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

[Portofino]

Depending on their goal, there actions are reasonable so long as they are attempting to achieve what they want.

Agreed, but what they want – and what they were intending to achieve – is not what they got. That is the sad thing, to me.

The drug addict is a good example; what he wanted was pleasure. He didn’t want to be penniless, homeless, and eating out of a garbage can. He didn’t want the consequences, but he didn’t know that his behaviors would lead to those particular consequences.

The smoker didn’t want lung cancer, or the alcoholic cirrhosis.

This is the same argument made within a religious context, by the way. Nobody chooses hell (eternal agony and suffering); but it’s the actions they choose – actions which they thought would give them pleasure – that land them there.

There’s really nothing you can do – even in a religious context – with someone who either tells you, “I don’t care if I spend my life in prison, or die young” or who tells you, “I don’t care if I spend an eternity in hell.”

That second form of “I don’t care” also exists. What do you tell a person who says, “I really don’t care about God’s moral law; I delight in evil, not in good” and “I really couldn’t care less whether I will go to hell or not.” So profound is their self-destructiveness, so deep their contempt for their own interests, that they really don’t care.

You hope he doesn’t really mean that, or believe that he couldn’t mean that. Similarly, one has a hard time believing that someone truly doesn’t care if they will spend the rest of their life in prison, or that they will die homeless, penniless, and friendless.

 

[Simpleton]

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.

Those aren’t even examples of morality they’re examples of tactics. Morality would be not to kill even though you know that to not kill will mean your death. Morality is not to rape even though it means your wife will be raped.

 

[Portofino]

The question is whether you choose to be a slave to the chemically induced fear of death and pain.

Most of us do; it’s a human thing I’ve met a lot of religious people in my life, and very few who are in a hurry to be done with this life and to get to the next one. Most of them wouldn’t mind living to be 100, assuming they had their faculties intact and did not suffer unduly. Those who want life to be over with soon–believers and non-believers alike–tend to be depressed and unhappy. They are hurting inside. All of my Christian friends pray, when someone is sick, that this person heals and recovers; not that this person dies, and speeds to heaven. They would only pray that this person dies, and speeds to heaven, if he or she is suffering greatly.

Most religious people I know watch their diet, for their health and preservation; exercise, for their health and preservation; go to a physician, for their health and preservation. Frankly, they not only love life, but have a “healthy” fear of death. They do not want to die prematurely, even though an enjoyable life on earth seemingly pales in comparison to an eternity of bliss in heaven. When a family member dies, they are grief-stricken; their faith comforts them, but there is still death experienced as loss – as the destruction or the premature ending of a life.

Their faith is courageous, to me, but it does not exempt them from the human condition, nor does their church expect it to. Even Jesus wept, when Lazarus died. The part of him that was human wept, just as a child would weep for its mother.

This is not to deny that are non-believers who hold that to be a slave to the fear of death is worse than death itself, because fear is a great source of suffering and anxiety. Indeed, to live one’s whole life in terror of death is not a life worth living, because there is no pleasure in it. Examples of nobility in the face of death – for believers – are Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and any of the Christian martyrs. For non-believers, there is Socrates (who believed in gods but who claimed ignorance of what comes after death); Epicurus ( “I have written this letter to you on a happy day to me, which is also the last day of my life”); and Spinoza, “a free man thinks of nothing less than death, and his philosophy is a meditation on life, not on death.”

So Epicurus was not a slave to the fear of death–if you were to ask him to wear a collar and a leash and be your personal slave, for the privilege of staying alive, he would refuse–nor a slave to physical pleasure. He embraced the only kind of pleasure that he felt was worthy of a free man-- the pleasure of inner peace and of inner bliss. The Buddhists called it nirvana; he called it ataraxia.

 

[Portofino]

Those aren’t even examples of morality they’re examples of tactics. Morality would be not to kill even though you know that to not kill will mean your death. Morality is not to rape even though it means your wife will be raped.

I like your way of thinking, but I’ve read-- on this forum – Catholics who have “cried down” both of the things you’ve just declared. They have used the Catechism in support of their position. Thus:

1. there is legitimate self-defense, in preservation of your life; if someone is trying to kill
   you, you are justified in defending yourself and (potentially) in killing them
2. if your wife is being attacked by a would-be rapist, you would be justified in physically attacking the rapist, even if the defense ends in the attacker’s death

In fact, they express–as do many–repugnance at someone who would permit one human being to kill another human being – let alone one’s own wife or child – as opposed to rushing to their defense (with violence, if necessary). For them, this not moral, but profoundly immoral.

 

[Bradski]

Those aren’t even examples of morality they’re examples of tactics. Morality would be not to kill even though you know that to not kill will mean your death. Morality is not to rape even though it means your wife will be raped.

You might think that killing, as a general rule, is wrong because you might be the one that’s killed. I’m not really sure how you differentiate between calling that a moral outlook and a tactic designed to keep you alive.

If you lay down your arms knowing you are going to be killed as opposed to defending yourself, then that’s not being moral. That’s being stupid. And that’s where relativism comes in. Killing is wrong…unless I do it to protect myself and those in my social group.

We are moral because to be moral generally has good outcomes that satisfy the majority of us.

Do Not Steal; Do Not Lie; Do Not Kill; if you follow these ideals are you being moral or tactically astute? How do you tell the difference?

 

[Simpleton]

You might think that killing, as a general rule, is wrong because you might be the one that’s killed. I’m not really sure how you differentiate between calling that a moral outlook and a tactic designed to keep you alive.

If you lay down your arms knowing you are going to be killed as opposed to defending yourself, then that’s not being moral. That’s being stupid. And that’s where relativism comes in. Killing is wrong…unless I do it to protect myself and those in my social group.

I see a tactic as being something I do regardless of right and wrong to obtain my desired end. And I see morals as something I do regardless of my desired end or any gain whatsoever on my part because I know they’re good and right. Stupid? How is laying down your arms out of love for your fellow man stupid even it it means your death? Love by its very nature is selfless; sacrificial even! I see none of this selflessness in your examples of what you fall moral behavio but rather I see your examples as tactics since you do them not out of a sense of right or wrong but simply because you see them as a necessary means to achieve your desired end.

 

[Bill_Martin]

In a purposeless universe, it would make sense for people to be pressured by other people to avoid theft, murder, etc because they hurt everyone. Ultimately it would make no sense to call it “wrong” though. It would be more accurate to say that nobody wants you to murder rather than it is wrong to murder.

 

[Bradski]

I see a tactic as being something I do regardless of right and wrong to obtain my desired end.

So if you employ any tactic at all, you could well be acting immorally? In any case I was comparing acting in a moral way with employing a tactic which would have the same end.

We are moral because to be moral generally has good outcomes that satisfy the majority of us

So a tactic that ensures that everyone gets on just peachy as opposed to hacking each other to death could be classed as…moral. The question now arises, which came first. Did you suggest that you shouldn’t attack the other tribe because, well, it’s just wrong? Or was it because you realised you’d be able to sleep better at night?

I’m going with the second option. I’m something of a pragmatist.

And I see morals as something I do regardless of my desired end or any gain whatsoever on my part because I know they’re good and right.

But if someone attacks you with evil intent and you do nothing, because you think that morally you are restricted, then that’s carrying self sacrifice a little too far.

I see your examples as tactics since you do them not out of a sense of right or wrong but simply because you see them as a necessary means to achieve your desired end.

No, not my desired end, but the desired end of my social group. In fact, I may find a situation where I have to sacrifice myself for the better good. Or to put it another way, to gain a tactical advantage over the previous situation.

And the knowledge that tactics lead to better outcomes for all leads on to strategies that fulfill the same purpose. And there’s your basis for morals. Why do people act the way they do? Because it’s morally correct. And morally correct means that it’s to the benefit of the majority. Hence a strategy for life.

Unfortunately, at least from your perspective, it means that the ends justify the means. Self sacrifice is quite noble. But sometimes you have to sacrifice someone else for the greater good. Something of which I’m sure you’re aware, being a Christian.

 

[Sair]

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.

You make a good point, and also touch on a question that has been bothering me for most of this thread and, frankly, any time I happen to discuss the relationship between purpose, morality, rationality and subjectivity.

That question is, simply - at what point does a subjectively negative or positive emotion or sensation become and/or cease to be a rational reason for a particular course of action? It’s quite clear that there are many things which are subjectively pleasurable that are also good for us in an objective, biological sense - such as good food, friendship and sexual intimacy just to name some of the more obvious examples. By the same token, there are things that are subjectively painful that are very obviously bad for us in an objective sense also.

But apparently this hedonistic ethic of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain - rational though it is, and nuanced as are the behaviours it produces - is just not good enough for those who seek a “higher” purpose to human life. Hedonism is fine for the “beasts”, but we’re obviously better than that, right?

 

[Sair]

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.

It’s interesting that no matter how much we pass knowledge and experience from generation to generation, there are so many ways in which we don’t understand, until after the fact - until we’ve experienced it immediately, for ourselves - the full implications of a particular course of action or a particular set of beliefs. The really unfortunate thing is that once you become involved in the take-whatever-you-can-get kind of socio-economic milieu, to put it delicately, it can become very, very difficult to extricate yourself, even if you do understand the error of your ways and know that there’s a better, more satisfying life if only you can get to it. Genuine moral lessons, it’s sad to say, do often come…not too late, as such (it’s only really too late if you don’t learn the lesson at all), but late enough to make the journey to enlightenment and freedom a lot more painful than it otherwise might be.

 

[Sair]

In a purposeless universe, it would make sense for people to be pressured by other people to avoid theft, murder, etc because they hurt everyone. Ultimately it would make no sense to call it “wrong” though. It would be more accurate to say that nobody wants you to murder rather than it is wrong to murder.

That certainly makes good sense - what, after all, do we really understand by the word “wrong”, by the concept of “wrongness”, than that which elicits negative subjective states either in ourselves or in others affected by our actions? How often do parents or teachers or other responsible adults explain behavioural expectations to children by saying something along the lines of, “How would you feel if so-and-so did that to you?”

 

[tonyrey]

You make a good point, and also touch on a question that has been bothering me for most of this thread and, frankly, any time I happen to discuss the relationship between purpose, morality, rationality and subjectivity.

That question is, simply - at what point does a subjectively negative or positive emotion or sensation become and/or cease to be a rational reason for a particular course of action? It’s quite clear that there are many things which are subjectively pleasurable that are also good for us in an objective, biological sense - such as good food, friendship and sexual intimacy just to name some of the more obvious examples. By the same token, there are things that are subjectively painful that are very obviously bad for us in an objective sense also.

But apparently this hedonistic ethic of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain - rational though it is, and nuanced as are the behaviours it produces - is just not good enough for those who seek a “higher” purpose to human life. Hedonism is fine for the “beasts”, but we’re obviously better than that, right?

Hedonism alone is an inadequate explanation of morality because it ignores the need to consider the needs of others.

 

[tonyrey]

In a purposeless universe, it would make sense for people to be pressured by other people to avoid theft, murder, etc because they hurt everyone. Ultimately it would make no sense to call it “wrong” though. It would be more accurate to say that nobody wants you to murder rather than it is wrong to murder.

There are many people who murder because they believe they are entitled to do anything to get what they want - and they don’t care if others are murdered provided they are not personally affected.

 

[Sair]

Hedonism alone is an inadequate explanation of morality because it ignores the need to consider the needs of others.

A grave misconception - happiness shared is happiness increased. You are ignoring the presence of empathy as a natural part of human psychology. It takes a peculiarly self-centred individual to maintain happiness in the presence of misery.

 

[johnnyjones]

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

I’ve been asking that question for a long time as well. Often Atheists will say when speaking about themselves," I’m a moral person". Your only “moral” because you need that attribute to survive in this society. The Christian is moral to honor God, not to only please man.

 

[Bradski]

In a purposeless universe, it would make sense for people to be pressured by other people to avoid theft, murder, etc because they hurt everyone. Ultimately it would make no sense to call it “wrong” though. It would be more accurate to say that nobody wants you to murder rather than it is wrong to murder.

What else can we call it? If no-one wants people to be murdered, it makes no sense to call it ‘wrong’ in isolation from everyone’s wants and wishes. What do I mean when I say that murder is wrong? Can it mean anything other than I don’t want it to happen?

It appears that a Christian definition of immorality is that immorality exists in itself, without needing reference to an act. It’s just there and we have no say in how it is meant to be interpreted. That, apparently, as I have been told so many times, is beyond us. We cannot, even must not, be allowed to make these decisions ourselves.

So rather than develop a sense of morality in order to live what we would consider a decent life, we have to do this the other way around. We are told by certain sections of society what is moral and have to adjust our lives accordingly. In this case, it’s a Christian morality.

But as I have mentioned, pre-Christian morality had to exist for civilisation to exist to enable Christianity to emerge. So we can do it ourselves. There must have been a rational basis for it.

 

[Simpleton]

So if you employ any tactic at all, you could well be acting immorally? In any case I was comparing acting in a moral way with employing a tactic which would have the same end.

I know you were which was why I considered your examples as tactics. You wouldn’t advocate steeling because it was wrong, but rather because you see steeling as something that hinders your personal gain.

So a tactic that ensures that everyone gets on just peachy as opposed to hacking each other to death could be classed as…moral. The question now arises, which came first. Did you suggest that you shouldn’t attack the other tribe because, well, it’s just wrong? Or was it because you realised you’d be able to sleep better at night?

I’m going with the second option. I’m something of a pragmatist.

Good for you my friend. You realize that our motives are what show whether we did something for moral reasons or for tactical reasons and you show that you believe the people didn’t attack not because they had a moral delima with killing but rather because they saw killing damaging to their self preservation. The difference between a moral tibe and a tactical tribe is the moral tribe will never approve of killing even if it means their desruction while a tactical tribe will reevaluate whether or not killing should be approved if it helps their self preservation.

But if someone attacks you with evil intent and you do nothing, because you think that morally you are restricted, then that’s carrying self sacrifice a little too far.

One isn’t moral because they’re restricted, they do it because it is good and right.

No, not my desired end, but the desired end of my social group. In fact, I may find a situation where I have to sacrifice myself for the better good. Or to put it another way, to gain a tactical advantage over the previous situation.

Are you sacrificing yourself for your soceity because they share the same desired end as you or are you sacrificing yourself for a society that doesn’t share your desired but rather because you know its the right thing to do?

And the knowledge that tactics lead to better outcomes for all leads on to strategies that fulfill the same purpose. And there’s your basis for morals. Why do people act the way they do? Because it’s morally correct. And morally correct means that it’s to the benefit of the majority. Hence a strategy for life.

Who decideds what constitutes as being better? The majority isn’t always right…you do know that right? You see morality is like the truth; in that the truth is the truth regardless if the majority believes it, one personal believes it, or if no one believes it. Why? Because humans aren’t the source of it.

Unfortunately, at least from your perspective, it means that the ends justify the means. Self sacrifice is quite noble. But sometimes you have to sacrifice someone else for the greater good. Something of which I’m sure you’re aware, being a Christian.

Incorrect on so many levels since the greater good of Christs death did not justify the manner in which he was killed.

 

[tonyrey]

Hedonism alone is an inadequate explanation of morality because it ignores the need to consider the needs of others.

Empathy cannot be very effective given that one third of the world’s population are living in misery - with gross inequality even in the richest nations…

 

[Portofino]

I see a tactic as being something I do regardless of right and wrong to obtain my desired end. And I see morals as something I do regardless of my desired end or any gain whatsoever on my part because I know they’re good and right. Stupid? How is laying down your arms out of love for your fellow man stupid even it it means your death? Love by its very nature is selfless; sacrificial even! I see none of this selflessness in your examples of what you fall moral behavio but rather I see your examples as tactics since you do them not out of a sense of right or wrong but simply because you see them as a necessary means to achieve your desired end.

These are good points, but the problems you raise infilitrate even religious and moral observance.

First example:

Doing good out of a desire for heaven, and a fear of hell; this is a desired end for the bliss of heaven, and for avoiding the torture of hell. The Jansenists believed that this motivation for being good was immoral; the Church, as I understand it, posited it as a legitimate reason for being good, albeit not the “highest” reason.

Second example: Virtue is its own reward; in other words, I do good because it makes me happy; even to help my neighbor is a joy to me. To hurt my neighbor, or to see my neighbor in need, would break my heart. I have compassion for my neighbor’s suffering, and I feel joyful when I’ve helped my neighbor or related to him with love.

This is “selfish”, if you want to be very rigorous about it, but we hope that more people in the world would be affected by this “selfishness”! What it does, at least, is make of virtue its own reward; no external reward–or material reward–is necessary. The reward is an emotional one.

Thus, at bottom, my own pain of hunger is far outweighed by the feeling of joy and satisfaction in having fed my neighbor, when he was hungry. Though he never thanked me, just to see him smile is more than enough reward.

Third example: doing good out of duty; I have no desire to do good (though a Catholic would not be thrilled to hear this!) and receive no pleasure from it, but I do it out of obedience. Problem: you could be doing it to avoid guilt or remorse, or the punishment of hell (pain). Problem: at bottom, you are doing it because it satisfies you, because it is what you want to do. Pleasure is in there somewhere, even though you don’t dare call it that. You may simply call it “satisfaction”; if you behaved any differently, you would be dissatisfied with yourself.

And then there is the irony of the believer who says, “listen, if there wasn’t a God, or a heaven and hell, I wouldn’t have any reason to be moral, and I probably wouldn’t.”

Then the “kind-hearted” atheist says, “really? I don’t need God as an inducement to be good. I do good because it’s the right thing to do; or (if they are more intellectually honest) because it pleases me; because it gives me satisfaction to do good.” Of course, they can also appeal to their interest ("I do unto others as I would have them do unto me, because it usually works that way) but you may still see them doing a gratitously kind act, such as return a wallet that they’ve found on a bench (who would know?) Perhaps they say, “if my wallet were stolen, I would be frantic; I know how it feels.” But this is empathy --putting oneself in another’s shoes, and identifying with their suffering. Their emotional wiring is thus particularly fortunate, you could say (fortunate from the standpoint of their neighbor). It would certainly be in society’s interest to cultivate this “internal reward mechanism” in its children, to socialize them to it.

Ironically, as much as the atheist is criticized for behaving in a Christian manner–“you have no right to it”–there is an ironic genuineness to his behavior. He does good, without commandment from God? Without the promise of heaven, or the threat of hell?

 

[Portofino]

“How would you feel if so-and-so did that to you?”

Well said There is commonality between human beings; we really are all part of the same human family, the same species. Our anatomy, our language, our emotional reactions, unite us (“if you prick us, do we not bleed”). Every other person is both a potential enemy – and a potential competitor–but, also, a potential friend, and partner.

Society is built on cooperation, quite gloriously so. Even our language is fundamentally social; it is based on cooperation. Language is possible as a way of transmitting thoughts from one mind to another, which couldn’t exist if there also weren’t the potential in human beings for empathy and understanding.

Even an actor has to have a basic potential for empathy; to put oneself into the shoes of a character, to become someone else. A good actor doesn’t say, “I’m sorry, I can’t play this part; I’m a 25 year old midwesterner with a college degree, and this is a 24 year old New Yorker who is a High School drop-out.” Or a novelist doesn’t say, “I can’t create a female character, because I’m not a woman; nor an Asian character, because I’m not Asian; nor a character who has lost a son, because I’ve never had children.”