Objective Morals Debate (Atheists only)

[Alceste]

But why is rape and murder any worse than Ghandi,

You know it is. You don't need anything besides your own fundamental human nature to convince you it is wrong to hurt other humans. When certain humans deviate so far from the norms of human behavior that most of its would believe their actions to be wrong, you know that too. You don't have to pretend your morals are not subjective to be able to tell right from wrong.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You know it is. You don't need anything besides your own fundamental human nature to convince you it is wrong to hurt other humans. When certain humans deviate so far from the norms of human behavior that most of its would believe their actions to be wrong, you know that too. You don't have to pretend your morals are not subjective to be able to tell right from wrong.

I unconsciously believe it is, but objectively they are both natural events, neither good or bad, because good and bad is a personal feeling/opinion, in which objectives are NOT made of.

 

[jarofthoughts]

For a more comprehensive answer to the question of morals, see this article that I wrote some time ago: Random thoughts about Science and the World - Where Do You Get Your Morals From?

 

[work in progress]

There are, however, inherently more sensible goals than others.

The process of life is that life that is fit to survive often does, and that life that is unfit for survival eventually stops surviving. Morals that are unsuitable towards life, therefore are going to bring themselves to extinction.

Most people, even enemies, desire personal happiness for themselves and their allies. We're built to. Of the various moral systems, there are some that are objectively better at bringing about satisfaction and happiness to people than others.

This could present a naturalistic version of Euthyphro's Dilemma -- is a choice of conduct objectively moral because it has survival advantages, or does it enhance survivability because it is moral? I think evolution can tell us that morals are useful for our survival advantage, but is that the same thing as determining that they are objectively moral?

I agree that we are the way we are (mostly cooperative, and care about others to varying degrees) because our evolutionary path has led most of us to have deep concern for family and those close to us, and given us an appreciation for the merits of reciprocity. Most of our shared concepts of morality are rooted in kin altruism and reciprocal altruism -- so we can share a lot of values in common; but I see a problem in the attempts by Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Richard Carrier, Tom Clark, and others - in trying to ground ethics in science and evolutionary principles, and create a system of objective ethics and morals. Mutations occur randomly, and a blind, emergent force of natural selection chooses which adaptations will be favoured, and which ones will not. How does this method which proceeds without purpose, provide a means to give us inherent values that can be universally applied?

 

[swamplizard]

My apologies, Sum,

I just noticed that this thread has in its title "Atheists only." I don't have that button, so please disregard my previous posts.

Sincerely,
swampy

 

[waitasec]

Why is causing unreasonable harm or suffering bad?

because we have something called empathy...
empathy, has also made so we can reason into thinking
it is better to be a part of a pack than it is to be alone...
our species has the ability to rationalize the idea of solidarity which is useful for survival.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Do you believe in absolute good/evil? Do you believe in absolute morals?

No

How can you believe in absolute morals or something that is good or evil to everyone if you don't believe in an objective meaning to life?

I don't see the connection. Whether something is good or bad does not give it purpose.

Do you believe in an absolute meaning of life?

Yes. To live.

How can you believe in an absolute meaning to life if you don't believe in a God?

The same way mathematics doesn't imply a god.

 

[Willamena]

I unconsciously believe it is, but ... they are both natural events, neither good or bad, because good and bad is a personal feeling/opinion...

Is the unconscious belief somehow exempt from applying "good" and "bad" to any situations? Isn't it what you really feel?

 

[Willamena]

Do you believe in absolute good/evil? Do you believe in absolute morals?

Yes, and I believe in relative good/evil and relative morals. I believe in the universal case and in the unique case.

How can you believe in absolute morals or something that is good or evil to everyone if you don't believe in an objective meaning to life?

First, the question implies that you can't believe in absolute morals if you don't believe in a grand meaning to life, which I don't accept as the case. I see morals as dependent upon "good/evil," which is possible in the context of each unique take on life. Each moment that we rewrite (cognize) the world rights the world in a unique way; each take of the world contains "absolute good/evil" (amongst other things).

Do you believe in an absolute meaning of life?

In so far as it is included in my take of the world, yes. As an aside, I see it being related to a strong sense of curiosity.

How can you believe in an absolute meaning to life if you don't believe in a God?

If you haven't composed an image of "god," there is no need to include it in the image of the world.

 

[Penumbra]

And why should we give people what they deserve?

Why follow the way everyone feels they should be treated? Why is it bad to be rude and deny equal rights?

Why not follow a way that you don't want to be treated yourself?

But why is rape and murder any worse than Gandhi?

Why is causing unreasonable harm or suffering bad?

Why try to avoid it happening to us? Why is rape or murder to us bad?

There are two discrete steps involved here. I'll list them in reverse order.

2) Morality in Reference to Goals
Morality can be objective when it is relative to some agreed-upon goal. That is, if two or more people agree that a given thing is usually preferable compared to another thing (like eudaimonia vs suffering, life vs death, peace vs war), then, in reference to that goal, there are objectively superior ways to reach those goals compared to other ways. In other words, if two people have the goal of maximizing happiness for themselves and their community, then if you analyze their behaviors and decisions, there are distinctly better ways of behaving compared to other ways. Just like anything else- there are techniques for building a house that result in a better house than other techniques. It doesn't mean it's linear- there can be multiple optimal ways. But there will be some that are better than others.

1) Defining Those Goals
But then, you may point out that there is no necessity to agree on a goal, or that the goals are arbitrary. That's true, but it's not really as chaotic as that. It's no coincidence that most people desire happiness- most of us are hardwired to because that's what is conducive for survival. Life that pursues death or actions that make life unsustainable generally doesn't last very long. For humans, who are social animals who's biggest strengths are intelligence and cooperation, the ability to successfully work with others leads to life or death in the long run. Some goals are inherently more sensible than others for life, because life has gone through an iterative filter to rule out things that don't work. Different things work for different species.

So, morality does have objective aspects for any person any of us would be interested in talking to (basically, non-sociopaths), because we agree on certain rather self-evident goals.

 

[9Westy9]

What makes it better? Your morals? Then we will simply be doing a 360

Everyone's morals . It's the golden rule. Why do we help other people? because it benefits both us and them

 

[The Sum of Awe]

For a more comprehensive answer to the question of morals, see this article that I wrote some time ago: Random thoughts about Science and the World - Where Do You Get Your Morals From?

So morality is based off what keeps us alive? Why does it matter if we are alive or not? Is it an absolute meaning to life?

 

[waitasec]

So morality is based off what keeps us alive?

in a roundabout way, yes

Why does it matter if we are alive or not?

self preservation is an instinct we all have (well most of us anyway)

Is it an absolute meaning to life?

think about that for a minute.

you are alive and the point is about
[youtube]SKdVq_vNAAI[/youtube]
Bee Gees, Staying alive - YouTube

 

[The Sum of Awe]

because we have something called empathy...
empathy, has also made so we can reason into thinking
it is better to be a part of a pack than it is to be alone...
our species has the ability to rationalize the idea of solidarity which is useful for survival.

No morals are "reasonable" because the morals depend on what you want to be the outcome as. If you want an unhealthy, weak, and a depressed society, your main moral system will be altruism and selflessness.

If you want a strong, aggressive, yet dumb society, your main moral system would be kill anything that seems threatening without giving it/them a chance.

If you want a dead society, your morality will be eating very unhealthy things, accept murder, accept rape, and love even your enemies.

If you want a surviving society, your morals will be give people a chance to live until you know they're just dangerous for society, don't kill unless for protection, and don't rape. Stealing CAN go on in this society, it's a mysterious moral on why we have it, but it probably cuts down to a 'everyone is happy' society, which is also a varied form of society but not necessary.

Now ask why the 'everyone is happy' society which I'm sure you picked is the most 'reasonable one' out of all of those? Is happiness the absolute meaning to life? Says who/what?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Is the unconscious belief somehow exempt from applying "good" and "bad" to any situations? Isn't it what you really feel?

What I really feel? Yes. All others? No.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yes, and I believe in relative good/evil and relative morals. I believe in the universal case and in the unique case.

Is relative really absolute?

First, the question implies that you can't believe in absolute morals if you don't believe in a grand meaning to life, which I don't accept as the case. I see morals as dependent upon "good/evil," which is possible in the context of each unique take on life. Each moment that we rewrite (cognize) the world rights the world in a unique way; each take of the world contains "absolute good/evil" (amongst other things).

Good and evil is actually dependent off morals. To determine 'this' is good or bad you need morals to base it around basically in the same way as asking 'is this moral or immoral'

In so far as it is included in my take of the world, yes. As an aside, I see it being related to a strong sense of curiosity.

What is THE meaning of life that everyone must follow? Why is it the meaning of life? Who/what determines it? The self? Then it is not absolute.

 

[waitasec]

Now ask why the 'everyone is happy' society which I'm sure you picked is the most 'reasonable one' out of all of those? Is happiness the absolute meaning to life? Says who/what?

if we are depressed our survival cannot succeed.
and since we are on survival mode...we have no choice but to choose life which is the antithesis of depression.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't see the connection. Whether something is good or bad does not give it purpose.

But there must be something to base the morals around. I screwed up in the order I asked it, the absolute good and bad were supposed to be first because they are dependent of absolute morals, and absolute morals are dependent of an absolute meaning to life.

The morals come from what you want as a goal, what they achieve, and that would be a meaning to life. Now if the morals were absolute in the sense everyone had to follow them, then the meaning of life must also be absolute.

Yes. To live.

Why do we have to live? And apparently a majority of people have failed that meaning to life.

The same way mathematics doesn't imply a god.

In the same sense of good and evil going around morals, morals around a meaning to life, a meaning to life that is absolute must be created by an ordain creator, something that absolutely rules the universe, and in the sense God would most likely be the wisest, if not the only choice to get your absolute, universal morals from.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There are two discrete steps involved here. I'll list them in reverse order.

2) Morality in Reference to Goals
Morality can be objective when it is relative to some agreed-upon goal. That is, if two or more people agree that a given thing is usually preferable compared to another thing (like eudaimonia vs suffering, life vs death, peace vs war), then, in reference to that goal, there are objectively superior ways to reach those goals compared to other ways. In other words, if two people have the goal of maximizing happiness for themselves and their community, then if you analyze their behaviors and decisions, there are distinctly better ways of behaving compared to other ways. Just like anything else- there are techniques for building a house that result in a better house than other techniques. It doesn't mean it's linear- there can be multiple optimal ways. But there will be some that are better than others.

1) Defining Those Goals
But then, you may point out that there is no necessity to agree on a goal, or that the goals are arbitrary. That's true, but it's not really as chaotic as that. It's no coincidence that most people desire happiness- most of us are hardwired to because that's what is conducive for survival. Life that pursues death or actions that make life unsustainable generally doesn't last very long. For humans, who are social animals who's biggest strengths are intelligence and cooperation, the ability to successfully work with others leads to life or death in the long run. Some goals are inherently more sensible than others for life, because life has gone through an iterative filter to rule out things that don't work. Different things work for different species.

So, morality does have objective aspects for any person any of us would be interested in talking to (basically, non-sociopaths), because we agree on certain rather self-evident goals.

Name one moral that every human agrees on.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Everyone's morals . It's the golden rule. Why do we help other people? because it benefits both us and them

Why do something that benefits both us and them?


I doubt it's 'everyone's morals' after all the long questions we've been through.