Non-theistic foundation of morality!

[CrossofChrist]

Metaphysics without an accompanying epistemology is useless.

But epistemology presupposes metaphysics.

So how do you decide if an act is “inherently good” without taking its effects into consideration?

If Susie internally thinks that Fred is a jerk and hates him with a passion, wants all bad things to happen to him, etc., but outwardly expresses herself in such a way that Fred could only come to the conclusion that Susie cares about him (though the opposite is true), is that love?

Now I’ll introduce Bob to the scene. Bob internally deeply cares about Fred and wants the best for him in every way, but outwardly comes across as cold–even though he has the best intentions. Does Bob love Fred more than Susie? By looking solely at the effects it would seem that Susie is far and away a more loving person than Bob.

But I’ll get to the heart of the matter here…

Why is it better to live than to die? Why does anything even matter? A theist will say reality is ultimately based upon the Good–goodness and existence itself–and so death and hate are contrary to the very nature of reality. In your question I quote above, you’re asking how I can know something is good (epistemology). But that’s presupposing that there is something good in the first place. I’m asking why something is good. Your example you gave of what happened when you went to that ex-communist country (props to you for making people smile, BTW) evades the question of why something is good; it’s merely assumed.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I guess you should ask why I should take you seriously, right? Or why you should take me seriously? Do any of us need each other?

No need for any of that. Where I sit, I am only interested in a friendly exchange of ideas.

But I want to point out something. All of you on the other side of the fence avoided to actually argue about the negative points of the proposal. I was hoping to see some constructive criticism, along the lines: “Ok, let’s accept the basic tenets of the proposition. Now let’s examine the conclusions from it. The drawbacks are as follows: … and … and … Now these drawbacks could be eliminated by these additional propositions: yaddi… yadda… yadda.”

What happened instead? The posters all pointed out what could happen if the proposal is NOT followed. They kept asking what is “compelling” about the proposition. That approach is sheer nonsense. The behavior is merely suggested, not mandated. We do not talk about enforced laws, we talk about guidelines. The way how y’all reacted is like this: “I propose a new method to solve a production problem, and ask you to evaluate it”. Instead of doing that you all start to argue about problems which will arise when that new method is NOT followed. How can the method be sabotaged.

A simple analogy: I am not interested how many different recipes can produce non-edible bread, how many different ways can one screw up the baking process, and how many ways can one sabotage the working of the bakery.

You (personally) offered an empty criticism: The proposition is not “robust” enough. And some of the corollaries do not follow. You did not say how the conclusion does not follow. As a matter of fact there is an even simpler way to formulate the basic foundation: “The right of your fist ends where my nose beings”. That is all what is needed to form a harmonious society.

So your criticism should follow the following lines: "Ok, let’s suppose that everyone follows this guideline. It still does not allow to form a harmonious society - for the following reasons… ".

By the way, I can point out that the theistic approach is based not on suggestions, rather commands. And those commands are supposed to be followed on pain of “eternal punishment”. If one follows the commands, then they will be rewarded. A typical carrot and stick type of “morality”, practiced by the mafia: “obey and you will be rewarded; disobey and you will be punished”. And even that kind of fear based “enforcement system” could only produce the current state of affairs.

But I do understand that your goal wasn’t actually to undertake any extensive study of the real problems humans face when they try to live together with each other in harmony.

Oh, brother.Not another mind-reader? Is there anyone “out there”, who does not claim to know what my internal thought processes are? Sheesh.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But epistemology presupposes metaphysics.

Obviously.

If Susie internally thinks that Fred is a jerk and hates him with a passion, wants all bad things to happen to him, etc., but outwardly expresses herself in such a way that Fred could only come to the conclusion that Susie cares about him (though the opposite is true), is that love?

Now I’ll introduce Bob to the scene. Bob internally deeply cares about Fred and wants the best for him in every way, but outwardly comes across as cold–even though he has the best intentions. Does Bob love Fred more than Susie? By looking solely at the effects it would seem that Susie is far and away a more loving person than Bob.

Do they ACT on their thoughts? Because thoughts don’t matter. Acts matter.

Why is it better to live than to die?

The definition of life is: “to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment”. Every living beings attempts to maintain their homeostasis. And it is obvious that a pleasant and enjoyable life (basic biology) is preferable to a miserable existence.

Why does anything even matter?

Matters to whom? Nothing matters to a rock. It does not “care” if you break into smaller pieces.

A theist will say reality is ultimately based upon the Good–goodness and existence itself–and so death and hate are contrary to the very nature of reality. In your question I quote above, you’re asking how I can know something is good (epistemology). But that’s presupposing that there is something good in the first place. I’m asking why something is good. Your example you gave of what happened when you went to that ex-communist country (props to you for making people smile, BTW) evades the question of why something is good; it’s merely assumed.

What is the difference?

 

[e_c]

The behavior is merely suggested, not mandated. We do not talk about enforced laws, we talk about guidelines.

This is the main problem. What you are talking about is not really moral law.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is the main problem. What you are talking about is not really moral law.

Are you kidding? There is no moral “law”. There can be no “law” without enforcement. Who would enforce this “law”?

 

[Hatikvah]

Are you kidding? There is no moral “law”. There can be no “law” without enforcement. Who would enforce this “law”?

Exactly. To the theist, the only one who can enforce this law is God, or other divinities! This is why moral law can only be kept together and sealed in by God or other deities – that’s what happened in the ancient world.

 

[davidv]

Are you kidding? There is no moral “law”. There can be no “law” without enforcement

Now who is kidding? Why is enforcement the criteria for determining what is law?

By the way, some of natural law is codified in civil and criminal law.

Who would enforce this “law”?

Man and God.

 

[Gorgias]

1Lord1Faith:

If adultery is ok with me, and not with you, there is a conflict.

Only if we would be married to each other. Otherwise there is no conflict.

No…only if it’s not your wife with whom I want to commit adultery; otherwise, there’s a big conflict.

No, the golden rules ARE the moral principles.

No, 1Lord1Faith is right, here: the Golden Rule is an expression of ethics (which answers the question “what is proper conduct?”) not of morals (which answers the question “what are the principles upon which I decide what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’?”).

That is for the mother to decide. If you are the father of that fetus, you two can jointly decide. If you cannot agree, the mother has two votes, and you have one. The fetus has no vote. After all it does not even have a working brain for quite a long time.

A person must have a working brain. Otherwise it is just hollow body.

This is a perfect example of why the ‘Golden Rule’ isn’t about morality. It’s your moral belief that “the fetus has no vote” and “a person must have a working brain” that you’re expressing here – the Golden Rule doesn’t say anything about fetuses (or about the status of personhood of anyone in particular). Therefore, the Golden Rule is not a basis for morality.

The phrase “basic rights” needs to be explained. There should be only one basic “right”, to be left alone. Every other “right” imposes itself on some others.

What about the consideration you suggested: “optimal human behavior will be a certain level of cooperation to allow minimizing the pain and suffering and raise the level of well-being”? That’s an imposition on others!

And if a “right” is not enforced, it is just a suggestion.

And now, having muddied the waters by missing the difference between ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’, you’ve added another issue: what of the need to enforce the dictates of morality? After all, if I’m in the middle of exercising my basic right to be left alone while beating my spouse (and she’s very much not having her right to be left alone respected) and you’re unable to enforce this ‘right’, then does that mean that the right is only a suggestion? :nope:

Again, if you are a rational person, you know that no one person is an island. Both the total “cooperation” and the total “competition” are inferior strategies in the “game of life”.

Yeah, but for someone who espouses a Nietzschean ‘master/slave morality’ (in which might makes right), “do unto others” explicitly means “attempt to make them slaves while they attempt the same to you” – and that would be perfectly ‘moral’ and a legitimate application of the Golden Rule…!

How do you decide what is “the right thing to do”? Please share the epistemology of this process.

You’ve already decided that there’s an “optimal strategy” for “minimizing pain and suffering and rais[ing] the level of well-being.” Please share the epistemology of this process.

It is inherently good, because “what goes around, comes around”.

That’s just an aphorism, not anything that’s real. Unless you’re suggesting that karma is real – in which case, you’ve just wandered into a theistic foundation of morality!

Just try to approach people with a kind, smiling attitude and they will reciprocate it. Try to be hostile from the get-go, and they will reciprocate that, too.

Mind if we ask the millions killed in the Holocaust or in Pol Pot’s killing fields or by Stalin how well a “kind, smiling attitude” worked for them?

Tyranny cannot survive in the information age, when everyone has instant access to the latest information on their smart-phone.

“Instant access to the latest information” doesn’t prevent tyranny; it just has the potential to limit subsequent acts of tyranny. So much for the “optimal solution”, eh?

I think that you guys and gals expect too much. There is no way to create a system which is foolproof both on the short run and the long haul. Which cannot be circumvented even by malicious people. I am sorry to say that such expectations are impossible to meet

Agreed. That’s why “live and let live” fails so miserably as a basis of morality.

 

[Gorgias]

The behavior is merely suggested, not mandated. We do not talk about enforced laws, we talk about guidelines.

In your OP, you claimed that a right that isn’t enforced is merely a suggestion. Now you assert there isn’t any enforcement. You can’t have it both ways. Which way is it?

As a matter of fact there is an even simpler way to formulate the basic foundation: “The right of your fist ends where my nose beings”. That is all what is needed to form a harmonious society.

In a post on this thread, you mentioned that tyranny cannot survive in the information age. If the rights of our fists end where tyrants’ noses begin, then how do we protect a ‘harmonious society’?

But I want to point out something. All of you on the other side of the fence avoided to actually argue about the negative points of the proposal.

Nah… there were some pretty good arguments about the negative points: from a practical standpoint, unenforceability; from a theoretical standpoint, the fact that this isn’t a proposal about morality at all.

What happened instead? The posters all pointed out what could happen if the proposal is NOT followed.

Not so, friend. It’s not a question about whether it’s “not followed”, but more to the point, “not followed as you seem to think it should be followed.” After all, the Nietzschean approach that I suggested follows your construction to the letter – and it achieves none of the goals that you expect to achieve.

So your criticism should follow the following lines: "Ok, let’s suppose that everyone follows this guideline. It still does not allow to form a harmonious society - for the following reasons… ".

It seems that some have done this, on this thread. You’ve berated them, too.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Do they ACT on their thoughts? Because thoughts don’t matter. Acts matter.

I’ll ask as directly as I can: what is love? What is goodness? Are they real or not?

The definition of life is: “to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment”. Every living beings attempts to maintain their homeostasis. And it is obvious that a pleasant and enjoyable life (basic biology) is preferable to a miserable existence.

I asked whether it is preferable to live or to die, not to live greatly or live poorly.

Matters to whom? Nothing matters to a rock. It does not “care” if you break into smaller pieces.

Is there a purpose to our lives? If someone commits suicide, is that tragic?

What is the difference?

Stating that something is the way it is compared to asking why something is the way it is? I think the difference should be obvious.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Exactly. To the theist, the only one who can enforce this law is God, or other divinities! This is why moral law can only be kept together and sealed in by God or other deities – that’s what happened in the ancient world.

How does God enforce law?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I’ll ask as directly as I can: what is love? What is goodness? Are they real or not?

Love is an emotion - which needs to be acted upon, otherwise it is just an empty word. Goodness is a concept. The word “real” needs to be defined.

I asked whether it is preferable to live or to die, not to live greatly or live poorly.

Your question is too broad to answer. Generally people prefer to live, even during hard times. But some people prefer to commit suicide.

Is there a purpose to our lives? If someone commits suicide, is that tragic?

We can create a purpose. A suicide may be tragic.

Stating that something is the way it is compared to asking why something is the way it is? I think the difference should be obvious.

Again the “why” is too broad to answer. One size definitely does not fit all.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In your OP, you claimed that a right that isn’t enforced is merely a suggestion. Now you assert there isn’t any enforcement. You can’t have it both ways. Which way is it?

They are the same. A right is only a right if it is enforced. A law is only a law if it is enforced. But I only talked about a few guidelines, which would produce a harmonious society if everyone would voluntarily follow them.

In a post on this thread, you mentioned that tyranny cannot survive in the information age. If the rights of our fists end where tyrants’ noses begin, then how do we protect a ‘harmonious society’?

Using force is allowed in defense.

 

[Gorgias]

They are the same. A right is only a right if it is enforced.

So, there’s no right to life… unless someone enforces it?

That doesn’t make sense: either a right is a right or it’s not. A right that’s unjustly denied is still a right, even if it isn’t protected sufficiently.

A law is only a law if it is enforced.

Again, no. It’s still the law, even if it’s flaunted. Your take on things is blatantly utilitarian.

But I only talked about a few guidelines, which would produce a harmonious society if everyone would voluntarily follow them.

Oh – so, it’s not a proposal, just an idealistic wish? OK… it makes more sense that way, if we’re only looking at it as a pie-in-the-sky proposal. It’s not really a “foundation of morality” so much as it is a naive “wouldn’t it be nice if…” notion!

Using force is allowed in defense.

See the problem yet? Your response to “a few guidelines” is more and more and more ‘guidelines’. In other words: not a foundation of morality.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Your question is too broad to answer. Generally people prefer to live, even during hard times. But some people prefer to commit suicide.

So you say it’s up to the individual whether or not something is good or not?

We can create a purpose. A suicide may be tragic.

But may not be?

Again the “why” is too broad to answer. One size definitely does not fit all.

What makes it too broad?

I’ll retrace the discussion (from my perspective) via paraphrasing:

I wanted to know your thoughts on what makes showing respect to another good. You responded with “what goes around, comes around”. I wanted to know why that is what makes it good. You replied with an anecdote about how when you did something other people responded similarly. I explained (or attempted to explain) that your anecdote merely gave an example of something “coming around”, that your system “worked”. But it failed to demonstrate why that actually is good, only that people were behaving in a way that was generally enjoyable for others.

That is, unless your reasoning for why it was good was because of generally agreed upon norms by the majority; a morality determined by man. Is that what you meant?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, there’s no right to life… unless someone enforces it?

There is no right to life. The Declaration of Independence notwithstanding. It is just a very nice and naïve document (just my suggestion in this thread. )

That doesn’t make sense: either a right is a right or it’s not. A right that’s unjustly denied is still a right, even if it isn’t protected sufficiently.

You could wave a sign with the words: “I have a right to life” and show it to an attacking lion… and see if it says… “oh well, then I will have to find someone else to eat for dinner”.

Again, no. It’s still the law, even if it’s flaunted. Your take on things is blatantly utilitarian.

Not quite, but close.

Oh – so, it’s not a proposal, just an idealistic wish? OK… it makes more sense that way, if we’re only looking at it as a pie-in-the-sky proposal. It’s not really a “foundation of morality” so much as it is a naive “wouldn’t it be nice if…” notion!

Did you expect anything else on a discussion board? We have tons of thought experiments, this is just one more.

See the problem yet? Your response to “a few guidelines” is more and more and more ‘guidelines’. In other words: not a foundation of morality.

Nope, because it is the direct result of the negative golden rule. If someone does not want to be defeated, then he should not attack first. The defense of: “the whole war started when he hit me back”… might work with kids, but not with rational adults.

 

[Hatikvah]

How does God enforce law?

This speculation depends on the faith of one… in Christianity, for example, we have postulated the idea of God’s active wrath in some situations (which has also been suggested by other Abrahamic faiths, and another wide variety, especially the polytheism of old), and Hell in particular.

Again, it varies.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So you say it’s up to the individual whether or not something is good or not?

For himself? If the individual is a rational person in the full command of his facilities, then yes. If he is unconscious or incapacitated to state his wish, then someone else can make an educated guess.

But may not be?

Indeed. If someone is in intolerable pain and there is no help available, then the suicide is a rational option.

What makes it too broad?

There is not enough information.

I’ll retrace the discussion (from my perspective) via paraphrasing:

I wanted to know your thoughts on what makes showing respect to another good. You responded with “what goes around, comes around”. I wanted to know why that is what makes it good. You replied with an anecdote about how when you did something other people responded similarly. I explained (or attempted to explain) that your anecdote merely gave an example of something “coming around”, that your system “worked”. But it failed to demonstrate why that actually is good, only that people were behaving in a way that was generally enjoyable for others.

That is, unless your reasoning for why it was good was because of generally agreed upon norms by the majority; a morality determined by man. Is that what you meant?

Not a bad approximation. Read the OP again. The starting premise is that we are all biological beings, who seek out pleasure and try to evade pain and suffering. Therefore it is “good” to be kind and helpful and respectful to others. The anecdote rests on solid foundation. It is easy to see that people respond in kind to decent and hurtful behavior.

Yes, your remark about the “system worked” is sufficient to declare that it is “good”. To put it into a different form: “if your recipe to bake a cake produces a cake which is declared delicious by others - then your recipe was GOOD”. There is no other criteria. If the method works, then it is good. This is applicable to all the epistemological methods. An epistemological method is not “true” or “false”, it either works of it does not.

 

[e_c]

Not a bad approximation. Read the OP again. The starting premise is that we are all biological beings, who seek out pleasure and try to evade pain and suffering. Therefore it is “good” to be kind and helpful and respectful to others. The anecdote rests on solid foundation. It is easy to see that people respond in kind to decent and hurtful behavior.

Let me repeat my advice about never becoming a parent.

It is true, people seek out pleasures and avoid pains. So it is “good” inasmuch as it is wanted (fine), but there are all kinds of pleasures that our intuition would call “bad” and all kinds of pains that our intuition would call “good” when removed from the situation.

And once again, this does not explain why we “must” act a certain way… The only true motivation for “must” is happiness, since it is the universal human good we all seek. Back to that Aristotle guy you bashed.

Furthermore, trying to calculate these things gets extremely complicated on very small scales, let alone on a global scale. So forget establishing a normative ethics with this, you can only have a casuistry… which, by the way, ultimately comes back to “whatever I feel like, since it’s not binding, it’s just a suggestion anyway.”

This is a sophistical thread. It is repetitive of recently failed threads, starts with similar bad grounds (viz. not beginning with a discussion about happiness), and uses very long and sloppy arguments that aren’t worth the time to deconstruct.

Good luck.

 

[CrossofChrist]

For himself? If the individual is a rational person in the full command of his facilities, then yes. If he is unconscious or incapacitated to state his wish, then someone else can make an educated guess.

Then it appears you do say man is the creator of morality. But what man creates he can just as easily take away or change.

Indeed. If someone is in intolerable pain and there is no help available, then the suicide is a rational option.

Couldn’t disagree more. I think this is a great example for why your system can’t work to convince me or other Catholics and is no true system of morality; why, despite your emphasis on the system “working”, there’s more too it than that. It doesn’t matter if the machine goes if it leads to the destruction of man, even with man’s approval. Although if man gives the approval perhaps you don’t care, since you mention in a different post how you don’t think there’s a right to life.

Someone with power could very easily use the system you devised and twist it saying “Catholics (Muslims, Jews, you name it) can be ostracized/fined/imprisoned for trying to prevent Susie from doing (insert a cause here). Oh, you think this impacts society as a whole? I don’t, I think it’s just Susie doing what she wants, so too bad.”

There is not enough information.

You ended up answering my question.

Not a bad approximation. Read the OP again. The starting premise is that we are all biological beings, who seek out pleasure and try to evade pain and suffering. Therefore it is “good” to be kind and helpful and respectful to others. The anecdote rests on solid foundation. It is easy to see that people respond in kind to decent and hurtful behavior.

Here’s a problem I have with your system you created: it’s too selfish. Though you may skirt around it, It appears to be based on maximizing my own personal pleasure. Avoid pain at all costs. When push comes to shove, me first. And that leaves no room for sacrifice. So I disagree with “fact #2”, especially if posited as an absolute.

Yes, your remark about the “system worked” is sufficient to declare that it is “good”. To put it into a different form: “if your recipe to bake a cake produces a cake which is declared delicious by others - then your recipe was GOOD”. There is no other criteria. If the method works, then it is good. This is applicable to all the epistemological methods. An epistemological method is not “true” or “false”, it either works of it does not.

This is all based upon your ethical proposition(s?). But as stated in the OP, your ethical propositions are based on being close to a universal consensus. But that’s where it falls apart; what happens if sometime in the future that is no longer near-universal, or even becomes a minority opinion? Or what happens in situations like I outlined above, where there is a very serious conflict of interest? You’ve moved the golden rule from being built on rock, on goodness as ontological reality (God), and moved it to shifting sand (human opinions).