Moral Behavior

[AntiTheist]

The main point this position of mine raises is “why then do we draw a distinction between murder and war?”

Because the former is a behavior engaged in by one private citizen against another for reasons that do not benefit the whole of society; the latter is a behavior engaged in by large numbers of people in one society who have agreed to band together and follow the orders of those appointed as their military leaders for, presumably, the good of the society (in theory, of course).

The two acts are as different as night and day.

In the absence of any belief, or better still, in the conviction of non-belief, people stand at the point where they can simplify their emotional life considerably, simply by doing away with conscience.

Well, as I’ve been suggesting, I think what people call the “conscience” is something placed in us by evolution – to much greater degrees in some people than in others, since we would expect evolution to produce variations on a theme and not exact duplicates.

I don’t think people can “do away with conscience.” You will probably always feel “bad” if you push someone down for no reason. Your subjective feeling, of course, is an entirely different concern than the question of whether or not it’s objectively “wrong” for you to do that: there may well be situations where the best course of action is to put your precious feelings aside and do something that you don’t really enjoy doing; in other situations, it might be the opposite.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, as I’ve been suggesting, I think what people call the “conscience” is something placed in us by evolution – to much greater degrees in some people than in others, since we would expect evolution to produce variations on a theme and not exact duplicates.

If conscience is placed in us by evolution there is no obvious reason why we should regard its dictates as binding…

I don’t think people can “do away with conscience.” You will probably always feel “bad” if you push someone down for no reason. Your subjective feeling, of course, is an entirely different concern than the question of whether or not it’s objectively “wrong” for you to do that: there may well be situations where the best course of action is to put your precious feelings aside and do something that you don’t really enjoy doing; in other situations, it might be the opposite.

It’s good to know you accept the fact that there is a best course of action. The question is what makes it the best…

 

[AntiTheist]

If conscience is placed in us by evolution there is no obvious reason why we should regard its dictates as binding

Of course not. Again, I was explaining how people really act in the real world. People do experience “feeling bad” when they do things like shove others down, and because they “feel bad” when they do these things, they often avoid doing them in a lot of situations.

That’s descriptive of what actually happens.

Now, a totally different question is whether or not there really is some prescriptive ethics out there that means that we should do X or should do Y. Personally, I don’t think there is, but it’s irrelevant to the description of the ways humans act.

It’s good to know you accept the fact that there is a best course of action.

I was speaking colloquially. I don’t think that there is an objective “best” way to act in a situation.

Individual decisions about behavior always happen at the level of the individual, and different individuals will judge different actions to be “best” – in whatever context that individual is using.

Now, I do think that given a particular context – for example, in the context of wanting to promote the values of an orderly society – we can determine that there is an action or set of actions in a circumstance that are best for achieving those goals.

 

[Betterave]

Now, I do think that given a particular context – for example, in the context of wanting to promote the values of an orderly society – we can determine that there is an action or set of actions in a circumstance that are best for achieving those goals.

But the determination of a relevant “particular context” must itself be deeply problematic on your view. Somehow we have to determine what the relevant “circumstance” is for “best” achieving “those goals” - and there are all sorts of competing interpretations for all the items in scare quotes… so your claim is that “we can determine” - but how? The only possible way is for you to arbitrarily make normative some particular descriptive take on the supposedly relevant “particular context” - but that implies a rather empty notion of “we can determine”… and why are you more justified in saying that than in saying “we can’t determine”? The latter seems more honest.

 

[AntiTheist]

But the determination of a relevant “particular context” must itself be deeply problematic on your view.

Yes, it might be. As I’ve covered on other threads, I’m a moral nihilist, and I don’t think that there is any objective “morality” governing anyone’s actions. This point, however, is completely and totally separate from the fact that human beings behave in certain ways and label their behavior “moral.”

Somehow we have to determine what the relevant “circumstance” is for “best” achieving “those goals” - and there are all sorts of competing interpretations for all the items in scare quotes… so your claim is that “we can determine” - but how?

Well, the work of determining societal goals has already been done by our society – our societal goals include, on the basic level, having an orderly society in which people aren’t running around killing each other, stealing from each other, raping each other,etc. We prefer to live in a society where people are polite and cooperate. And we have a number of values that have developed very slowly over time, including our values for individual liberty, privacy, freedom of religion, secularism, representative government, etc.

Again, I am not asserting that these values are “absolute” in any way. But here we are, we have these values. So if we want to promote these values, we can discuss the actions we think are best to support them. We might not all come up with the same answers, but we can have a rational discussion about them and try to reach a compromise.

 

[dskysmine]

We evolved the capacity to reason. We use our reason to manufacture values. We come up with rules that promote these values and see if we like the results for society. Rinse and repeat.

Nothing is unnatural about any of this.

Some of them can’t be natural… or else they wouldn’t be “immoral”… any manufactured value could be “good”.

Not in the same way as animals who have higher brain functions do, no. But they still have a society that we can describe as functioning along the lines of codes of behavior. We might reasonably assume that if they had higher brain functions, and the accompanying ability to communicate abstractly, they would explicitly enshrine these behaviors as rules.

“Along the lines of codes of behaviour”? Can you prove that a male wolf that attacks the cubs chose to act against those “rules”? You can’t talk about rules when there’s no way to break them willingly…

I didn’t say that what they do is “morality.” They do their social animal thing. We do our social animal thing. Our social animal thing is more complicated – thanks, again, to the more powerful brains that evolution has equipped us with – and we call our social animal thing “morality” in order to contrast it to the social animal things done by other social animals.

If they had the same higher brain functions as we do, perhaps they’d make up more complicated rules and start calling their wolf stuff “morality.”

What does this have to do with our discussion about morality?
You are saying that we call morality to human behaviour when just a few posts ago you said that morality is the same as wolf behaviour… now it doesn’t describe it.

There’s nothing necessarily irrational about dying for a cause that you believe strongly in, especially if you think that your death will somehow benefit the cause.

What benefit is there after you can’t experience anything?

 

[Warrenton]

Because the former is a behavior engaged in by one private citizen against another for reasons that do not benefit the whole of society; the latter is a behavior engaged in by large numbers of people in one society who have agreed to band together and follow the orders of those appointed as their military leaders for, presumably, the good of the society (in theory, of course).

An interesting distinctions, but what do we with the case where someone murders a brutal dictator, or with a democratic government that wages an unjust war? I am sure there are many plausible answers, but as we discussed, because your analysis ultimately sources to Lockean social contract theory, which I do not accept, we will end in disagreement on this point anyway. B

But I do understand where your argument comes from, and respect its pedigree.

I suppose, though it is ironic, I am more of a nihilist than you!

Cheers, and thank you for a most engaging debate!

 

[Betterave]

Well, the work of determining societal goals has already been done by our society – our societal goals include, on the basic level, having an orderly society in which people aren’t running around killing each other, stealing from each other, raping each other,etc. We prefer to live in a society where people are polite and cooperate. And we have a number of values that have developed very slowly over time, including our values for individual liberty, privacy, freedom of religion, secularism, representative government, etc.

Again, I am not asserting that these values are “absolute” in any way. But here we are, we have these values. So if we want to promote these values, we can discuss the actions we think are best to support them. We might not all come up with the same answers, but we can have a rational discussion about them and try to reach a compromise.

What does “the work of determining societal goals” - which so-called work “has already been done by our society” - refer to? It sounds like a meaningless phrase which refers to nothing at all, but instead signals your unwillingness to ask any basic ethical questions outside the box that you naively take your society to have unproblematically prepared for you. But maybe I’m wrong - so what ‘work’ are you referring to?

It sounds to me very much like you’re just covering up your own situation vis-a-vis morality with pretty rhetoric, and your claim that we can have a rational discussion about our different answers seems to be pure groundless assertion. How is rational discussion possible, given your assumptions? It seems to me that the only ‘rational’ discussion possible is one which advances pretty yet meaningless rhetoric about rational discussion, while refusing to ever engage the question: what are the necessary conditions for rational discussion to even be possible? The only possible ‘rational’ for you is to *arbitrarily make normative *some particular descriptive take on the supposedly relevant “particular context” for some ethical question - but that implies a rather empty notion of ‘rational’ (of “we can determine”)… and why are you more justified in saying ‘rational’ than in saying ‘irrational’ (i.e., “we *can’t *determine”)? Again, the latter seems more honest.

 

[tonyrey]

If conscience is placed in us by evolution there is no obvious reason why we should regard its dictates as binding

You seem to suggest that the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust is merely devised by human beings and corresponds to nothing in reality. There is no real reason why we shouldn’t do exactly what we like - and to hell with the rest!

It’s good to know you accept the fact that there is a best course of action.

I was speaking colloquially. I don’t think that there is an objective “best” way to act in a situation.

Is there even an objective “better” way?

Individual decisions about behavior always happen at the level of the individual, and different individuals will judge different actions to be “best” – in whatever context that individual is using.

So they are all mistaken?

Now, I do think that given a particular context – for example, in the context of wanting to promote the values of an orderly society – we can determine that there is an action or set of actions in a circumstance that are best for achieving those goals.

But surely the values of an orderly society originated with individuals…

 

[AntiTheist]

You seem to suggest that the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust is merely devised by human beings and corresponds to nothing in reality. There is no real reason why we shouldn’t do exactly what we like - and to hell with the rest!

Now you’re getting it. In reality, there is no ultimate reason that you shouldn’t do exactly what you want. Now, of course, a thoughtful person is probably going to take into account the fact that many things he wants – financial stability, friends, family life, a good standing in society – require him to regulate some of his natural inclinations a little bit and modify his behavior accordingly, but he accepts this as the price for something he wants.

 

[Curious_Seed]

A lot of threads that touch on atheism invariably touch on morals and morality, and the accusation is usually something along the lines that the morality of atheists is relative, as we do not defer or refer to an absolute authority on the matter.
I’ve been thinking about this - so let me couch my question like this:
What is the difference between the fact that you dont steal because you have a commandment not to, and I dont steal because it is wrong.
What is the difference between the fact that you dont kill because you have a commandment that says you shouldnt, and the fact I dont kill out of respect for all human life - this includes by the way the unborn, and I am also opposed to the death penalty - something not all churches say.
What is the difference between the fact you dont tell lies because you have been commanded not to, and I dont tell lies because I love the truth and hate lies because you can never know where you are with lies and liars.
Is there a difference?
As a believer, is your morality somehow superior to mine?
Can you hold a moral view that I cant by virtue of the fact that you say your morality is absolute and mine you claim is relative?
I ask out of a heady mixture of interest, curiosity and ignorance and hope the way Ive posed the questions are charitable and do not cause anyone any offense.

Sarah x

All morality is learned; no morality is innate.

For those of us who have learned moral values - meaning all of us: some more, some less, some deeply, some less - there are our teachers: priests, parents, school, street, etc.

Many source their teachers to God; many others to something other than.

The significance is belief in God; that is the rate determinant.

For those who do, morality is because God said so.

For those who don’t, morality is because I/you said so.

The truth is for each of us to seek and to determine; but, belief or lack of belief in God references one’s position.

 

[tonyrey]

You seem to suggest that the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust is merely devised by human beings and corresponds to nothing in reality. There is no real reason why we shouldn’t do exactly what we like - and to hell with the rest!

So morality amounts to expediency. There is no reason why we shouldn’t rob, rape, torture, murder and plunder provided that we get what we want and can escape undetected. That is a very convenient philosophy indeed! No wonder you’re an antitheist.
You have a carte blanche.

 

[rick43235]

So morality amounts to expediency. There is no reason why we shouldn’t rob, rape, torture, murder and plunder provided that we get what we want and can escape undetected. That is a very convenient philosophy indeed! No wonder you’re an antitheist.
You have a carte blanche.

So, what are you saying? The only reason you don’t rob, rape, torture, murder and plunder is because if you do, God’s gonna get you?

 

[Betterave]

So, what are you saying? The only reason you don’t rob, rape, torture, murder and plunder is because if you do, God’s gonna get you?

No; read post 109 again. The only reason Antitheist doesn’t do these things is because they are not conducive to him getting the things he wants. If in the future they do turn out to be conducive, then - since he is a ‘thoughtful’ and ‘rational’ person - he’ll go for it.

Tony said nothing to imply that he avoids these things only because he doesn’t want God to get him.

 

[AntiTheist]

There is no reason why we shouldn’t rob, rape, torture, murder and plunder provided that we get what we want and can escape undetected.

Corect. There are no ultimate shoulds or should nots. There are only practical concerns. In the cases of robbery, rape, torture, murder, and plunder (seriously, you wrote “plunder”? What are you, the pirate king?), there are usually the following practical considerations:

1. Most people have absolutely no inclination at all to do those things.
2. Most people have a strong distaste for all of those things
3. Most people would not like the probable results of engaging in any of those behaviors
4. Most people would “feel bad” about doing any of those things
5. There are almost always easier – or at least more pleasant – ways to accomplish one’s goals than those behaviors
6. There are laws in place to discourage all of those activities.
7. Being able to “escape undetected” is virtually impossible, making engaging in those behaviors more risky than most people would like.

But yes, if a person really wants to do one of those actions and doesn’t care about any of the rest of that stuff, there’s literally nothing stopping him. Now, maybe you don’t like the reality of the situation, but I’m telling you how reality actually is. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad.

 

[tonyrey]

Correct. There are no ultimate shoulds or should nots. There are only practical concerns. In the cases of robbery, rape, torture, murder, and plunder (seriously, you wrote “plunder”? What are you, the pirate king?)…

You are more likely to be the pirate king because you seem to approve of plunder, given that you find it out of place. It does fit in with your view of morality : take what you can get!

…there are usually the following practical considerations:

1. Most people have absolutely no inclination at all to do those things.
2. Most people have a strong distaste for all of those things
3. Most people would not like the probable results of engaging in any of those behaviors
4. Most people would “feel bad” about doing any of those things
5. There are almost always easier – or at least more pleasant – ways to accomplish one’s goals than those behaviors
6. There are laws in place to discourage all of those activities.
7. Being able to “escape undetected” is virtually impossible, making engaging in those behaviors more risky than most people would like.

But yes, if a person really wants to do one of those actions and doesn’t care about any of the rest of that stuff, there’s literally nothing stopping him. Now, maybe you don’t like the reality of the situation, but I’m telling you how reality actually is. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad.

Your assertion doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable; it makes me laugh! Your dogmatism demonstrates that your mind is utterly closed to the possibility that morality is not a human invention. How could you demonstrate that you are right?

 

[tonyrey]

So morality amounts to expediency. There is no reason why we shouldn’t rob, rape, torture, murder and plunder provided that we get what we want and can escape undetected. That is a very convenient philosophy indeed! No wonder you’re an antitheist.You have a carte blanche.

A false deduction from my statements!

 

[AntiTheist]

you seem to approve of plunder

You need to be careful with those “seems” – you’re making the elementary mistake of thinking that because I don’t think there are any ultimate rules against something then that means that I like or “approve” of that something. That’s simply false.

There are no ultimate rules against touching a hot stove, but I sure as heck don’t want to do that. There are no ultimate rules against someone celebrating “Talk Like a Pirate Day” every single day, but I don’t want to do that, and I definitely don’t approve of that.

How could you demonstrate that you are right?

Evidence, same as always: we know that natural human desires and values exist (for example, having a distaste for murder, not wanting to be murdererd, wanting to live in an orderly society, etc.) and that people base their actions on these desires and values, exactly as I explained above.

All other claims – including all these claims about supernatural systems of morality – are completely superfluous extras, without any evidentiary support, glomped onto the natural process that we can observe.

You are more likely to be the pirate king

In the immortal words of Gilbert and Sullivan:
For I am a Pirate King
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Aquinas identifies several terms that he calls “transcendentals”, namely thing, one, something, true, and good. Each of these is an aspect of the primary transcendental, which is being. When we say that a triangle drawn sloppily is not as good as a triangle drawn carefully with a ruler, it is the same as saying the first triangle is not as true as the second or the first triangle has less actual being than the second. The OP makes an error when she separates written commandments (being as truth) from her experience of morality (being as the good). Both are aspects of the same being, and the fullness of actualized being is God.

 

[tonyrey]

You need to be careful with those “seems” – you’re making the elementary mistake of thinking that because I don’t think there are any ultimate rules against something then that means that I like or “approve” of that something. That’s simply false.

There are no ultimate rules against touching a hot stove, but I sure as heck don’t want to do that. There are no ultimate rules against someone celebrating “Talk Like a Pirate Day” every single day, but I don’t want to do that, and I definitely don’t approve of that.

You are reading into my statement implications which don’t exist! I was simply pointing out that you seemed surprised by the association of plunder with other crimes… Nothing more than that!

How could you demonstrate that you are right?

Evidence, same as always: we know that natural human desires and values exist (for example, having a distaste for murder, not wanting to be murdered, wanting to live in an orderly society, etc.) and that people base their actions on these desires and values, exactly as I explained above.

The fact that people have desires and values does not imply that those desires and values should be respected. Your belief that “There are no ultimate shoulds or should nots” is not a sound basis for the principles of liberty, equality or fraternity.

All other claims – including all these claims about supernatural systems of morality – are completely superfluous extras, without any evidentiary support, glomped onto the natural process that we can observe.

Nature is amoral!

In the immortal words of Gilbert and Sullivan:
For I am a Pirate King
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.

The Pirate King does not recognise the authority of the true King!