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

[tonyrey]

You do not understand me. I never remotely implied that if the universe has a purpose that this purpose would be to revolve around me. How does the failure of the universe to revolve around me imply that the universe has no purpose, then?

If I understand you correctly, though, you are literally advocating for the idea that an entirely self-centered cosmology has some basis in reality. You say that an anthill serves no purpose in the grand scheme of things, just because you can destroy it and not notice the damage you have done or the losses incurred? Frankly, I am appalled. You don’t care that either the ants will be driven to do the work to make up for your destructiveness or else the loss will be absorbed by all the living things that benefitted from the anthill? I fail to see how you could not more easily destroy the Great Pyramids or the Louvre with exactly the same rationale. Will you lose personal satisfaction if those things were destroyed? So what if you do? Who in the universe ought to care about your satisfaction, by your cosmology? If you don’t feel any loss, then why would you care about any “grand scheme”? If only ants can feel the loss of an anthill, there is no grand scheme.

My impression is that you lack understanding, both in your lack of gratitude for ants and your low expectations for yourself. By my cosmology, the greatest desire of your heart must therefore sit neglected, left dry and lifeless by your lack of attention. If your heart were awake, my friend, if you really understood the great satisfactions to be had even in this life, you would care a lot more, even about the ants. If you ever really enjoyed what this life has to offer, you would have developed a much greater ability to see the purpose in things.

This is what I mean by being one who is willing to trample gold underfoot, neglecting its worth because one is ignorant of it. To such a one as that, yes, gold literally has no value, people have no value, life in all its forms has no value, that is all absolutely true. If you fail to respect all the things of worth that are all around you, though, it is you who suffer the greatest loss. It is bad luck for the ants, yes, but worse luck for you.

An eloquent post!

 

[tonyrey]

The person of faith believes that there is something behind nature, or that interpenetrates nature, that cares about us. If human beings are believed to be a revelation of that transcendent nature (human love as a reflection of divine love) than this is obviously true. But that’s a big “if” – a wonderful possibility; something that we feel; something that we intuit; ultimately, something that we have faith in.

I believe it’s far more than a possibility given the awe-inspiring beauty of nature and the universe - and above all the existence of love on this planet. Is that the result of loveless events?

 

[tonyrey]

Whether I am “fixated” is totally beside the point and the statement does precisely nothing to further the discussion.

In your imagination! It’s more accurate to say I’m contrasting Christianity with hedonism!

“pleasure/happiness” is a hybrid term to cover the deficiency of the pleasure principle.

It is actually a hybrid term that covers most people’s understanding of what pleasure actually means, in the sense that it covers both physically pleasing sensations and - what many assume to be a separate category of pleasure - psychologically pleasing states of mind; this would seem to be necessary for those who draw a distinction between mind and body!

I’m delighted you do so instead of equating them!

Happiness amounts to far more than psychologically pleasing states of mind. Pleasure alone does not produce fulfilment.

Since there are various brands of hedonism it would be clearer to use the term Epicureanism.

There are certainly many varieties of hedonism, but their guiding principle is that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.

Which is obviously false. As pleasure presupposes life it cannot be the only intrinsic good. And pleasure without freedom is bitter.

That is precisely what Epicurus did! Epicureanism is not based solely on the pleasure principle. Its highest good is ataraxia

, i.e.tranquillity which stems from freedom from fear, simplicity and temperance. Epicurean hedonism, as I’ve said before, is based upon the notion that an excess of pleasure tends towards pain, and therefore is counterproductive. Tranquility is considered to be the balance point, wherein you have no fear of any increase in pain or suffering. If any action involves an increase of suffering, it must be questioned as to whether it was the right course of action, upon that criterion - not in relation to whether it meets some other standard of goodness laid down by a text or doctrine or whatever that simply asserts some things to be right and others wrong, regardless of their effect upon the individual.

The flaw in this theory is that it is self-centred. The individual alone is regarded as the arbiter of what is good and right.

It is true that other varieties of hedonism place more value upon positive pleasure, rather than focusing primarily upon the absence of pain (tranquility) but I think it’s safe to say that if you could be assured of freedom from suffering for the rest of your life, that would be quite an attractive prospect. Isn’t that what heaven is supposed to be? Or does it promise some positive satisfaction as well as the absence of pain?

The question is based on the false assumption that happiness consists solely of that which is “pleasing” - now expanded to "satisfying!

It also implies that our happiness is the supreme value. If that were the case we should never sacrifice everything for the sake of others…

 

[Contarini]

Obviously, though, I’m one of those who thinks Epicurus has gotten a bad rap.

Erasmus thought the same thing. His earliest treatise defends the monastic life as a form of Epicurean ataraxia, although to be fair Erasmus’ attitude to monasticism was pretty conflicted and hardly conventional, and people argue over the intent of the treatise! But he expressed “Christian Epicureanism” elsewhere as well.

Edwin

 

[tonyrey]

Portofino:

Makes sense, from a purely philosophical perspective, but, when one accrues the perspectives of other sciences with a philosophical perspective, one has to wonder further. for example, it’s ever easy to forget what matter is. If it is, as physics asserts, continuously reconfiguring point particles immersed in discrete space that only has the appearance of bodies of more or less solid mass, then, obviously, there is someone/something outside of this that prepares and sustains that “illusion” for us while we are alive. I prefer God, rather than the possibility of some lab-coated giants observing us in an ant farm.

It’s reminiscent of Animal Farm…

 

[Contarini]

That others treat you well – not necessarily. A Christian, a Buddhist, or a secular humanist could appreciate that hatred, jealousy, or anger are toxic emotions.

But that implies, for instance, that it’s better to live for a very short time, possibly enduring great suffering, but with the inner peace that comes from love and forgiveness, than to have a long life enjoying power and pleasure but with “toxic” emotions. It’s not at all clear to me why, from a purely secular point of view, that would be the case.

There are different kinds of goods. Some people enjoy the feeling of dominating others, of expressing anger through violence, etc. Now all the world’s major wisdom traditions, theistic and nontheistic, say that this is a terrible way to live no matter how “good” it may feel subjectively. But without some kind of transcendent, objective standard it’s not at all clear to me what justifies such a judgment. When I encounter someone who lives his or her life that way, or when I am tempted to live that way myself, I don’t just say “that’s not my cup of tea, thanks”–I say, “that is a bad way for anyone to live, no matter how much they may say they like it.” Am I justified in doing so?

Edwin

 

[Portofino]

But that implies, for instance, that it’s better to live for a very short time, possibly enduring great suffering, but with the inner peace that comes from love and forgiveness, than to have a long life enjoying power and pleasure but with “toxic” emotions. It’s not at all clear to me why, from a purely secular point of view, that would be the case.

There is no easy answer for the secularist, I suppose. I’m thinking of Qoheleth, who wrote, “a live dog is better than a dead lion.”

On the other hand, the whole idea of euthanasia (a rather secularist concept) is precisely that of quality of life, versus quantity of life. This is also the spirit behind the expression, “live free, or die.”

There are different kinds of goods. Some people enjoy the feeling of dominating others, of expressing anger through violence, etc. Now all the world’s major wisdom traditions, theistic and nontheistic, say that this is a terrible way to live no matter how “good” it may feel subjectively…

It does become hard to assess relative levels of satisfaction or happiness in individuals, since we are not inside their heads. A lot of individuals who seemingly hurt others or act unkindly towards them seem rather happy, laugh a lot (albeit somewhat too insistently, at times) and seem to have the best of everything; then again, they may be good actors, or skillful at hiding their miserableness even from themselves.

What I’ve seen in people who are consistently “not nice” to others is a lot of buried hurt – they are easily wounded, which is surprising in those who so often cause harm to others. They often spend a lot of time complaining of how others have wronged them! There is almost this sense of taking revenge; so, for example, someone might say, "nobody gives a damn about me; why should I give a damn about anybody?"This is even easier for me to perceive in the examples that are writ large – the Ivan the Terrible who flies into rages; the Hitlers; the Stalins. These were not satisfied people. There is that line from the novel “American Psycho” which I had quoted elswhere in this forum: “my pain is constant and sharp, and I do not wish for a better world for anyone. Instead, I want to inflict my pain on others; I want no one to escape.”

I had also been struck by the conclusion of an old Twilight Zone episode, “Piano in the House”, where (through the mystical effect of this bewitched piano) the sadistic main character suddenly becomes in touch with his deepest emotions, and articulates all of the innermost motives for his behavior.

“There’s a small frightened boy and I’ve kept him hidden away inside me and he only likes to hurt people and I can’t stop him from doing it.
Did you know that I envied you, marge?
I can’t embrace the world as you do.
And in my envy, I released that frightened child inside me and I let him hurt you.
I tried to hurt you too, greg.
I gave bad reviews to your plays when I should have given praise.
I coveted your talent because I have none.
And I hurt you in every childish way I could.
Esther, I’ve hurt you most of all.
You came to me with love but it frightened me.
I don’t know how to return love except as a child does-- with shrieks and blows and indifference.”

This is very subtle psychology, if it is worth anything. It goes beyond surface appearances (see also Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, who was chronically nursing hurts and taking revenge for them). Hitler, for example, was to all appearances very strong; invulnerable. In actuality, he was weak and full of fear. He certainly didn’t understand himself; if he did, he would have realized that the Jews as such had never harmed him, and that he was hysterically afraid of them (and that the Jews were not the real issue, whatever that issue was). Gandhi, on the other hand, was deceptively weak and frail; but, in actuality, had self-knowledge, had freedom from fear, and was strong.

Suppose I’ll give the Grich the last word (I watch a lot of movies, it seems ): “Nerve of those Whos. Inviting me down there, on such short notice. Even if I wanted to go, my schedule wouldn’t allow it! (flips his datebook open) 4:00: Wallow in self-pity. 4:30: Stare into the abyss. 5:00: Solve world hunger; tell no one! 5:30: Jazzercise. 6:30: Dinner with me; I can’t cancel that again! 7:00: wrestle with my self-loathing… I’m booked! Of course, if I bump the loathing to 9:00, I’ll probably still have time to lie in my bed, stare at the ceiling and slip slowly into madness. But what would I wear?!”

These individuals cause such suffering to others, because they present such a convincing face to the world; it is hard for others to call their bluff. Guess it’s Gandhi who has the last word, “When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall.”

 

[Sair]

In your imagination! It’s more accurate to say I’m contrasting Christianity with hedonism!

As they ought to be contrasted - only one of them has a sound ethical basis that squares with our experience of reality…

Happiness amounts to far more than psychologically pleasing states of mind. Pleasure alone does not produce fulfilment.

Then what, exactly, does produce fulfilment, and what is fulfilment? What good is fulfilment if it does not produce happiness?

Which is obviously false. As pleasure presupposes life it cannot be the only intrinsic good. And pleasure without freedom is bitter.

Life and sentience certainly are necessary for the experience of pleasure, but it does not follow that these states are good in and of themselves without the experience of pleasure. Is a life of unremitting suffering better than no life at all?

The flaw in this theory is that it is self-centred. The individual alone is regarded as the arbiter of what is good and right.

Not at all - pleasure is not merely an individual experience. Your interpretation of hedonism seems to assume that all humans are psychopaths, incapable of empathy.

The question is based on the false assumption that happiness consists solely of that which is “pleasing” - now expanded to "satisfying!

And that answers my question…how, exactly? What is the point of heaven if not to attain eternal happiness? Doesn’t that make Christianity a form of deferred hedonism?

It also implies that our happiness is the supreme value. If that were the case we should never sacrifice everything for the sake of others…

But the reason for which you sacrifice is ultimate reward, ultimate happiness, so that is really the supreme value of Christianity, even if not explicitly stated to be such. If the reward for self-sacrifice was an eternity in hell, or even just an eternity of boredom, who would do it? Only those who sincerely believe that losing their own lives (or health, or wealth, or well-being, or whatever) is preferable to living with the suffering of those they could have helped - and that is enough motivation for any hedonist.

 

[Portofino]

The question of hedonism as the basis for Christian morality is a valid one. What if the reward for wickedness were eternal bliss in heaven, and the punishment for righteousness, eternal suffering in hell. Would it still be “rational” to choose righteousness?

The Christian philosopher says, “it is an impossible conditional, because God is wholly good and wholly just. Such a God would not punish those who love and serve Him with eternal suffering, reward those who reject him with eternal bliss.” But this is granting that the paradise of bliss is the ultimate reward, unremitting suffering the ultimate punishment.

Hedonism is essential to the Christian ethics of altruism, as well. One must clothe the naked; feed the hungry; heal the sick; comfort the afflicted. The Christian does not ask, “why should my neighbor prefer the comfort of warmth to the suffering of cold? The comfort of being filled to the suffering of hunger? The comfort of health, to the suffering of sickness? The comfort of consolation, to the suffering of a broken heart?”

The happiness of one’s neighbor is such a moral good, that one willingly forgoes one’s own physical comfort for the sake of the physical comfort of one’s neighbor (“he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.”) But one would have to be an unfortunate Christian indeed, not to experience this willingness to forgo one’s own physical comfort as the basis for one’s own
psychological happiness. Thus, “when I fed those hungry children, the smile on their
faces was supremely rewarding. feels wonderful and supremely satisfying, just to know I
did a good deed. It feels wonderful to love. What’s more, I can sleep well at night and,
every morning upon waking, I can bear to look at myself in the mirror.” How cruel and unfortunate it would be, if one’s fate were to say, “I clothed the naked, fed the hungry, comforted the afflicted, and am sick with guilt and remorse, for having done so.”

 

[ReapReason]

What if the reward for wickedness were eternal bliss in heaven, and the punishment for righteousness, eternal suffering in hell. Would it still be “rational” to choose righteousness?

That is a contradiction of Gods nature, and some moral requirements require sacrifice which do incur suffering in this life in some cases.

 

[Sair]

The question of hedonism as the basis for Christian morality is a valid one. What if the reward for wickedness were eternal bliss in heaven, and the punishment for righteousness, eternal suffering in hell. Would it still be “rational” to choose righteousness?

The Christian philosopher says, “it is an impossible conditional, because God is wholly good and wholly just. Such a God would not punish those who love and serve Him with eternal suffering, reward those who reject him with eternal bliss.” But this is granting that the paradise of bliss is the ultimate reward, unremitting suffering the ultimate punishment.

Hedonism is essential to the Christian ethics of altruism, as well. One must clothe the naked; feed the hungry; heal the sick; comfort the afflicted. The Christian does not ask, “why should my neighbor prefer the comfort of warmth to the suffering of cold? The comfort of being filled to the suffering of hunger? The comfort of health, to the suffering of sickness? The comfort of consolation, to the suffering of a broken heart?”

The happiness of one’s neighbor is such a moral good, that one willingly forgoes one’s own physical comfort for the sake of the physical comfort of one’s neighbor (“he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.”) But one would have to be an unfortunate Christian indeed, not to experience this willingness to forgo one’s own physical comfort as the basis for one’s own
psychological happiness. Thus, “when I fed those hungry children, the smile on their
faces was supremely rewarding. feels wonderful and supremely satisfying, just to know I
did a good deed. It feels wonderful to love. What’s more, I can sleep well at night and,
every morning upon waking, I can bear to look at myself in the mirror.” How cruel and unfortunate it would be, if one’s fate were to say, “I clothed the naked, fed the hungry, comforted the afflicted, and am sick with guilt and remorse, for having done so.”

You make a good argument - you’ve expanded on the idea I raised, and taken it to a highly logical conclusion. The basic premise and basis of empathy, as a foundation for moral behaviour, anyway, is that we are rewarded with positive feelings, good sensations, through acting on behalf of the welfare of others. If we were not thus rewarded - if, for example, we were all psychopaths - empathy could not provide any basis for moral behaviour. I think that what Epicurus got right, fundamentally, was that all living beings seek, if not positive pleasure as such, then at least the alleviation of want, of need, of the discontent associated with awareness of the lack of some need. Humans evolved as social animals, so it’s fair to say that one of our deep-seated needs is to establish relationships with our fellows, relationships that are, ideally, reciprocal. There is, I believe, a certain sense of security to be found in treating others the way we would wish to be treated ourselves - that is the foundation of the golden rule. If we seriously believed that our goodwill would be exploited, would be taken advantage of by all those to whom we extended compassionate or even merely personable treatent, we would soon learn that common decency was not a rewarding behaviour. Sadly, this is indeed how all too many people have their innate empathy destroyed by experience…

 

[Sair]

That is a contradiction of Gods nature, and some moral requirements require sacrifice which do incur suffering in this life in some cases.

But how would you argue this position to someone who both saw no rewards in this life for a particular sacrifice or great effort - and I’m not talking about monetary rewards or fame so much as personal satisfaction, knowledge that one’s efforts had actually achieved some real benefit - who also did not believe in a god or an afterlife? What kind of moral requirements involve a sacrifice for no discernible reward? Surely the considerations that give moral weight to a particular course of action in the first place would likewise contribute to the sense of achievement and empathetic satisfaction to be gained from pursuing that course of action, whether it is recognised by a deity or not…

 

[tonyrey]

It’s more accurate to say I’m contrasting Christianity with hedonism!

I agree! A reasonable person lives as if moral values are objective truths about personal and social development rather than subjective opinions.

Happiness amounts to far more than psychologically pleasing states of mind. Pleasure alone does not produce fulfilment.

Then what, exactly, does produce fulfilment, and what is fulfilment? What good is fulfilment if it does not produce happiness?

Unselfish love which produces happiness for everyone who is unselfish.

As pleasure presupposes life it cannot be the only intrinsic good. And pleasure without freedom is bitter.

Life and sentience certainly are necessary for the experience of pleasure, but it does not follow that these states are good in and of themselves without the experience of pleasure. Is a life of unremitting suffering better than no life at all?
A a life of unremitting suffering better than no life at all?

In the unrealistic event that life is one of unremitting suffering it is better than no life at all if it is inspired by love.

The flaw in this theory is that it is self-centred. The individual alone is regarded as the arbiter of what is good and right.

Not at all - pleasure is not merely an individual experience. Your interpretation of hedonism seems to assume that all humans are psychopaths, incapable of empathy.

My interpretation of hedonism is based on a realistic view of human nature which is capable of selfishness, indifference and cruelty as well as love, kindness and compassion.

The question is based on the false assumption that happiness consists solely of that which is “pleasing” - now expanded to "satisfying!

And that answers my question…how, exactly? What is the point of heaven if not to attain eternal happiness? Doesn’t that make Christianity a form of deferred hedonism?

Hedonism is based on the pleasure calculus and alien to spiritual love which does not count the cost of loving others.

It also implies that our happiness is the supreme value. If that were the case we should never sacrifice everything for the sake of others…

But the reason for which you sacrifice is ultimate reward, ultimate happiness, so that is really the supreme value of Christianity, even if not explicitly stated to be such.

The supreme value of Christianity is not happiness but love. Otherwise God would not have shared human suffering.

“Christ will be in agony until the end of the world.” - Pascal

If the reward for self-sacrifice was an eternity in hell, or even just an eternity of boredom, who would do it? Only those who sincerely believe that losing their own lives (or health, or wealth, or well-being, or whatever) is preferable to living with the suffering of those they could have helped - and that is enough motivation for any hedonist.

The colossal amount of needless misery and suffering in the world is ample proof of the failure of hedonism to inspire unselfishness and self-sacrifice on a universal scale. Those who stake everything on this life are inevitably limited by worldly values although there are many saintly people who transcend their culture and live according to spiritual truths.

 

[Sair]

I agree! A reasonable person lives as if moral values are objective truths about personal and social development rather than subjective opinions.

Unselfish love which produces happiness for everyone who is unselfish.
In the unrealistic event that life is one of unremitting suffering it is better than no life at all if it is inspired by love.
My interpretation of hedonism is based on a realistic view of human nature which is capable of selfishness, indifference and cruelty as well as love, kindness and compassion.
Hedonism is based on the pleasure calculus and alien to spiritual love which does not count the cost of loving others.
The supreme value of Christianity is not happiness but love. Otherwise God would not have shared human suffering.

“Christ will be in agony until the end of the world.” - Pascal

The colossal amount of needless misery and suffering in the world is ample proof of the failure of hedonism to inspire unselfishness and self-sacrifice on a universal scale. Those who stake everything on this life are inevitably limited by worldly values although there are many saintly people who transcend their culture and live according to spiritual truths.

Considering the pernicious influence of supernaturalist religion, which still covers a majority of the human population of the world, I don’t think you can blame naturalistic hedonism for the world’s evils…just saying…

 

[tonyrey]

*I agree! A reasonable person lives as if moral values are objective truths about personal and social development rather than subjective opinions.

A facile evasion by a disciple of Dawkins. Not one of my statements has been refuted…

 

[grannymh]

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

Seems to me that you are not talking about the universe that we humans live in. So, what kind of a purposeless universe are you thinking about? What is in it? If anything? Does it have trees and bees?

 

[grannymh]

“Christ will be in agony until the end of the world.” - Pascal

Poor Mr. Pascal. He missed the announcement that Christ conquered death.
:sad_yes:

 

[atheistgirl]

Considering the pernicious influence of supernaturalist religion, which still covers a majority of the human population of the world, I don’t think you can blame naturalistic hedonism for the world’s evils…just saying…

That’s a good observation. Those who go on and on about how the world is going to hell in a handcart must take into account less than 14% of the worlds population are atheists or non believers so it would seem it’s the vast majority of believers of whatever hue are at the root of the problem and dropping the ball

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Seems to me that you are not talking about the universe that we humans live in. So, what kind of a purposeless universe are you thinking about? What is in it? If anything? Does it have trees and bees?

The materialists’ universe.

 

[tonyrey]

Poor Mr. Pascal. He missed the announcement that Christ conquered death.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.

Matt 25:40