Is there a rational basis for morality in a purposeless universe?

[tonyrey]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

 

[Sair]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

One might well ask, even if one believes God commanded a particular set of behaviours, what rational reason is there for adhering to said behaviours?

Fear of punishment and desire for reward might do it - both perfectly rational - but as I recall, this is generally considered a lesser reason for following divine command than pure love of God. Is love a rational condition?

There are plenty of rational justifications for moral behaviour that have nothing to do with religion. The ethic of reciprocity is perfectly rational, arising as it does from an understanding of the principle of cause and effect, which is essentially what rationality is.

 

[itullian]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

i don’t think it can. morality must come from something higher than man to be objective.
otherwise its just opinion.

 

[Portofino]

In my mind, the best alternatives to morality being grounded upon divine command, or upon objective moral laws, are those arguments for so-called humanistic behavior that are grounded in a certain conception of prudence and wisdom.

I’ll start with wisdom first. Wisdom is, in a sense, the science of happiness and flourishing. Wisdom is, by definition, a subtle understanding. It requires discernment. Based on that subtle understanding, a non-theistic philosophy such as Buddhism, or a non-theistic philosophy such as that of Spinoza, has concluded:

–anger, jealousy, inordinate desire, addiction, fear, hatred, are painful emotions, that consume their possessor
–self-control and moderation are advantageous, complete lack of control disadvantageous
–self-awareness is advantageous, ignorance of self, disadvantageous
–living with others in peace and harmony procures happiness; warring with others and living in disharmony and strife procures misery
–there is a link between happiness and altruism; the altruistic are happier and, in turn, those who are already happy are impelled towards altruism; the happiest human beings who have ever lived, the ones with the greatest inner peace, have also been the greatest altruists; they understand that there is more satisfaction in giving, than there is in receiving

–Pleasure is preferable to pain, but the supreme pleasure is ultimately pleasure in the mind (inner peace and satisfaction); and the supreme pain, ultimately, is pain in the mind (inner dissatisfaction, disharmony, discontent).

This is rational in the sense that, for the Buddhist, it is in our interest (i.e., procures pleasure). This is a thinking whereby “virtue is happiness”; virtue is its own reward.

Now, is there anything inherently rational about preferring life to death, or pleasure to misery? This is seemingly what you are getting at. It is tricky, though, because–for the Darwinist–the evolution of reason itself was a survival aid; if you understand reality aright, you will be better equipped to survive. Thus, the apprehension of truth has survival value, and reason itself is subordinated to survival and flourishing.

In the end, though, it must be granted that there is nothing inherently *necessary * about preferring life to death, pleasure to pain. In that sense, it is a non-rational preference. It’s just that it’s a strongly reliable base-line–a natural preference–with human beings. Even human beings who “enjoy” torture (masochists) have limits to that enjoyment; they don’t know what real torture is. And the sadists – those who enjoy inflicting pain on others – are, in the apprehension of the wise man, never those who are exemplars of great inner peace and satisfaction. One would have to be practically crazy to say that Hitler or Stalin were individuals who knew great, enduring, and profound “inner peace.” In fact, “inner peace” is laughable, regarding tyrants. Angry men are dissatisfied and have no place of rest within themselves.

Prudence, I won’t treat of, but it is the basis of our laws – the social contract. It is prudence that says, I won’t steal, rape, or kill, because I don’t want to be imprisoned. The wise man, however, does not need fear of punishment to cultivate virtue; just as the pious person does not need the fear of hell, or even the promise of heaven, in order to do what’s right.

Even there – with religious belief – pleasure or pain is the standard. It would not be “rational” to live a moral life, if I were not to be eternally rewarded in heaven or eternally punished in hell. The reward determines the rationality of it. But if I were to choose to be good regardless of any eternal reward or punishment – which, in the eyes of many, is truly moral motivation – then I would have to say that virtue is is own reward, and vice its own punishment. In other words, doing good would have to give me a deep sense of inner peace and satisfaction. For example, I do good because I love God. But I might as well say, I do good because I love my neighbor For how can we demonstrate that the love of God is “rational,” without resorting to its being in our best interest? The most we can do is to say that the love of God is natural; likewise, for the Buddhist, the love of neighbor is natural, it is how we are wired (the nature of being is inter-being and interdependence).

 

[empther]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

Man is composed of body and soul. He exists in two universes, one physical and the other spiritual.

The physical universe, taken by itself, had no rational morality,
but we are only visitors here. Our soul is immortal. Therefore, our morality is grounded on our spititual nature.

 

[Perplexity]

The atheist can be a moral platonist. He’d ground moral values and duties in forms that’d exist whether or not we did. Why do these forms exist? Because they have to. There are several ways the atheist could provide a rational foundation for morality, moral platonism is one of my favorites.

 

[empther]

The atheist can be a moral platonist. He’d ground moral values and duties in forms that’d exist whether or not we did. Why do these forms exist? Because they have to. There are several ways the atheist could provide a rational foundation for morality, moral platonism is one of my favorites.

:juggle:

:hey_bud:

:whackadoo:

 

[ReapReason]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

An existentially irrational community-pragmatism is all that is left for those who are too afraid to consider the dignified option of suicide. You scratch my back, i scratch yours. Basic animal survival.

A sad state of affairs if you ask me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

Not sure what you mean by a " purposeless " universe. Do you mean one that some suggest just started itself, organizes itself, and sustains itself? Or perhaps one like the panthiests where the universe itself is " god? " If either one is the case then you cannot make a serious case for an objective morality, or rationality because there would not be any ultimate cause for anything and thus no way to set any standards because there would be no lawgiver and no mind . What was moral or rational would be absolutely subjective. Society would devolve into either utter chaos or crushing tyranny.

The same result would obtain if the general mass of humanity believed that either alternative was true, one in which believers in the Christian God were vastly outnumbered or ostresized from public life. And we see both scenereos playing out today. Just look at the world. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[tonyrey]

One might well ask, even if one believes God commanded a particular set of behaviours, what rational reason is there for adhering to said behaviours?

The implication that God’s commands are arbitrary overlooks the the purpose for which we exist - as His children whose personal and social development and fulfilment are based on living in harmony according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Fear of punishment and desire for reward might do it - both perfectly rational - but as I recall, this is generally considered a lesser reason for following divine command than pure love of God. Is love a rational condition?

Love is supremely rational because we are all members of one family who should be united like brothers and sisters.

There are plenty of rational justifications for moral behaviour that have nothing to do with religion. The ethic of reciprocity is perfectly rational, arising as it does from an understanding of the principle of cause and effect, which is essentially what rationality is.

The ethic of reciprocity presupposes the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity for which there is no rational basis if we are strangers related solely by an accident of birth.

Rationality is far more than understanding the principle of cause and effect which is strictly limited to physical events and doesn’t consider the reasons for personal activity or take into account the element of choice. Physical causality is not concerned with moral values or principles.

 

[markeverett49]

The universe is shot through with purpose. You deny this. What is your demonstration that the universe is purposeless.

 

[tonyrey]

Not sure what you mean by a " purposeless " universe. Do you mean one that some suggest just started itself, organizes itself, and sustains itself? Or perhaps one like the panthiests where the universe itself is " god? " If either one is the case then you cannot make a serious case for an objective morality, or rationality because there would not be any ultimate cause for anything and thus no way to set any standards because there would be no lawgiver and no mind . What was moral or rational would be absolutely subjective. Society would devolve into either utter chaos or crushing tyranny.

The same result would obtain if the general mass of humanity believed that either alternative was true, one in which believers in the Christian God were vastly outnumbered or ostresized from public life. And we see both scenarios playing out today. Just look at the world. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Spot on!

 

[tonyrey]

The atheist can be a moral platonist. He’d ground moral values and duties in forms that’d exist whether or not we did. Why do these forms exist? Because they have to. There are several ways the atheist could provide a rational foundation for morality, moral platonism is one of my favorites.

You need to explain why the forms have to exist. Plato certainly didn’t believe in a purposeless universe but in Design!

 

[tonyrey]

i don’t think it can. morality must come from something higher than man to be objective. otherwise its just opinion.

Precisely!

 

[tonyrey]

Man is composed of body and soul. He exists in two universes, one physical and the other spiritual.

The physical universe, taken by itself, had no rational morality, but we are only visitors here. Our soul is immortal. Therefore, our morality is grounded on our spiritual nature.

Indeed! The body is valuable but unaware of the fact.

 

[tonyrey]

In my mind, the best alternatives to morality being grounded upon divine command, or upon objective moral laws, are those arguments for so-called humanistic behavior that are grounded in a certain conception of prudence and wisdom.

I’ll start with wisdom first. Wisdom is, in a sense, the science of happiness and flourishing. Wisdom is, by definition, a subtle understanding. It requires discernment. Based on that subtle understanding, a non-theistic philosophy such as Buddhism, or a non-theistic philosophy such as that of Spinoza, has concluded:

–anger, jealousy, inordinate desire, addiction, fear, hatred, are painful emotions, that consume their possessor
–self-control and moderation are advantageous, complete lack of control disadvantageous
–self-awareness is advantageous, ignorance of self, disadvantageous
–living with others in peace and harmony procures happiness; warring with others and living in disharmony and strife procures misery
–there is a link between happiness and altruism; the altruistic are happier and, in turn, those who are already happy are impelled towards altruism; the happiest human beings who have ever lived, the ones with the greatest inner peace, have also been the greatest altruists; they understand that there is more satisfaction in giving, than there is in receiving

–Pleasure is preferable to pain, but the supreme pleasure is ultimately pleasure in the mind (inner peace and satisfaction); and the supreme pain, ultimately, is pain in the mind (inner dissatisfaction, disharmony, discontent).

This is rational in the sense that, for the Buddhist, it is in our interest (i.e., procures pleasure). This is a thinking whereby “virtue is happiness”; virtue is its own reward.

Virtue is certainly its own reward but that fact requires explanation. If everything is ultimately purposeless it need not be the case. Is cosmic justice an accident?

Now, is there anything inherently rational about preferring life to death, or pleasure to misery? This is seemingly what you are getting at. It is tricky, though, because–for the Darwinist–the evolution of reason itself was a survival aid; if you understand reality aright, you will be better equipped to survive. Thus, the apprehension of truth has survival value, and reason itself is subordinated to survival and flourishing.

Survival alone is not a moral value but a matter of expediency. Survival at all costs is immoral!

In the end, though, it must be granted that there is nothing inherently *necessary * about preferring life to death, pleasure to pain. In that sense, it is a non-rational preference. It’s just that it’s a strongly reliable base-line–a natural preference–with human beings. Even human beings who “enjoy” torture (masochists) have limits to that enjoyment; they don’t know what real torture is. And the sadists – those who enjoy inflicting pain on others – are, in the apprehension of the wise man, never those who are exemplars of great inner peace and satisfaction. One would have to be practically crazy to say that Hitler or Stalin were individuals who knew great, enduring, and profound “inner peace.” In fact, “inner peace” is laughable, regarding tyrants. Angry men are dissatisfied and have no place of rest within themselves.

So there is psychological justice.

Prudence, I won’t treat of, but it is the basis of our laws – the social contract. It is prudence that says, I won’t steal, rape, or kill, because I don’t want to be imprisoned. The wise man, however, does not need fear of punishment to cultivate virtue; just as the pious person does not need the fear of hell, or even the promise of heaven, in order to do what’s right.

So morality is an end in itself?

Even there – with religious belief – pleasure or pain is the standard. It would not be “rational” to live a moral life, if I were not to be eternally rewarded in heaven or eternally punished in hell. The reward determines the rationality of it. But if I were to choose to be good regardless of any eternal reward or punishment – which, in the eyes of many, is truly moral motivation – then I would have to say that virtue is is own reward, and vice its own punishment. In other words, doing good would have to give me a deep sense of inner peace and satisfaction. For example, I do good because I love God. But I might as well say, I do good because I love my neighbor For how can we demonstrate that the love of God is “rational,” without resorting to its being in our best interest? The most we can do is to say that the love of God is natural; likewise, for the Buddhist, the love of neighbor is natural, it is how we are wired (the nature of being is inter-being and interdependence).

I agree. There is no necessary conflict between love and self-interest. It is absurd to think it is wrong or immoral to fulfil our capacity for love. The essentially purposeful nature of life is a strange phenomenon if it occurs in a purposeless context. That is why I believe Design is a far more cogent explanation. As Kant observed, we exist in “a kingdom of ends”.

 

[JDaniel]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

Tonyrey:

In a purposeless universe there is no reason for anything to be as it is. In a purposeless universe there is no reason for there to be proliferations of commonalities. In a purposeless universe there is no reason why all things should do only specific, or a few specific, things. Instead, in a purposeless universe all things should be able to do any and all things. In a purposeless universe there should not be carnivores, herbivores and insectivores. In a purposeless universe there can’t be evolution. In a purposeless universe there shouldn’t be a single mechanism for human reproduction. All mechanisms should be open to us. In a purposeless universe nothing that men produce should have any specific use. Anything that men produce should be capable of anything.

I think we could go for eons with this list, but, I’ve just realized that I have no reason to.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey:

In a purposeless universe there is no reason for anything to be as it is. In a purposeless universe there is no reason for there to be proliferations of commonalities. In a purposeless universe there is no reason why all things should do only specific, or a few specific, things. Instead, in a purposeless universe all things should be able to do any and all things. In a purposeless universe there should not be carnivores, herbivores and insectivores. In a purposeless universe there can’t be evolution. In a purposeless universe there shouldn’t be a single mechanism for human reproduction. All mechanisms should be open to us. In a purposeless universe nothing that men produce should have any specific use. Anything that men produce should be capable of anything.

I think we could go for eons with this list, but, I’ve just realized that I have no reason to.

God bless,
jd

According to materialists anything** is** capable of anything - given plenty of time and space!

God bless

 

[shoe]

In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?

Another good thread, Tony.

If a person is actually able to imagine the existence of a purposeless universe having moral standards, for instance, then a person could probably imagine just about anything. However, a person’s ability to imagine what constitutes right and wrong (without the benefit of an ultimate, objective standard of right and wrong) would then have to originate necessarily from a bunch of purposeless molecules, as though purposeless molecules came with an assortment of moral rightness and moral wrongness, which, in the end, would leave a person with no obligation to accept any accountability or responsibility for doing things, except perhaps for doing those things that he or she personally thought to be right. One person’s molecules may be moved to think that carrying groceries for the elderly a good deed, but another person’s molecules may be moved to think that stealing them is; and without the goodness of God as the focal point, no one would be able to substantiate either deed as the objectively correct one.

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexity

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The atheist can be a moral platonist. He’d ground moral values and duties in forms that’d exist whether or not we did. Why do these forms exist? Because they have to. There are several ways the atheist could provide a rational foundation for morality, moral platonism is one of my favorites.

Tonyrey said:
You need to explain why the forms have to exist. Plato certainly didn’t believe in a purposeless universe but in Design!

In Plato’s theory of forms, sometimes called theory of ideas, there must be an ideal triangle somewhere in order for all other real triangles to exist. The same with every other kind of thing. Each kind of thing must have an ideal exemplar.

Plato must have thought this was at least a partial explanation of why things existed. Without Revelation, he could not reason himself toward our infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God. While he made many obscure references to God in the Dialogues, he couldn’t get very specitic.

Plato also believed in reincarnation.

Plato’s own student Aristotle rejected this theory of forms. I’d thought there was no philosopher left on Earth who still believed it, but apparently there’s still one. .