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

[Portofino]

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

So morality, at best, says that you are obligated to consider the needs of others, even if you have no desire or inclination to do so.

The problem is, unless you have some desire or inclination to love your neighbor, moral duty alone will only get you so far (legal duty, the same). Desire has to be there, I think, just as energy needs to be there to run a long-distance marathon.

I think the best chance for the believer is to experience giving to one’s neighbor–laying down one’s life for him, even–a joy and a satisfaction. This is hedonism (hedone, pleasure) but it is a much “higher” form of it.

Where I disagree, I suppose, is that I do believe it’s possible for the non-believer to figure out that there is pleasure in doing good. For example, anger, hatred, and resentment are painful emotions, even if the person experiencing them is hardly aware of how much pain he is in. Love and goodwill are pleasurable emotions; anyone who’s spent happy times with friends or family know this. Even compassion for suffering is bittersweet; love is pleasurable, even when it hurts.

The unreflecting non-believer has a hard time believing that it is more of a pleasure to give than to receive. Receiving is more of a pleasure in the material sense, which is the only one he can see. But it is possible, I think, to see beyond that, and to realize that giving is a great emotional pleasure. Doing a good deed, for example.

I’m not saying that a non-believer has to subscribe to this-- many don’t–but, then again, he is in the same boat as the believer who thinks that–in doing good–he is sacrificing his interests, and has no pleasure in it. If that’s how he really feels, he is probably doing less good–less frequently–than a coreligionist who does derive pleasure, joy, and satisfaction from agape. Joy is a great motivator…

 

[Portofino]

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…

What *has * been effective?

The Buddhists are doing good work, I think, in showing all of the ways in which compassion is in one’s own best interest (materially, and emotionally).

It’s like dipping a piece of broccoli in melted cheese, to make it more palatable. They are trying to say, “if you can’t be altruistic, at least be selfish. The way to be happy is to befriend humanity.”

The majority of our planet believes in a higher power, and over 2 billion consider themselves Christians. The positive effects have not always been evident. It begs the questions – we ask how many atheists are believers at heart; how many believers, in turn, are non-believers at heart?

It’s a sad state of affairs when it is the skeptics and non-believers that are pleading with believers for tolerance and forbearance, which is the position in which Montaigne and Voltaire found themselves. Montaigne actually was in the position of saying, “don’t burn your neighbor, because you can never be sure enough of your opinions, to know that you are not mistaken.”

 

[grannymh]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

This is the rational basis for moral *actions * which anyone can accept.

 

[ReapReason]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

 

[Portofino]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

This is the rational basis for moral *actions * which anyone can accept.

Treating others respectfully is a more secure foundation, ironically. Respecting their social right to life and liberty, and their personal property. No one can tell a human being how to feel about another human being, but they can–at least–tell us how we are obligated to treat each other, on pain of breaking the law.

Conversely, a religious person can profess profound respect for my personhood, and still burn me at the stake, for the salvation of my soul. They can even burn me out of love, as they understand it.

Other than that, I believe that respect for human beings is grounded in self-respect. This is both as an individual, and as a humanity; humanity is capable of respecting itself, loving itself.

If I don’t respect myself, I don’t see how I can respect my neighbor, because he and I resemble each other all-too-closely, and all the things that disgust me about myself would disgust me about him, as well.

 

[Bradski]

IYou wouldn’t advocate steeling because it was wrong, but rather because you see steeling as something that hinders your personal gain.Good for you my friend.

I think that it’s wrong, but your original question was: where did this morality come from? I’m trying to indicate where that might have been. From practical, pragmatic reasons. The question becomes: working from a first principles basis (hypothetically) do we know that something is wrong without any consideration for its outcomes or do we have to, in the first instance, have to consider those outcomes.

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.

I don’t believe that a ‘tribe’ has ever willingly sacrificed itself because they thought that fighting back was the wrong thing to do. It’s just not ‘practical’.

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?

‘Doing the right thing’ is a social contract. It’s no good one tribe suggesting that killing each other is a bad idea if the other tribe ignore you. You all have to agree. Eventually people do. Civilisation wouldn’t exist if this was not the case. So we base our understanding on what being civilised means on the basis of this shared understanding. That is, on our shared understanding on doing the right thing. in other words: morality.

Who decideds what constitutes as being better? The majority isn’t always right…you do know that right?

Correct. What the majority wants isn’t necessarily the best thing for the majority. These aren’t decisions we make overnight. Well, they are actually…but you know what I mean.

The thing is, you have a goal in mind already. You see that we’re heading towards it. We’re getting closer to the truth because you think that you know where the truth lies. I say that we don’t. So we need, as a society, to work that out ourselves.

It’s like raising a son. Tell him that’s something is wrong and he may accept it, but not really understand it. Let him make his own decisions based on his own experiences, including the times he screwed up, and he’ll really know the difference between right and wrong. He’ll be a lot more confident that he’s got it right.

 

[Sair]

I think the best chance for the believer is to experience giving to one’s neighbor–laying down one’s life for him, even–a joy and a satisfaction. This is hedonism (hedone, pleasure) but it is a much “higher” form of it.

Where I disagree, I suppose, is that I do believe it’s possible for the non-believer to figure out that there is pleasure in doing good. For example, anger, hatred, and resentment are painful emotions, even if the person experiencing them is hardly aware of how much pain he is in. Love and goodwill are pleasurable emotions; anyone who’s spent happy times with friends or family know this. Even compassion for suffering is bittersweet; love is pleasurable, even when it hurts.

That is something that few people understand about a hedonist ethic, in assuming it must be about purely selfish pleasures.

 

[grannymh]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

This is the rational basis for moral *actions *which anyone can accept.

With a rational approach, one can understand the human nature of the human person. One does not necessarily have to accept a particular “understanding”, one merely has to understand.

That being said, one can continue to the obvious that human nature remains as is as long as the human person is alive in some way. Even when bad things and bad thoughts occur, the human person does not turn into a flying dinosaur. She and he remain an unique human being wothy of profound respect, including self-respect. Please refer to posts 64 & 65.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Bradski:

Philosophers and ethicians usually refer to that code of morality that existed before Christ as the “natural law.” Given the speed at which such a code had to be implemented throughout the culture of the earliest men, there wasn’t enough time to work out a consensus code of morality. Men and women just knew, and those that didn’t were ostracized and or punished. The survival of man and his community took precedence.

God bless,
jd

 

[ReapReason]

With a rational approach, one can understand the human nature of the human person. One does not necessarily have to accept a particular “understanding”, one merely has to understand.

That being said, one can continue to the obvious that human nature remains as is as long as the human person is alive in some way. Even when bad things and bad thoughts occur, the human person does not turn into a flying dinosaur. She and he remain an unique human being wothy of profound respect, including self-respect. Please refer to posts 64 & 65.

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

 

[tonyrey]

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

Provided they are not tortured or killed, potential victims couldn’t care less!

I think the best chance for the believer is to experience giving to one’s neighbor–laying down one’s life for him, even–a joy and a satisfaction. This is hedonism (hedone, pleasure) but it is a much “higher” form of it.

If enduring extreme pain is a form of hedonism the term can be applied to any decision whatsoever! We get pleasure from everything we choose to do…

Where I disagree, I suppose, is that I do believe it’s possible for the non-believer to figure out that there is pleasure in doing good. For example, anger, hatred, and resentment are painful emotions, even if the person experiencing them is hardly aware of how much pain he is in. Love and goodwill are pleasurable emotions; anyone who’s spent happy times with friends or family know this. Even compassion for suffering is bittersweet; love is pleasurable, even when it hurts.

I anticipated you.

The unreflecting non-believer has a hard time believing that it is more of a pleasure to give than to receive. Receiving is more of a pleasure in the material sense, which is the only one he can see. But it is possible, I think, to see beyond that, and to realize that giving is a great emotional pleasure. Doing a good deed, for example.

My remark about hedonism still applies!

I’m not saying that a non-believer has to subscribe to this-- many don’t–but, then again, he is in the same boat as the believer who thinks that–in doing good–he is sacrificing his interests, and has no pleasure in it. If that’s how he really feels, he is probably doing less good–less frequently–than a coreligionist who does derive pleasure, joy, and satisfaction from agape. Joy is a great motivator…

I agree but it is not a product of the urge to survive. The greatest joy is the result of harmony. **We exist in order to love and be loved. **Any other form of life is bound to lead to frustration.

 

[tonyrey]

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…

Unselfish love.

The Buddhists are doing good work, I think, in showing all of the ways in which compassion is in one’s own best interest (materially, and emotionally).

It’s like dipping a piece of broccoli in melted cheese, to make it more palatable. They are trying to say, “if you can’t be altruistic, at least be selfish. The way to be happy is to befriend humanity.”

Compassion is a form of love but it is not so all-embracing as total dedication.

The majority of our planet believes in a higher power, and over 2 billion consider themselves Christians. The positive effects have not always been evident. It begs the questions – we ask how many atheists are believers at heart; how many believers, in turn, are non-believers at heart?

It is not what we profess but how we live that determines what we are.

It’s a sad state of affairs when it is the skeptics and non-believers that are pleading with believers for tolerance and forbearance, which is the position in which Montaigne and Voltaire found themselves. Montaigne actually was in the position of saying, “don’t burn your neighbor, because you can never be sure enough of your opinions, to know that you are not mistaken.”

In secular societies intolerance is often justified in the name of equality. The Catholic Childrens’ Society in the UK used to arrange many adoptions but it was compelled to stop because it excludes homosexuals. Now there are many children who don’t have a proper family life in homes run by the Social Services. Christians have lost their jobs for wearing a small cross…

 

[EasterJoy]

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

From a totally secular perspective? Because it is, in the end, a form of self-respect. If someone does not show respect for other human beings regardless of their circumstances, then one betrays an attitude that says, “I am what I do. I am what I accumulate. I am the social position I can claw my way into.” Giving yourself respect because you have things that can be taken away is not as deep as giving yourself respect because you are a human being; the former self-respect is on a false footing. If you don’t give that respect to other human beings simply because they are human beings, then you imagine falsely that you’ll give it to yourself.

And what, after all, is respect? It is merely esteem shown for something of worth. When we give something no esteem, we will neglect it, we will feel free to exploit it, we will allow its destruction in order to achieve short term gain.

As an analogy, consider gold. It gives pleasure, it is an extremely good conductor, it resists corrosion, it has all sorts of uses. What, though, if someone gave it no value? They would not reap any of those benefits. They would trample it underfoot. Therefore, it is not self-contradictory to say that human beings have worth independent of our recognition and yet need our respect in order for that worth to be fully realized in our own lives.

IOW, to the degree that we fail to respect other human beings, to that degree we fail to realize the benefits of a human’s true value…and the same goes for all of creation. We have to reckon something to be of value in order to realize the value in concrete terms. It is not enough that there be a value there. We still have to see it and live according to the value that we recognize.

 

[shoe]

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

Since theists believe that God created human beings in His image, and not from a pool of mud made by no-thing and sent into a journey of nothingness, they therefore are able to conclude that each person is “worthy of profound respect.” This means that each individual has purpose and meaning (God given) and is not an effect brought about by a blind, purposeless chance of time. On the other hand, to believe that things came into existence without purpose and without meaning is basically to believe that only the fittest can and will survive; and if a society were to base it’s moral foundation on the survival of the fittest, then its effects could become quite detrimental to its people. A society that denies the reality of God, and therefore denies that individuals are made in the image of God, could in the name of survival easily perpetrate and justify any kind of evil they wish upon its citizens.

 

[EasterJoy]

That is something that few people understand about a hedonist ethic, in assuming it must be about purely selfish pleasures.

It depends on what you mean by a hedonist ethic. There is a school of thought that holds that immediate pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and is often held and lived in such an immature and simplistic manner that, let us face it, usually makes the “hedonist” totally miserable, like a little kid left alone with nothing but candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That is not what Epicurus taught at all, although I would also argue that Epicurus did not fully understand what pleasures true prudence would guide humans to desire.

The hedonism of Epicurus has gotten a false witness because people claim they are hedonists when they actually pursue nothing but hits to the “reward circuits” of their brains, in total disregard for the displeasure that comes when we neglect to have our real emotional, biological, spiritual and other true needs met. That is what most of us have learned to hear when someone calls himself a “hedonist”, after all! I think that is fair that some have gotten that impression. That’s what we see the most often: the “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints…The sinners have much more fun” types say “I’m a hedonist”. That translates to: my whole life revolves around pursuing stimulation of the reward centers of my brain, without regard to what else is destroyed in the process. In reality, that short-sighted kind of hedonism is all backwards, of course. If one looks at how we tick even in purely biological terms, a more enjoyable life comes when one decides to take pleasure in that which is intrinsically in keeping with the functioning of the creature, rather than treating momentary “brain hit” pleasures as if these were ultimate and enduring goods. The latter just makes people miserable, and that’s just biology.

The Christian believes that this is the Good News: Believing that we are immortal and made in the image and likeness of God, we believe that our greatest and deepest joy is to be found by living according to the laws of God, not just now, but forever. IOW, there is no conflict between pursuit of the will of God and pursuit of our greatest happiness. Rather, we believe that a soul feels great restlessness until the person realizes the end for which he or she is made, but that when the soul is in keeping with the will of God, there is great pleasure and contentment. Likewise, the Good News is that God has made living according to the will of God pleasurable to the soul. It is the soul enslaved to blindness about what is good that is miserable.

Look, after all, at how the psalmist talks about the law of God (read “fear” as “respect”)

*The law of the LORD is perfect,
refreshing the soul.

The decree of the LORD is trustworthy,
giving wisdom to the simple.

The precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart.

The command of the LORD is clear,
enlightening the eye.

The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.

The statutes of the LORD are true,
all of them just;

More desirable than gold,
than a hoard of purest gold,

Sweeter also than honey
or drippings from the comb.

By them your servant is warned;*
obeying them brings much reward.*
Psalm 19:8-12

It might interest you that the Christian writer C.S. Lewis put words in the mouth of the devil where the devil complained that *God *is a hedonist!

He’s a hedonist at heart. All those fasts and vigils and stakes and crosses are only a façade. Or only like foam on the sea shore. Out at sea, out in His sea, there is pleasure, and more pleasure. He makes no secret of it; at His right hand are “pleasures for evermore”. Ugh! I don’t think He has the least inkling of that high and austere mystery to which we rise in the Miserific Vision. He’s vulgar, Wormwood. He has a bourgeois mind. He has filled His world full of pleasures. There are things for humans to do all day long without His minding in the least—sleeping, washing, eating, drinking, making love, playing, praying, working, Everything has to be twisted before it’s any use to us. We fight under cruel disadvantages. Nothing is naturally on our side. Letter 22, The Screwtape Letters

 

[EasterJoy]

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

It would be hard to argue that continuing the effort to exist has any rational foundation if one honestly proposes that there is no purpose worthy of the name in the entire universe. What would be the point?

The problem with the idea of a purposeless universe is that healthy creatures so obviously act with a sense of purpose, while miserable and unhealthy animals act as if no such a purpose exists. The listless animal is a sick animal, is it not? I can think of no exceptions, even down to the level of a bacterium. That which is alive and healthy acts with purpose, even if it has no brain or nervous system, moving towards or away from outside stimuli according to that purpose. Let the organism quit acting according to that purpose, and the organism will soon die.

As for us, if our nature does not also prompt us to find a purpose by which to live, why on earth are people who renounce the concept of having purpose so miserable? Our brains are geared to look for a purpose, and if we deny a purpose to our purpose-finding brain, we’re eventually just quit living. It’s against our nature, and in violation of our most healthy instincts.

I would propose that those who say the universe has no purpose are either depressed or disingenuous. They want everything in the universe to have the same purpose at the same time? I think that betrays an inner desire to be a monotheist, to be honest. …(I wink, but show me where I err!)

 

[grannymh]

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

Because she and he belong to a peerless species and because she and he have a peerless nature.

 

[grannymh]

From a totally secular perspective? Because it is, in the end, a form of self-respect. If someone does not show respect for other human beings regardless of their circumstances, then one betrays an attitude that says, “I am what I do. I am what I accumulate. I am the social position I can claw my way into.” Giving yourself respect because you have things that can be taken away is not as deep as giving yourself respect because you are a human being; the former self-respect is on a false footing. If you don’t give that respect to other human beings simply because they are human beings, then you imagine falsely that you’ll give it to yourself.

And what, after all, is respect? It is merely esteem shown for something of worth. When we give something no esteem, we will neglect it, we will feel free to exploit it, we will allow its destruction in order to achieve short term gain.

As an analogy, consider gold. It gives pleasure, it is an extremely good conductor, it resists corrosion, it has all sorts of uses. What, though, if someone gave it no value? They would not reap any of those benefits. They would trample it underfoot. Therefore, it is not self-contradictory to say that human beings have worth independent of our recognition and yet need our respect in order for that worth to be fully realized in our own lives.

IOW, to the degree that we fail to respect other human beings, to that degree we fail to realize the benefits of a human’s true value…and the same goes for all of creation. We have to reckon something to be of value in order to realize the value in concrete terms. It is not enough that there be a value there. We still have to see it and live according to the value that we recognize.

That is a wonderful insight. Thank you for your wisdom.

 

[grannymh]

Since theists believe that God created human beings in His image, and not from a pool of mud made by no-thing and sent into a journey of nothingness, they therefore are able to conclude that each person is “worthy of profound respect.” This means that each individual has purpose and meaning (God given) and is not an effect brought about by a blind, purposeless chance of time. On the other hand, to believe that things came into existence without purpose and without meaning is basically to believe that only the fittest can and will survive; and if a society were to base it’s moral foundation on the survival of the fittest, then its effects could become quite detrimental to its people. A society that denies the reality of God, and therefore denies that individuals are made in the image of God, could in the name of survival easily perpetrate and justify any kind of evil they wish upon its citizens.

Another great insight. Wisdom does exist. Thank you.

 

[Portofino]

If enduring extreme pain is a form of hedonism the term can be applied to any decision whatsoever! We get pleasure from everything we choose to do…

Think of the distinction that is sometimes made between “harm” and “hurt,” Tony. Surgery will hurt (if not in the operating room, then during the recovery process). But this hurt is desirable if one wishes to prevent greater harm to the body.

This was the gist of Epicurus’ thinking. He didn’t seek out suffering for its own sake, but believed that some forms of suffering were “worth it” because to avoid them was to incur even more suffering (showing up at one’s job is a good example; it hurts to get up on Monday morning).

He also seems to have made a distinction between mental or emotional pain (pain in the mind) and physical pain (pain in the body). As counterintuitive as it seems–though many thoughtful persons agree with him – pain in the mind is ultimately worse than pain in the body.

Nothing was more foreign to his philosophy than fear of pain, since–according to him–it is precisely the fear of pain (in one’s mind) that can be worse than the physical pain itself. Terrorism thrives on this, obviously – provoking the psychological anticipation of as-yet-unknown pain and suffering. Just so, the fearful anticipation of death, if it is intense and life-long, has arguably caused more suffering than the actual dying process.

Just a few citations from Epicurus (341 B.C. - 270 B.C.), that exploit this paradox of “inner peace” in spite of physical pain or the lack of physical pleasure, interspersed with other citations that serve to illustrate this point, and that also tie back to the joy of loving. Wherever possible, I’ve also invoked Christian examples.

Quotes for which no author has been provided are attributable to Epicurus himself.

“It is better for you to be free of fear lying upon a bed of straw than to have a golden couch and a lavish table and be full of trouble.”

“Prithee, go in thyself: seek thine own ease:
This tempest will not give me leave to ponder
On things would hurt me more.”–King Lear

“Which of you can add one cubit to his stature by worrying? Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own”–gospel of Matthew

“I have written this letter to you on a happy day to me, which is also the last day of my life. For I have been attacked by a painful inability to urinate, and also dysentery, so violent that nothing can be added to the violence of my sufferings. But the cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions.”

“Even on the rack the wise man is happy… When on the rack, however, he will give vent to cries and groans.”

“They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience.”–Mahatma Gandhi

“The wise man will also feel grief”

“Jesus wept”–gospel of John

“And he will occasionally die for a friend.”

“No one has any greater love than this: that he lay down his life for his friends”–gospel of John

“You don’t know about real loss, because that only occurs when you love something more than you love yourself. I doubt you’ve ever dared to love anybody that much.”–Good Will Hunting

“Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness.”

“Sweet is the memory of a dead friend.”

“Find as much joy and pleasure as you are able. At no one’s expense of course, for that is not pleasure. Push no one else out of the way, for that is pain. But go where there is real pleasure: the pleasure of self-recognition and love, the pleasure of seeing another with gentleness and compassion. These are the real and abiding pleasures.”–Emmanuel’s book.

“Friend, here you would do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure.”