Morality without God?

[ThinkingSapien]

We are agreed, then, that “society” can not be the source or authority for one’s morality.

I think that society is an influencing factor. Some people will conform to some societal “norms”, others will not.

Do you believe, then, that one’s conscience ought to be the authority on moral matters?

For me questions of “ought” and “authority” have their own set of complications I won’t get into here. The best I can do to immediately answer your question is to address whether or not I would promote conscience being a factor if I were engineering a cooperative society myself.

I’d certainly be a proponent of this being a factor. Though there are those whose conscience will remain silent on some matters. In ignoring sociopaths for the moment. There are every day people within a society whose conscience have nothing to say about those in their out group and may even cheer a bit when they see the out group suffer or willful will contribute to it. This has been seen with in-group/out-group lines being drawn on social status and economic lines, nationality, geographical, and other lines.

When one’s concerns reach far outside their in-group and one has better understanding for the others with which s/he is interacting then conscience may be found to contribute to a more harmonious society.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Man is not an isolated animal. His conscience is shaped by his family and by the tribe to which he belongs. So when we speak of natural law morality we are talking about the natural law as it naturally develops within groups as well as within individuals. The moral anarchist is the one who wants to rebel against the conscience of the tribe. This is a form of self serving moral masturbation that is commonly practiced by those who have no regard for the values of the tribe, and for the values that God promotes naturally through the influence of the tribe.

When the war criminals were put on trial after World War II, they were accused not of crimes against the state (the Nazi state had made these crimes legal) but of crimes against universal humanity that are recognized as such by all decent people. The natural law in its negative form (preached in its positive form by Christ) was certainly the guiding principle of these trials: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”

 

[PRmerger]

I think that society is an influencing factor. Some people will conform to some societal “norms”, others will not.

Sure. And when some people do not conform to societal norms, to what are they appealing?

For me questions of “ought” and “authority” have their own set of complications I won’t get into here.

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

The best I can do to immediately answer your question is to address whether or not I would promote conscience being a factor if I were engineering a cooperative society myself.

I’d certainly be a proponent of this being a factor. Though there are those whose conscience will remain silent on some matters. In ignoring sociopaths for the moment. There are every day people within a society whose conscience have nothing to say about those in their out group and may even cheer a bit when they see the out group suffer or willful will contribute to it. This has been seen with in-group/out-group lines being drawn on social status and economic lines, nationality, geographical, and other lines.

When one’s concerns reach far outside their in-group and one has better understanding for the others with which s/he is interacting then conscience may be found to contribute to a more harmonious society.

Well, by “conscience” I am referring to the classical Catholic understanding of conscience. Not the rather modern notion of conscience being a “feeling” that I did something wrong.

The Catholic understanding is: intellect applied to morality. It is knowledge of right/wrong.

With this Catholic understanding in mind, do you believe that a moral person may ever disobey his conscience?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PR

**With this Catholic understanding in mind, do you believe that a moral person may ever disobey his conscience? **

Not if his intellect is properly applied to morality.

There are Catholics who follow political correctness and adopt positions that go against the teachings of the Church. However, this is not to apply intellect to morality, but rather the say-so of people who do not properly use their intellect.

 

[PRmerger]

PR

**With this Catholic understanding in mind, do you believe that a moral person may ever disobey his conscience? **

Not if his intellect is properly applied to morality.

There are Catholics who follow political correctness and adopt positions that go against the teachings of the Church. However, this is not to apply intellect to morality, but rather the say-so of people who do not properly use their intellect.

Indeed.

And I think that no thinking person would ever state, “Yes, it is a morally good thing to disobey one’s conscience.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PR

**And I think that no thinking person would ever state, “Yes, it is a morally good thing to disobey one’s conscience.” **

Yet there are Catholics who say it is a morally good thing to disobey the Church and follow one’s conscience. Cafeteria Catholics.

 

[John_Savage]

1. I don’t think there’s any society that started without some commonly held religious beliefs.
2. Many formerly Christian societies seem to have kept some sort of universal rights from the Judeo-Christian system.
3. Many formerly Christian societies also don’t have rampant violent crime at the moment. Many places are “nice.”
4. Almost all of these formerly Christian societies place less importance on family structure, sexual mores, and private charity.
5. Art and culture are more vulgar, for lack of a better term.
6. There are strong movements for abortion and euthanasia.
7. I wouldn’t count on any of them intervening to prevent a slaughter in any part of the world.
8. Most of these societies have small numbers of children.
9. Most lean towards socialism.

From the facts above, it seems that secularization affects some aspects of morality more than others. I think the idea in these countries is to pass through life as comfortably as possible, without having to do anything that interferes with fun, except paying taxes.

 

[John_Savage]

There’s also less of what some might call “honor” actions, like fighting over insults.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sure. And when some people do not conform to societal norms, to what are they appealing?

A person in such a position isn’t necessarily appealing. The possibilities for the explanations of non-conforming behaviour are too much to talk about exhaustively here. But some explanations include a person having a reason to see the societal norms as contributing to some disadvantage to ones self or one that is cared about, lack of familiarity with the norms, apathy toward the norms, not being impacted the same way as others within the society, disagreement with a popular justification of a norm, a conflict between a norm and some other intention or goal, an intentional display of a violation of a norm to send some message, and some times to challenge and change a norm. This is a scenario dependent question. The question of why people do what they do is a primary topic of psychology. So I feel that any answer I give here will be less than sufficient.

Well, by “conscience” I am referring to the classical Catholic understanding of conscience…] The Catholic understanding is: intellect applied to morality. It is knowledge of right/wrong…]With this Catholic understanding in mind, do you believe that a moral person may ever disobey his conscience?

If you are asking if some one can act in a manner that is contrary to their moral judgement on a situation then I would say “yes.” Though depending on the scenario what the person had originally seen as knowledge of right and wrong can brought into question in conflicting situations and cause the person to wonder if that knowledge was correct.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. Art and culture are more vulgar, for lack of a better term…

What does this mean?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**What does this mean? **

It probably means, not so clean. If so, I agree, having lived long enough to know the difference between clean and dirty.

 

[PRmerger]

A person in such a position isn’t necessarily appealing. The possibilities for the explanations of non-conforming behaviour are too much to talk about exhaustively here. But some explanations include a person having a reason to see the societal norms as contributing to some disadvantage to ones self or one that is cared about, lack of familiarity with the norms, apathy toward the norms, not being impacted the same way as others within the society, disagreement with a popular justification of a norm, a conflict between a norm and some other intention or goal, an intentional display of a violation of a norm to send some message, and some times to challenge and change a norm.

So this is another way of saying: when we disagree with what society claims is moral, we are basing our morality on our conscience. Yes?

If you are asking if some one can act in a manner that is contrary to their moral judgement on a situation then I would say “yes.”

Clarification: are you saying that a person may be acting morally when he acts in a manner that is contrary to his moral judgement? IOW: I believe that my conscience tells me to do [A], but despite this, I think I need to do [not A].

You believe this person may be acting morally?

 

[Equites_Christi]

What about a person who wants to harm others and doesn’t care about reciprocity, either because they know their interests are secure or simply don’t care?

Sure, you could imprison them or execute them, but what I mean is: What philosophical arguments could you offer to such a person as to why they should not harm others, when self-interest is absent?

Even if there IS no hell, you must see that “You must not X because you will go to hell” holds more logical weight as an idea than “You must not X because I don’t want you to.”

What is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ would be decided by the people who create and - more importantly - enforce laws; so what would keep the definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from changing as often as the legislators changed?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hmmm…strange. I attempted to reply a few hours ago. But now I don’t see my response in this thread. My apologies if this comes through as a duplicate response. But here comes my second attempt.

What about a person who wants to harm others and doesn’t care about reciprocity, either because they know their interests are secure or simply don’t care?

I started to mention this back in #91. But while compassion, philosophy, and arguments will get you so far in convincing other people in the short term there is a limit to the impact it will have on society. Threats, penalties, violence, and other negative reinforces have been employed to achieve conformance with those that disagree in society. Back in #91 I mentioned the freeing of the slaves and the enforcement of Brown vs. Board of education as examples of this (that’s the case that ended segregation in school for which there were armed guards deployed in protecting the safety of the minority students). While people may not come to a moral or philosophical agreement, once I attach your* well being to conformance with my* argument in general I achieve quicker conformance than I would be philosophy alone.

• • I don’t mean the literal my/you, but am using these as place holders for the person/group making the rules and the people expected to conform to them.

What philosophical arguments could you offer to such a person as to why they should not harm others, when self-interest is absent?

I think there is more ambiguity couched in the word “Should” then generally realized; it could be expressing obligation, contingency, or a few other concepts. But like I mentioned above once a person’s interest are contingent on their agreement you may see less resistance to conformance.

Even if there IS no hell, you must see that “You must not X because you will go to hell” holds more logical weight as an idea than “You must not X because I don’t want you to.”

I think the foundational concept being illustrated here is the binding of one’s self interest to a desired behaviour.

So this is another way of saying: when we disagree with what society claims is moral, we are basing our morality on our conscience.

Not quite. If I narrow the non-conformance to only those that explicitly disagree with a moral concern encoded in a norm of society (so that I can exclude those that have apathy) I can still find other motivations for one not conforming to norms. A glance
through some material on psychology reveal a few other explanations including poor impulse control, drive reduction, satisfying something that is perceived as a need, and a number of other possible motivations…

Clarification: are you saying that a person may be acting morally when he acts in a manner that is contrary to his moral judgement? IOW: I believe that my conscience tells me to do [A], but despite this, I think I need to do [not A]

Nope. That’s not what I a, saying. A person may conclude that a certain set of actions is immoral. But may perform them anyway because acting in a way that the person finds to be most moral might not be the only motivating goal for the person’s behavior. Often times in real life a person may be acting taking many competing goals into consideration. Staying within the lines of what the person considers to be most moral may be one motivation. Self interest, the interest of loved ones (or other objects of concern, which could include specific people, animals, and ideals) or anticipated objects of concern( including people not yet met) can also influence decisions. One example (and I’ve got a few others in mind) is the person that concludes that stealing is wrong but does so any way to satisfy the goal of feeding offspring, paying for educational expenses, for personal advantage, or for entertainment and thrill. .

You believe this person may be acting morally?

A person that is not conforming to societal norms may by her own judgment be acting more moral, less moral, or the non-conformance may be evaluated as amoral (ex: purchasing a car on a Sunday which in some communities would be considered a moral infraction under some interpretations of Exodus 20 version of the ten commandments). So I can’t generalize on whether a person willfully acting outside the boundaries of societal norms is acting morally or immorally.

 

[PRmerger]

Not quite. If I narrow the non-conformance to only those that explicitly disagree with a moral concern encoded in a norm of society (so that I can exclude those that have apathy) I can still find other motivations for one not conforming to norms. A glance
through some material on psychology reveal a few other explanations including poor impulse control, drive reduction, satisfying something that is perceived as a need, and a number of other possible motivations.

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.

I am not looking for explanations for why apathetic/bad/immoral/sociopathic people do things.

I am asking: what is the source of morality (for people who are apparently moral) if it’s not society? Where do they get their moral compass, if it’s not from society? What is the prompter that tells them, “Even though my society says that child sacrifice is fine, I think it’s wrong. And I know this because _______”

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. That’s not what I a, saying. A person may conclude that a certain set of actions is immoral. But may perform them anyway because acting in a way that the person finds to be most moral might not be the only motivating goal for the person’s behavior. Often times in real life a person may be acting taking many competing goals into consideration. Staying within the lines of what the person considers to be most moral may be one motivation. Self interest, the interest of loved ones (or other objects of concern, which could include specific people, animals, and ideals) or anticipated objects of concern( including people not yet met) can also influence decisions. One example (and I’ve got a few others in mind) is the person that concludes that stealing is wrong but does so any way to satisfy the goal of feeding offspring, paying for educational expenses, for personal advantage, or for entertainment and thrill. .

Again, let’s limit this to explanations for moral behavior. Not sociopathic/immoral/impulsive/apathetic/developmentally delayed folks.

When someone disobeys the societal norms for “good behavior”, to what is he appealing, if not his conscience?

I simply cannot think of any other moral compass that directs a person: it’s either God that drives our morality, or one’s conscience…or …???

What is your belief for this, TS?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Replying some what out of order:

I simply cannot think of any other moral compass that directs a person: it’s either God that drives our morality, or one’s conscience…or …???

What is your belief for this, TS?

My thought on human behaviour, including moral behaviour, is in terms of goal seeking behaviour. Applied intellect (which you’ve refereed to as “conscience”) would be involved in helping the person to anticipate the outcome of certain actions and navigating towards that goal. What those goals will be on matters related to morality is going to be dependent on what that person’s objects of concerns are (those “objects of concern” could be people including the self, groups, animals, ideas, and other entities).

I am asking: what is the source of morality (for people who are apparently moral) if it’s not society?

Society and social interactions are among the influencers that may result in introjection in one’s though process. But the objects of concern also are influencers here. For some people the only object of concern may be the largely the self (ethical egoism) in which case one would expect to see selfish behaviour. For some people the primary concerns are those outside the self (ethical altruism). There are also those whose concerns may be concentrated on specific groups such as children, homeless, factory workers over sees, and so one. And this will influence their moral thinking and may cause them to act more to the interest of that group (ex: a person may see moral conflicts with purchasing from certain brands that rely on workers in unsafe conditions).

A bit of how these objects of concern may be selected in the next paragraph.

Where do they get their moral compass, if it’s not from society? What is the prompter that tells them, “Even though my society says that child sacrifice is fine, I think it’s wrong. And I know this because _______”

That can come about from the person making some emotional/empathetic connection with the child which could cause the child to become an object of concern. Emotions can be contagious. Seeing the child screaming, in pain, and being terminated may induce emotions in an onlooker (not always, as some dehumanizing opinions that may be perpetuated in a society my block some people from feeling empathy for one that they see suffering). That emotional connection seems to be more likely to happen if a person is able to see the other person/entity in question. For example snipers in the armed forces are more likely to have emotional reactions from performing their job (they see the people they kill) than some one firing a missile/bomb (which may kill more people, but those people don’t have to be seen to perform the task). Photographs and video have often been effective tools in motivating people to have concerns for others they have never met and may never meet because they can cause this emotional connection to occur (ex: ensuring that a jewelry purchase doesn’t contain a blood diamond after seeing a picture of a child scared in a related conflict).

When someone disobeys the societal norms for “good behavior”, to what is he appealing, if not his conscience?

I don’t think that “appeal” is the right word here. A person’s intellect may be involved in making a decision that is not aligned with a norm in society. But if some one doesn’t care about the norm, the consequences, or isn’t aware of the possible consequences then that norm may have little influence. Or in the case of the thief stealing food for his family I gave above the person may be well aware of the possible consequences but may still act with the intention of achieving a goal for the object of concern (his family). The norm (don’t steal) may conflict with his goal (feeding his hungry family) and if he has stronger ties to his family than to the norms and knows of no other solutions then the conflict may be resolved by setting aside the norm.

The person isn’t necessarily thinking in terms of “this behaviour is good” and “that behaviour is bad.” Rather “this behaviour may have beneficial outcome for the object of my concern” and “that behaviour may have negative consequences on the object of my concern.” Imagine a scenario when a parent discovers her child killed some one. She may evaluate the action as bad but try to cover it up to protect her object of concern even though she may feel guilty about it.

In applying this thinking to a popular topic in these forums (abortion) for some a fetus is an object of concern. So he or she may have no strong feelings against abortion. For some the fetus is an object of concern, so he or she may be motivated to act in what may be thought to be in the interest of that concern.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking
**
In applying this thinking to a popular topic in these forums (abortion) for some a fetus is an object of concern. So he or she may have no strong feelings against abortion. For some the fetus is an object of concern, so he or she may be motivated to act in what may be thought to be in the interest of that concern. **

In this instance the golden rule surely applies. This rule comes from Christ, and is to be found in other religions stated in various forms. Atheism certainly does not offer us this rule, since atheism says nothing about morality except that it does not come from God (there being no God).

Opposition to the golden rule can only result from refusal to accept the rule as valid. The reasons for not accepting the rule as valid may be found in specific ways, but generally it comes from people who have had an abortion or who want to have the option to decide for an abortion (hence the main backing for abortion comes from the feminist movement).

All reasoning in favor of elective abortion goes against nature. You don’t have to be a Catholic to know this. Hippocrates, the ancient Greek physician, was no Catholic. This did not prevent him from seeing the sacred aspect of life, and that no amount of reasoning should persuade a physician to violate the sacred principle of life.

So the question remains: what is the source authority to justify abortion if God is removed from the picture as the author of our human nature and human conscience?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So the question remains: what is the source authority to justify abortion

I’m not using an authority-based model of behaviour (“obedience” to use the phrase I’ve seen most often used in the human behavioural studies). I’m using a goal-seeking model. While authorities may influence one’s behaviour not all of one’s behaviour is in reaction to an authority.

if God is removed from the picture as the author of our human nature and human conscience?

The replies I’ve given previously aren’t dependent on Yahweh as part of their explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

While authorities may influence one’s behaviour not all of one’s behaviour is in reaction to an authority.

Well, that’s very true. But the laws of any society do require some authority as opposed to “a goal-seeking model.”

Goal seeking *per se *says nothing about whether an act is moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful. One can seek an abortion, but the seeking itself is not a justification of the act.