you blindly respond to emotion without thinking whether its is rational to do so or not.

True naturalism is concerned with what exists in nature - it is not, in itself, a form of moral calculus or a vehicle for constructing meaning. The fact of the matter is that subjectivity is perfectly natural, and regardless of whether it is just electrochemical processes, it is no less part of what we are, as human beings, than rational computation. Emotions provide motivation to act in ways that may benefit us. Rationality allows us to determine if our emotions are actually directing us towards such benefit. Accept it or not, as you like, but if you mean to privilege reason over emotion, you would have to demonstrate that the former is objectively superior to the latter - and I don’t see how you would go about doing so. Even the greatest thinkers make mistakes, often because they don’t account for emotion…

 

[Sair]

So this is purely a matter of utility for you. You prefer to be the giver of value according to what you see fit. If so you cannot expect other people not to do the same, and everybody’s subjective idea of value need not conform to yours.

This might hold if humans were purely rational, coldly calculating beings. Generally we refer to such people as psychopaths - those who lack empathy. People respond emotionally to the actions of others towards them, and these emotional responses influence behaviour, often a lot more deeply than mere ratiocination.

 

[Sair]

In any case we’d agree its built into us-theologians call it the “Natural Law”. So I could modify your statement and say that some people simply come to recognize the source of it.

I would be inclined to dispute that what theologians recognise as ‘natural law’ is anything as concrete as a specific set of “acceptable” behaviours that spans all humans, for all time, anywhere - after all, any cultural pattern of behaviour can be labelled as ‘natural law’ without a moment’s thought that there might be others who live differently. Be that as it may, some people do indeed recognise the source of morality as something other than a benevolent god - as cultural conditioning of biological proclivities. Generally speaking, this does not diminish said people’s inclination to act according to their inbuilt moral compass.

 

[tonyrey]

This might hold if humans were purely rational, coldly calculating beings. Generally we refer to such people as psychopaths - those who lack empathy. People respond emotionally to the actions of others towards them, and these emotional responses influence behaviour, often a lot more deeply than mere ratiocination.

It is rather inconsistent to state that others lack empathy when you are prepared to save the life of your dog rather the life of a person you haven’t met…

 

[Flyingg]

Why not survive?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If that’s what it takes for you to treat others decently, I’m happy for you to go on believing so.

If utility value is what it takes for you to behave decently then I can only say I am sorry for you.

Good by definition is what we subjectively value as good -

This is just relativism posing as morality. It does not tell me what is good, it just tells me what you like, and what you give utility value to.

True naturalism is concerned with what exists in nature

Correct

it is not, in itself, a form of moral calculus or a vehicle for constructing meaning.

I never said it was. I said that if you are consistent with naturalism then you have to recognise that a lot of things we take for granted has no rational meaning in the sense of being consistent with reality. Its no more rational than responding to a person that doesn’t exist. Moral truth does not exist, and thus it is irrational to respond to guilt with an honest sense of remorse that has no utility agenda attached to it. Emotional blackmail is only possible if you give meaning to those emotions. There is no rational reason to beyond utility value; assuming that its rational to survive.

To give meaning to that which has no meaning is to participate in make-belief/fantasy.

The fact of the matter is that subjectivity is perfectly natural,

Its irrelevant that its an attribute of our nature to feel emotion. What is relevant is whether or not it is rational to respond to those emotions beyond a sense of utility-value. If not then empathy is meaningless and irrational unless cast in the context of utility value/material benefit assuming that it is rational to survive.

Emotions provide motivation to act in ways that may benefit us.

Often it does not. You only need look at world history.

Rationality allows us to determine if our emotions are actually directing us towards such benefit.

Here you at least admit that in-order to be rational we must consider if our emotional behaviour is rationally consistent. Given metaphysical naturalism, I argue that its rationally inconsistent to respond to any emotion, since emotions do not reflect the objective nature of reality. If it is irrational to respond positively to any emotion, then it follows from this that to respond to the desire for life is also irrational.

 

[tonyrey]

I would be inclined to dispute that what theologians recognise as ‘natural law’ is anything as concrete as a specific set of “acceptable” behaviours that spans all humans, for all time, anywhere - after all, any cultural pattern of behaviour can be labelled as ‘natural law’ without a moment’s thought that there might be others who live differently. Be that as it may, some people do indeed recognise the source of morality as something other than a benevolent god - as cultural conditioning of biological proclivities. Generally speaking, this does not diminish said people’s inclination to act according to their inbuilt moral compass.

If we are to judge by results those who reject God in favour of “cultural conditioning of biological proclivities” use their “liberation from superstition” to take the opportunity to act according to their selfish preferences, e.g. to save a dog’s life rather than a human’s…

 

[tonyrey]

Why not survive?

Without a reason?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is rather inconsistent to state that others lack empathy when you are prepared to save the life of your dog rather the life of a person you haven’t met…

That doesn’t look inconsistent. There are some competing motivations in that scenario. Concern for ones own safety, concern for the friend(dog), and concern for the stranger. If one could assure the safety of all three by flipping a switch I would expect the person to do so. But that isn’t the case for this scenario. Some one can have empathy for the dog and the stranger and if the situation only allows one to be saved we can’t infer from that there was/is no empathy for the unsaved life.

Sent from my phone. Please pardon my mistakes.

 

[tonyrey]

That doesn’t look inconsistent. There are some competing motivations in that scenario. Concern for ones own safety, concern for the friend(dog), and concern for the stranger. If one could assure the safety of all three by flipping a switch I would expect the person to do so. But that isn’t the case for this scenario. Some one can have empathy for the dog and the stranger and if the situation only allows one to be saved we can’t infer from that there was/is no empathy for the unsaved life.

Sent from my phone. Please pardon my mistakes.

**Would you put the life of your dog - if you have or had one - before the life of a person? **

 

[Protector]

MindOverMatter2;8619814] Is there any rational basis for survival?

May I venture to suggest that the survival instinct has a lot to do with it.
Now I hope that I am amongst friends here when I say that I hold to the view that plants and animals (with the possible exception of Balaam’s donkey) have no knowledge of, “God, Heaven, or objective moral values”, but many, if not all, of them have the God-given survival instinct, and the instinctual mysterious desire to, “Be fruitful and multiply”. But, “Ah!”, I hear you say, “Instinct is not rational.” The following link would seem to contradict your (as yet unstated) objection.

      Is Instinct Rational? Are Animals Intelligent? - CSJ Archive

( really can’t get the hang of url’s, so just whack that sentence in your Google box O.K?).

Other than the above I must say that I certainly would not wish to survive in a world without God and Heaven (objective moral value would be a given if God were known to exist).

I would agree with St.Paul when he says,

“If (according to man) I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me, if the dead rise not again? Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall die.” 1 Corinthians 15:32 (D-R)

Protector.

 

[tonyrey]

Given metaphysical naturalism, I argue that its rationally inconsistent to respond to any emotion, since emotions do not reflect the objective nature of reality. If it is irrational to respond positively to any emotion, then it follows from this that to respond to the desire for life is also irrational.

In practice the naturalist simply does that which is most “natural” for himself or herself! Wouldn’t you if you thought you are just an animal? Our beliefs determine to a large extent our behaviour. For example, if you don’t believe in free will or willpower you’re far more likely to take the line of least resistance, e.g. “I can’t resist that temptation. Let’s have a good time!” Or “I’m going to die anyway. I might as well have a glass of whisky, smoke a cigar and take an overdose before life gets too grim!” :hey_bud:

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Is there any rational basis for survival?

None. It is God who informs our lives, whether we acknowledge Him as God or not.

 

[Sair]

In practice the naturalist simply does that which is most “natural” for himself or herself! Wouldn’t you if you thought you are just an animal? Our beliefs determine to a large extent our behaviour. For example, if you don’t believe in free will or willpower you’re far more likely to take the line of least resistance, e.g. “I can’t resist that temptation. Let’s have a good time!” Or “I’m going to die anyway. I might as well have a glass of whisky, smoke a cigar and take an overdose before life gets too grim!” :hey_bud:

How interesting that you consider belief to be a determinant of not just behaviour, but the real context in which that behaviour takes place.

Do you suppose that a naturalist automatically discounts subjective motivation as irrational and therefore irrelevant to his or her life? It’s almost as if you’re claiming that subjectivity is not part of nature…

 

[Sair]

Its no more rational than responding to a person that doesn’t exist.

Well, my irony metre just tipped into the red…

 

[Sair]

It is rather inconsistent to state that others lack empathy when you are prepared to save the life of your dog rather the life of a person you haven’t met…

How would I empathise with a person I’ve never met? It says a lot about you - not much of it complimentary - that you would ignore the welfare of a nonhuman sentient being within your affective reach, in favour of an otherwise unknown human entity outside of that reach, just because of the happenstance of species.

 

[Flyingg]

Without a reason?

Says who? Everyone have their goals in life and reasons to live.

 

[Sair]

If we are to judge by results those who reject God in favour of “cultural conditioning of biological proclivities” use their “liberation from superstition” to take the opportunity to act according to their selfish preferences, e.g. to save a dog’s life rather than a human’s…

Then you don’t construe it as selfish to regard one’s own species as superior to all others? How odd…

 

[Flyingg]

**Would you put the life of your dog - if you have or had one - before the life of a person? **

Of course I do, and it depends on who the person is. IF it’s a stranger and my dog, and I have to pick one to save. For sure ill pick my dog.