E
empther
Guest
The universe, considered by itself, has no purpose, but God has a purpose for the universe: our salvation.
( Not sure if this idea had been touched upon in this thread. )
- Status
( Not sure if this idea had been touched upon in this thread. )
P
Portofino
Guest
There are still standards, however, and they are substantiated pragmatically (as opposed to metaphysically). For example, nutrition is substantiated pragmatically. Just because God doesn’t exist and it is not wrong to eat nails, doesn’t mean I am free to do it without suffering the consequences. Just because God doesn’t exist and it is not wrong to jump off a cliff, does not mean that I am not subject to the laws of gravity.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.
The same applies to moral behavior. I can steal the old lady’s groceries, but could get myself in trouble with the law. This is not arbitrary; there is a reason why there is a law against stealing, and not a law for stealing. Simply put, it is because a law for stealing would be as harmful to the health of a society as a diet of ground glass would be harmful to the body.
It is also simply a fact that the type of person to steal groceries from an old lady is not likely abounding in what we call “emotional maturity”; nor in social adjustment; nor in overall satisfaction in life; nor in impulse control. More than this – if that’s what he does to old ladies, then he probably does it to other people in his life, as well. Therefore, there are probably few people who trust him (or, if they do, they will be quickly disabused of that trust).
That means his relationships are probably in turmoil, and–indeed–that his life is probably rather chaotic, not orderly or stable. He probably acts on impulse, for the most part (“everything that baby sees, baby wants”) and it would be surprising if he did not indulge or grasp at other immediate forms of gratification (e.g., alcohol, drugs), that will–of course–lead to even more turmoil (a train wreck in slow motion).
Finally, how can someone be happy in life who has a mentality that believes that the stealing of groceries from an old lady will give it to him? True happiness is a state of mind; not something that is given to us through things, but that is cultivated from within ourselves. I don’t believe for a moment that someone who mugs elderly women has a rich inner-life, or a great store of wisdom or insight. It is the most crude, the most short-sighted form of self-interest – emotionally, psychologically unformed. It has about the same level of awareness of the existence of others’, and their feelings, as a poorly behaved two-year-old. Maturity and immaturity are not arbitrary designations, either; and a man who steals groceries from elderly women (assuming he isn’t starving or isn’t feeding a starving family) is likely an emotional child.
V
Viewscreen
Guest
My answer is: who cares?In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?
Not to be mean, but your question seems entirely theoretic to me, and has no basis whatsoever in any element of practical living. Your question is strictly for the arm-chair philosopher. Well, I guess some philosophers would care then.
Why should the common joe care whether there is a “foundation.” Does it matter whether or not the foundation is made out of bronze or gold?
B
belorg
Guest
Portofina has already answered this question.In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?
Simply put: if there are entities capable of feelings, emotions and rational thought, then, even if they exist just by a huge coincidence, there still are objectively some things that are in their interest and some things that aren’t.
Deciding this, based on rational considerations, is the foundation of morality in a purposeless universe.
T
tonyrey
Guest
“in their interest” is not a sufficient condition of morality.
Assuming that rationality is possible in a purposeless universe!
S
Sair
Guest
It doesn’t imply arbitrariness at all, unless all personal and moral relationships imply arbitrariness. You seem to be claiming that human relationships are arbitrary, whilst relationship with God is not arbitrary, which, if God is a personal entity, seems odd, at best.
If this is the case, then human love is perfectly adequate to serve in a moral capacity, without the need for any divine sanction.
Actually, I would propose that the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity actually grew out of the ethic of reciprocity, which is far more basic. All that is required for the latter is the recognition that others probably have similar preferences to ourselves, which is an easy assumption to make on the basis of species identity. All species recognise their own - it’s only humans that invent reasons for denying basic rights to our fellows. If anything, the laying down in law of principles of equal treatment of those of different race, gender, religion or culture had to overcome many notions that were designed to counteract the empathy that lies at the core of the ethic of reciprocity. Would the Israelites really have massacred the Canaanites (amongst others) if they had not believed God told them to do so?
But moral values and principles, if they are worth anything, must be concerned with physical causality. Among such physical causes and effects are the emotional responses humans (and other sentient beings) have towards certain circumstances; a true comprehension of cause and effect, when it comes to moral considerations, allows for empathy and other emotions - which are not necessarily rational (at least in classical conceptions of rationality) in and of themselves, but which form part of the complex web of causation in which we all exist and operate; and must, therefore, be taken into account in any exercise of rationality. This is the real implication of a naturalistic understanding of reality - you can’t just set some aspects of our experience aside because they don’t conform strictly to expectations of rational behaviour.
S
Sair
Guest
As I’ve argued before, in at least a couple of threads, I don’t think morality, as such, can be objective - it only obtains amongst beings, such as humans, who have subjective preferences. Yes, those preferences have to take objective circumstances into account, but if we were not subjective beings, we would not care whether our families were slaughtered, or whether our friends were treated fairly, or whether our governments upheld laws that allowed the rights of all citizens to be recognised.
By the same token, divinely sanctioned morality can only conform to the subjective preferences of a personal deity, right? Bad luck if the deity’s preferences are diametrically opposed to your own, such as if you’re a woman in a Muslim society.
As far as morality is concerned, it doesn’t matter that there is no ultimate cause and no ultimate destination for the universe, or for any sentient beings that exist within it - the mere fact of life and of subjective experience within our necessary objective constraints is sufficient to ground those behaviours we characterise as moral.
It’s all a matter of balance. Most Homo sapiens have sufficiently similar subjective preferences to arrive at a broadly consistent moral framework. The only societies in which you find chaos and tyranny are those ruled by theocrats. Go figure…
B
belorg
Guest
It is actually the only basis for morality, even in a theistic universe.
Yes, of course, but whether rationality is possible in a purposeless universe is another argument.
R
ReapReason
Guest
Objectively speaking, yes it is. Why should a person ought to behave a certain way at a certain age?
People will behave according to what they want from life. Just because a person does not behave according to what you want from life does not mean that your character is “better” or has any moral significance what-so-ever. It merely means that you don’t want to take the chance of incurring the kind of consequences that may arise when somebody does not act according to whatever societies standards happen to be.
The person you are criticizing can equally turn around and call you a coward.
Self-righteous pomposity is all i see in your argument.
S
Sair
Guest
This is actually a very good question when it comes to moral considerations. There may not be any ultimate grounding, beyond subjective preference, for our propensity to value fairness. Two-year-old humans have been observed to have a sense of fairness and reciprocity, but it’s doubtful whether they could conceive or articulate any reason for this. It’s just a fact of human subjective preference.
If it’s a fact that we care about certain things, should we then take the time to care whether we have any rationally justifiable ground to so care? And what are the criteria here for a rationally justifiable ground? If I have a cake and seven companions, is it any less rational to divide the cake into eight equal pieces and share it around, than to keep it all to myself and make myself sick from eating it all? Or to keep it to myself and have a couple of pieces, then have stale pieces over the course of the next few days? Sometimes fairness just makes sense. I’m not sure why we need divine guidance to tell us this…
P
Portofino
Guest
This is the “Goodfellas” argument. It was also that of Raskolnikov, of Crime and Punishment.
It goes like this (from Goodfellas):
“For us to live any other way was nuts. To us, those goody-good people who worked (expletive) jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no (expletive). If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.”
How’d it work out for them?
Actually, the saddest thing about “the life”–as they called it – is that no one could trust anyone else. Betrayal was the rule.I’ve never met anyone who enjoys being betrayed and taken advantage of, though I don’t think those who who do it to others expect it rebound on them. Friends betrayed friends, in the end, to save their skin. I don’t think it’s possible to take advantage of a stranger who has never harmed you, and–at the same time–never take advantage of a friend.
A Steve Jobs, on the other hand, could have agreed with much of the above as regards “bum paychecks” and taking the subway to work every day. Even Sylvester Stallone, in an appearance at the actors’ studio, confessed that an office job was always what he would least want to do in life. But there are wiser ways of taking your own path in life and–in your own eyes–making your life extraordinary.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
The simple answer is it can’t because in a purposeless universe the source of authority for morality wouldn’t exist; God who just so happens be the source of objective purpose. To even think that we humans could be the source of authority for morality is laughable since it is because humans do not recognize other humans as possesing this authority to do we see so many divisions among us. As for those saying society is the source of morality or that the majority is always right, I will simply state that there was a society that claimed Jews were bad for our health.In a purposeless universe there is no reason why anything exists. How then can anything - including morality - possibly have a **rational **foundation?
S
Sair
Guest
Doesn’t that make it obvious why it’s preferable to live a life of fairness and honesty? Why subject onesself to the inevitable stress that comes from knowing that those around you are just waiting for the opportunity to betray and destroy you? Co-operation and reciprocity are always better ways than manipulation and exploitation - subjectively speaking, of course!This is the “Goodfellas” argument. It was also that of Raskolnikov, of Crime and Punishment.
It goes like this (from Goodfellas):
“For us to live any other way was nuts. To us, those goody-good people who worked (expletive) jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no (expletive). If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.”
How’d it work out for them?
I’ve never met anyone who enjoys being betrayed and taken advantage of, though I don’t think those who who do it to others expect it rebound on them. Friends betrayed friends, in the end, to save their skin. I don’t think it’s possible to take advantage of a stranger who has never harmed you, and–at the same time–never take advantage of a friend.
B
Bradski
Guest
There’s a problem inherent in the question which has been briefly touched upon, but which I’d like to point out again.
It seems that there’s an assumption that if the universe has no purpose (it doesn’t), then life has no purpose (it does). If life had no purpose, or even if we felt it had no purpose, then I wouldn’t see a basis for morality.
Simply because each of us, atheist or theist, feels that life has meaning, even on just an individual level, then a system of morality must follow. And we seem to have managed it quite well, whether atheist or theist, whether Christian or Hindu, our sense of morality is pretty much universal.
Civilisation began long before Christianity came on the scene, so it’s a given that morality existed before there was a concept of the Abrahamic God. If it existed, there must have been a rational reason for it emerging.
It seems that there’s an assumption that if the universe has no purpose (it doesn’t), then life has no purpose (it does). If life had no purpose, or even if we felt it had no purpose, then I wouldn’t see a basis for morality.
Simply because each of us, atheist or theist, feels that life has meaning, even on just an individual level, then a system of morality must follow. And we seem to have managed it quite well, whether atheist or theist, whether Christian or Hindu, our sense of morality is pretty much universal.
Civilisation began long before Christianity came on the scene, so it’s a given that morality existed before there was a concept of the Abrahamic God. If it existed, there must have been a rational reason for it emerging.
S
Simpleton
Guest
Even if morality existed without the knowledge of God it doesn’t show how it could existed without a God. Also if the universe has no purpose for existing then nothing that exists in the universe has purpose for existing either. I do find it interesting though that an Athiest acknowledges that God is the source of objective purpose in the universe since by removing your belief in God you have removed purpose for the universe…
P
Perplexity
Guest
Yep, there are still Platonists, but they’re usually far more reserved, almost exclusively ‘platonizing’ things like numbers and propositions.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. .
It’s interesting that William Lane Craig adopts a sort of moral platonism wherein God himself is the ideal exemplar of goodness and moral values etc.
As to the OP, I think the atheist moral platonist would explain the existence of these ‘forms’, or ‘ideas’ as empther put it, in the same way that the theist would explain God’s existence.
If I asked you what caused God, or what grounds God, you’d say nothing: he exists out of necessity. We’d just say the same things about these moral forms. Now, you could question how we’d justify such a claim (which changes topics from moral ontology to moral epistemology), but what I don’t think we could question is whether objective morality could have reasonable foundations on atheism: all we need are moral forms.
B
Bradski
Guest
You belong to one tribe. Someone suggests raiding the one across the river and killing the men because…well, because they might do the same to you. Retaliate first, as it were. You do so and kill a few of their guys.
Guess what happens. A week later, the remainder of their tribe attack you and kill a few of your guys.
This keeps going on until someone suggests that if you stop killing them, they might stop killing you. You try it and it works. The idea spreads and you find that instead of killing each other you have developed some trade and life becomes a little easier.
Not killing someone else means that you are less likely to get killed. Not stealing someone else’s cattle means yours will be safer. Not raping his wife will mean that he is less likely to rape yours.
Being moral is another way of doing what is right for the common good which is another way of describing common sense.
R
ReapReason
Guest
The argument i made is simple: Anything you perceive as beneficial is subject to your goals and intentions. The goals and intentions of any individual do not reflect a higher standard in a purely natural world.
We are all going to die and cease to exist; we are all going to experience suffering to varying degrees. How you respond to this fact depends on what you want from life. Not every-bodies wants are the same and not every-bodies goals can be achieved without taking risks with your life and security. That you choose to conform to a standard that might limit the chances of how long you live and how comfortable you live, has no reflection at all on choices of people that choose a lifestyle that has a high chance of an early death. Depending on their goal, there actions are reasonable so long as they are attempting to achieve what they want. At lot of people do not achieve what they want or limit their access to what they desire because of the fear of repercussion or the inevitable fact of death.
The question is whether you choose to be a slave to the chemically induced fear of death and pain.
P
Portofino
Guest
Yes… It’s also a question of whether one is achieving the goals one sets out to achieve. For example, a career criminal’s goals or objectives are probably something like:
—make more money than I could ever dream of
–get maximum pay-off through minimal effort
–always have the best of everything, right at my fingertips
–be supremely happy
What he or she normally doesn’t aim for, is:
–do hard time
–get shot at by a would-be victim, by a partner-in-crime, or by the law
These first two are anticipated risks, but ones they hope or expect will not happen to them. In any case, the pay-off is perceived to be well worth the risk.
But there are also:
–have a hard time ever trusting my friends or my partners-in-crime
–feel dissatisfied, no matter how much money or loot I’ve acquired
These last two are, most likely, unanticipated risks. Anticipating the first two required only common sense; but anticipating the last two would require a more subtle understanding and discernment. What more often happens is that the last two are not understood until after the fact; if they had been anticipated, they likely would have killed the motivation.
Of course, one could have more realizable goals, and still not anticipate the results of pursuing them. For example, one can have the goal of making a million dollars by the time one is 30. But perhaps one didn’t bargain for long, grueling hours of work with practically no free time; or making the million, and not feeling any happier for it; or, perhaps, making the million, and not being able to distinguish between true friends and those who are using you.
E
empther
Guest
Perplexity wrote:
God has omnisicience, omnipotence. changelessnes and his essence is existence itself. These and other things makes a complete mechanism by which God necessarily exists.
By what mechanism does Plato’s forms or ideas exist? Plato himself proposed no explanation because of course there can’t be one. It’s like saying Boulder Dam is there because these bulldozers, and earthmovers necessarily existed. Oh, really?
As always you have to consider the mechanism. How does it work?
God has omnisicience, omnipotence. changelessnes and his essence is existence itself. These and other things makes a complete mechanism by which God necessarily exists.
By what mechanism does Plato’s forms or ideas exist? Plato himself proposed no explanation because of course there can’t be one. It’s like saying Boulder Dam is there because these bulldozers, and earthmovers necessarily existed. Oh, really?
- Status