Nontheist ethics.

[Corvus]

This is a continuation of a debate started in general discussion.

If morality is not derived from doctrine, why act morally?

[Corvus]

Corvus wrote:

What I am trying to discover is if morality is, as I believe it, an artificial construct for a way to achieve through reason what we lost through reason; instinctual behaviour.

My opinion is that we have not lost our instinctuality; I think we are kidding ouselves when we say that our behaviour has no instinctive basis. But because we can rationalize, and verbalize, our thought processes, the instinctive basis becomes obscured. But it is still there, IMO.

Yes, I believe you're right. And that further explains why we limit our altruistic vision to what we know. I think in the future we will find out that a lot of our behaviour is limited by heredity. Only recently we discover that monogamy is genetically determined in mice(?)!! Fascinating! But in the end it's absolutely meaningless.

I wouldn't [return the money] because I don't care that another person suffers whom I can get no obvious reward from.

But would you not consider this behavior antisocial?

That would depend on from whom exactly am I taking that $20. The whole basis of welfare systems is that one takes money from someone who can afford to lose it and gives it to someone who does not have much of it. I can justify it easily enough if I must. Are you postulating that any anti-social behaviour is by necessity immoral behaviour?

If you are suggesting that it is morally inconsistent to eat at a restaurant while children in Africa are starving, I fail to see the connection.

Not at all. It would be morally inconsistent to say one cared for all humanity and wished to alleviate as much suffering as one can and still eat at restaurants that, in present times, cost at least $20 per person. With $10 more, one could contribute to a dollar a day charity.

There is still no ethical basis for not mistreating animals that are wild or that are in one's possession.

[perfessor]

Corvus wrote:

Are you postulating that any anti-social behaviour is by necessity immoral behaviour?

First, let me "waffle" by saying that I am not a psychologist, social scientist, or anything like that - I am by practice and training an electrical engineer. So I'm not sure that my opinions rise to the level of "postulating". But I do think that much of what we term "moral" is based on what we consider to be good "social" behavior. This does not make it artificial - IMO, it makes it quite natural, since our social behavior has its roots in activities that, for millenia, were crucial to the survival of the small groups of hunter-gatherers that were our natural condition not too long ago.

As you seem to indicate (I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if you want), our ethical behavior stops at the borders of our "tribe". It is true that if I try to ensure the welfare of every human worldwide, it becomes difficult or impossible to enjoy luxuries such as restaurant food, warm bed, indoor plumbing, etc. Most people - myself included - are content with doing what they can - which is not much. I would cheerfully lend my car, or provide space in a spare bedroom, to a close friend or family member who needed help - but not to strangers, of course. Others do in fact take vows of poverty and try to do much more. It is interesting to me that while most would agree that mass murder is immoral, we have no problem with it in war. Of course, in virtually all wars our political leaders begin by demonizing and de-humanizing the enemy. If the other side is wild animals, sub-human, infidels, etc., how much easier it is to pull the trigger.

There is still no ethical basis for not mistreating animals that are wild or that are in one's possession.

I'm not sure why you put the 'mis' in front of 'treating'.

For me, if I can sense that another creature is in pain, I feel an empathy with that creature. So I would not want to cause suffering to the animals I own - or any others, for that matter. What do you mean by "ethical basis"? Is this feeling of empathy not enough?

[rebecca]

You act based on minimising the consequences of your actions, and thus giving a model to others to do the same. To an extent, I follow this rule. But if I were able to steal something without a single soul knowing or finding out, I see no problem with it. Murder too, though I find it distasteful.

You miss my point entirely. It has nothing to do with who knows what I do: it has to do with acting in a way which improves life. If everyone does that, everyone will have a better life.

It saddens me that with such a tiny bit of life to play with, some waste it making others miserable. It's a person like you, who has little problem stealing and murdering, who makes the world a worse place. It's quite sickening, really.

So how do you decide what is ethical?

[NuclearTBag]

On deciding what is ethical, you should decide if you are hurting someone beides your self, then it is allmost allways unethical, also if you are doing someone a great deal of good, but you may be hurting someone, that may be ethical or unethical, depending on your personality. For example let's say you are a doctor, and a patient comes posing as his brother, just so his brother can get insured (his brother can not get insured because he has had MS), so you are asked to rip off the insurance company so that this man can get medical insurance, so he can see a doctor when he is sick. This situation is an obvious rip from TV's Becker, but let's go with it. Okay some people might say that is stealing, while others may say you are helping the needy. This is an ethical dilemma, I my self would help the man get insurance, but that's just me. Ethics are diffrent to everyone, because it is after all an opinion, much like a review for a movie. For example some people thought that Scooby Doo is a better movie than The Godfather, is anybody right on this...no, is anybody wrong...no. Some the person saying that the Godfather is a better movie, may have more support. So this leads me to the question does having more support (more people aggreing with you) make you right?
I think it does not, just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't make you right. Let's relate this back to the ethical dilemma that I was talking about, most common folk would help the man get his insurance, but most hardcore capitalists would say you're cheating a company out of potentailly thousands of dollars(I dont know how much insurance costs), is anybody right...no, is anybody wrong...no.

[Corvus]

Corvus wrote:

Are you postulating that any anti-social behaviour is by necessity immoral behaviour?

First, let me "waffle" by saying that I am not a psychologist, social scientist, or anything like that - I am by practice and training an electrical engineer. So I'm not sure that my opinions rise to the level of "postulating". But I do think that much of what we term "moral" is based on what we consider to be good "social" behavior. This does not make it artificial - IMO, it makes it quite natural, since our social behavior has its roots in activities that, for millenia, were crucial to the survival of the small groups of hunter-gatherers that were our natural condition not too long ago.

As you seem to indicate (I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if you want), our ethical behavior stops at the borders of our "tribe". It is true that if I try to ensure the welfare of every human worldwide, it becomes difficult or impossible to enjoy luxuries such as restaurant food, warm bed, indoor plumbing, etc. Most people - myself included - are content with doing what they can - which is not much. I would cheerfully lend my car, or provide space in a spare bedroom, to a close friend or family member who needed help - but not to strangers, of course. Others do in fact take vows of poverty and try to do much more. It is interesting to me that while most would agree that mass murder is immoral, we have no problem with it in war. Of course, in virtually all wars our political leaders begin by demonizing and de-humanizing the enemy. If the other side is wild animals, sub-human, infidels, etc., how much easier it is to pull the trigger.

Yes. The basis of our ethics is essentially a method to increase, on one level the survival and satisfaction of our selves (self-interest) and on another level the survival of species. Current morality tries to teach us to love our fellow man because it makes for a nicer world for all. This gives us absolutes like, it is always wrong to steal even if no one suffers for it.

There is still no ethical basis for not mistreating animals that are wild or that are in one's possession.

I'm not sure why you put the 'mis' in front of 'treating'.

For me, if I can sense that another creature is in pain, I feel an empathy with that creature. So I would not want to cause suffering to the animals I own - or any others, for that matter. What do you mean by "ethical basis"? Is this feeling of empathy not enough?

Er, what I meant was there is no real reason not to mistreat something that is not a part of one's tribe. Sorry about that. Even so, is empathy learned or insinctual?

You miss my point entirely. It has nothing to do with who knows what I do: it has to do with acting in a way which improves life. If everyone does that, everyone will have a better life.

A pipe dream. I am not concerned if everyone gets a better life. I have no motivation to see that someone I don't know gets a better life. I am concerned that I have a better life and if to do that I need to treat everyone better, that is what I will do. There is no action that is not motivated by self interest (often clouded by heredity), even if your good deeds are done just to make you, in turn, feel good about yourself.

What I am doing is revealing the basis of the intent, instinctual or not, which results in devaluing the goal.

It saddens me that with such a tiny bit of life to play with, some waste it making others miserable. It's a person like you, who has little problem stealing and murdering, who makes the world a worse place. It's quite sickening, really.

That's unfortunate. And judgemental. If it advantaged me in any way, I would be concerned that I sicken you. But understand, I am theorising here. Although I will and can steal if it will go so unnoticed that no one will suffer for it, murder is something that would cause me more grief than pleasure, and nothing would ever necessitate me doing it, although logically I can find no fault with it. I am philosophising and philosophers are not murderers. About the best a murderer could do was that execrable novel, A Catcher in the Rye.

Also, I am one of the nicest people on the planet because I know generosity, kindness and care always pay. Yesterday I helped someone with cancer clean their garage. In exchange I got books. We were both happy. I also work at a charity. I never stated I would ever make another's life miserable, because I know the possiblity exists that an antagonised individual could do the same to me. If you met me, you would be charmed by my charisma and munificence.

As a matter of pleasing people who it matters to please, it is necessary to have several different facades. I speak differently in the presence of different people. Neither am I the person I was 2 seconds prior.

Evidently, I am trusted enough to be a moderator at a Christian debate forum and hopefully have never given otseng cause for complaint.

[rebecca]

A pipe dream. I am not concerned if everyone gets a better life. I have no motivation to see that someone I don't know gets a better life. I am concerned that I have a better life and if to do that I need to treat everyone better, that is what I will do. There is no action that is not motivated by self interest (often clouded by heredity), even if your good deeds are done just to make you, in turn, feel good about yourself.

What I am doing is revealing the basis of the intent, instinctual or not, which results in devaluing the goal.

You continue to misunderstand me. I never said that the motive for not murdering, stealing, etc. was unselfish. Quite the opposite, really. If you'll recall, I stated that in order for ME to have a better life, I need to behave in the way in which I want others to behave. I need to "be the change I want to see," to quote a bumper sticker. If you don't understand how that works, then I guess it's hopeless. I don't think I can explain it in a simpler way.

That's unfortunate. And judgemental. If it advantaged me in any way, I would be concerned that I sicken you. But understand, I am theorising here. Although I will and can steal if it will go so unnoticed that no one will suffer for it, murder is something that would cause me more grief than pleasure, and nothing would ever necessitate me doing it, although logically I can find no fault with it. I am philosophising and philosophers are not murderers. About the best a murderer could do was that execrable novel, A Catcher in the Rye.

Er, what? Philsophers aren't murderers? Not following. You can theorize all you want, but those theories have real life implications that you need to accept.

Also, I am one of the nicest people on the planet because I know generosity, kindness and care always pay. Yesterday I helped someone with cancer clean their garage. In exchange I got books. We were both happy. I also work at a charity. I never stated I would ever make another's life miserable, because I know the possiblity exists that an antagonised individual could do the same to me. If you met me, you would be charmed by my charisma and munificence.

As a matter of pleasing people who it matters to please, it is necessary to have several different facades. I speak differently in the presence of different people. Neither am I the person I was 2 seconds prior.

Evidently, I am trusted enough to be a moderator at a Christian debate forum and hopefully have never given otseng cause for complaint.

None of this has anything to do with the discussion. And I couldn't care less that you're a moderator on an Internet forum.

[Corvus]

A pipe dream. I am not concerned if everyone gets a better life. I have no motivation to see that someone I don't know gets a better life. I am concerned that I have a better life and if to do that I need to treat everyone better, that is what I will do. There is no action that is not motivated by self interest (often clouded by heredity), even if your good deeds are done just to make you, in turn, feel good about yourself.

What I am doing is revealing the basis of the intent, instinctual or not, which results in devaluing the goal.

You continue to misunderstand me. I never said that the motive for not murdering, stealing, etc. was unselfish. Quite the opposite, really. If you'll recall, I stated that in order for ME to have a better life, I need to behave in the way in which I want others to behave. I need to "be the change I want to see," to quote a bumper sticker. If you don't understand how that works, then I guess it's hopeless. I don't think I can explain it in a simpler way.

I do understand. To make your life better, you want to act in a way that you expect others to act; a role model. But for this to happen, people need to see you act honourably instead of hearing you cheerfully (hah!) proclaim something that would fit well into a Disney movie, don't they? Let me ask another question; Since it wouldn't arise in ordinary polite conversation, the motives for your behaviour would be unknown too, even if they were seen, yes?

You seem repulsed by murders and thieves, yet the principle behind their motives are the same as yours. However, your respect for humans is a means to an end.

You can theorize all you want, but those theories have real life implications that you need to accept.

I have yet to feel these implications, but I will tell you when I do. I never undertake something in which there is any notable consequence, so I doubt that it will come to that.

[rebecca]

I do understand.

Sigh. No, you don't.

To make your life better, you want to act in a way that you expect others to act; a role model. But for this to happen, people need to see you act honourably instead of hearing you cheerfully (hah!) proclaim something that would fit well into a Disney movie, don't they? Let me ask another question; Since it wouldn't arise in ordinary polite conversation, the motives for your behaviour would be unknown too, even if they were seen, yes?

You seem repulsed by murders and thieves, yet the principle behind their motives are the same as yours. However, your respect for humans is a means to an end.

This is the last time I'll explain this. If you don't get it, if you insist on shaking your head and smirking at the stupid idealist, there's nothing more I can do for you.

I want the world to be a place where people are kind to one another. Where people don't steal or murder, even if they have a chance to get away with it. This will make MY life happy. Therefore, I will act like that -- that is what I deem "morally correct." If everyone does the same, life will be great. I don't care if people see me doing nice things and are influenced to do similar acts. That's not the point. I can't expect the world to become what I want it to be while acting in a contradictory way. It doesn't make sense. If you didn't get all that, oh well. I'm pretty sure that's the simplest way I can put it.

You can theorize all you want, but those theories have real life implications that you need to accept.

I have yet to feel these implications, but I will tell you when I do. I never undertake something in which there is any notable consequence, so I doubt that it will come to that.

No need to let me know. If you theorize about things of no consequence to you, there's no point in talking to you. And saying you never do anything that results in something else "notable" is an absurd statement.

[Yahweh]

This is a continuation of a debate started in general discussion.

If morality is not derived from doctrine, why act morally?

The short answer:

* The most primitive reason to behave morally is usually motivated by expected consequences or punishment.
* The next stage of moral development involves a desire and need for approval by accepting cultural norms dominate moral motivation.
* The final stage of moral development is a self-motivation to behave in a moral manner and adhere to universal or accepted moral standards. (One way to think of this is as a cognitive dissonance to behaving immorality.)

Other reasons to behave morally is the fact it is a rather effective way to progress socially and intellectually.

No God necessary.


If God were necessary to morality, one would ask "Does God disapprove of X because it is wrong, or is X wrong because God disapproves of it". On the first interpretation, a theist could give objective reasons not to do X, but so can the atheist, and hence God is unnecessary to that interpretation to morality. On the second interpretation, the theist is no worse off than the atheist when providing grounds no to do X, all behavior would be motivated by merely "God says so" which isnt a moral statement at all, and hence God is unnecessary to the second interpretation as well.

Again, no God necessary to morality.

[Polaris]

Holy carp . All over the Place, Lets Define the words first. Youll See that REL = 'True' Ethics is Total Bs.

Look up ethics, Moral, Moralty, Virutes

And in each and everyone, Its all about Confroming to a standard of Right.

Who makes this Right, Some say I Do; "I have my Own Ethics" they say.

Look up the word Ethical (being ethical, is useing ethics)

2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3 : conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct
synonym see MORAL
(c) Merriam Webster.

Confroming to a accpeted Professional Standard... Confroming To Standards Set by Whom ? The Accpted Social Standards We all live in ?

moveing to morals.

expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior - Teaching ...
conforming to a standard of right behavior - Again ?

and lasty "[Moral] implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. "

Meaning That If you have Good Morals You have good ethics ?, THus Your Ethics are Social Condisioned Valused placed apon you ?


Then if we are to be VIRTUOUS - "VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character"

We must Excsell In what Socity belives is Right.

So Is ethics really ours or is it just Condsioning Placed apon us as a Child.

our Id, Ego and Super Ego all Shakeing hands and we are just running Off a Long chain of Cause and effect. In a World where everyone is trying to make sence of everything.

So the bottem Line. If your Confroming, Your not fighting, and if your not fighting, Your Liveing