Why be "good?"

[wgreen]

I would like to hear from some atheists and agnostics who believe in leading moral lives (helping others, being compassionate, not murdering, stealing, etc.). Why do you lead a moral life?

I don't understand why you would.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill

[Cathar1950]

Your view concerning a theistic ground for morality just seems rather questionable. You have a questionable God with many conflicting views. We have no way of really Discerning the moral nature of God especially as it relates to humans. We have arbitrary writings that are questionable concerning the moral attributes of the Devine or the rules to be followed. Then you need some indescribable vague notion of a spiritual mind that is needed to understand or see these things do to our limited natural mind. How is this better then an atheist’s consideration of the society of people and their relationships that have evolved in situations that have been pragmatically discovered?
Can’t you see the problems you open with your Pandora’s box? You have a God on record that says kill all the men women and children, including animals while even the hardest atheist would find this kind of behavior and commands questionable.
The need for a spiritual mind, what ever that is, is the biggest question begging of all time. It seems to me if there is a God then God would have a moral compass that must be followed because it is based in nature and the cosmos. It would take a natural mind to understand not a indescribable ungrounded spiritual mind. God does right because it is right not because God is God.
If there is an objective morality then it is based in nature and has evolved with us.

[Curious]

I would like to hear from some atheists and agnostics who believe in leading moral lives (helping others, being compassionate, not murdering, stealing, etc.). Why do you lead a moral life?

I don't understand why you would.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill

As an ex atheist, I can state why I did lead a moral life. I am now Christian (in a fashion), but before I had any belief I had exactly the same values as I have now. I don't need a book or God to tell me that killing another human is wrong or that I should not rape or steal. An argument that such direction is necessary suggests that theists are a pretty uincivilised bunch. Jeez, if an atheist knows it is wrong to murder, it makes the theist look pretty pathetic when they ask why an atheist might think it is wrong since God did not tell them so. Even a fundamental Christian could find an answer in Genesis.

[harvey1]

Perhaps you think that only God can implement an objective moral code?

It's not that God implements an objective moral code, rather a universe without God has no ultimate moral purpose or moral reason for its existence. It is a contingent brute fact event. Moral realism comes about if an asymmetry actually exists with respect to some objective standard. This objective standard can only exist if there is an ultimate moral purpose. If no moral purpose exists, then there's no objective standard. All standards are subjective and relative--meaning they don't actually exist. The individual gets to decide for themselves what those standards should be. There is no one who can say their standard is objectively right.

Some of us have been trying to explain how we can gain objective morality through evolution and game theory.

Evolution is based on might makes right. If anything, evolutionary morality would look more Hitler-esque than anything else.

All this talk of "the enlightened atheist who feels they have an option to do evil" and we who "recognize their right to do so as persons who understand the subjective nature of morality" is unrealistic in the "big picture". By this I mean that it's all well and good for your argument to focus on one isolated case, but it fails to take into account the consequences of repeating this case billions of times over. That's the reality of how the human race has evolved and in reality the consequences sum to a level that steers behaviour in certain directions. Here is, IMHO, where your objective morality stems from.

It's still subjective since the values instilled by natural selection do not need to be our values. You of all people know that natural selection is brutal since you've used this as an argument against there being a God. Humans aren't obliged to accept that natural selection has given us objective morals. They can choose their own moral behavior that is best for them, or their families, or their country. If the universe exists for no moral purpose, then there is no moral standard by which to judge any action. Evolutionary processes just tell us how it is we survived, but it doesn't actually answer the question whether our survival matters. Even if it did answer that question, the individual has no reason to accept the morals that make for better survival if they believe that we won't survive. Eventually we are going extinct according to many atheists, and how they choose to live based on this meaningless fact is purely subjective and relative to them and their interests.

I would suggest that the process of domesticating wild animals (such as wolves into dogs) delivers a set of objective morals for the animals. I can't help but take delight in talking in terms of animal morality, but that's all that I can see separating my pet moggy from a Tiger. He's got the teeth -- and he has his moments!

Again, let's think in terms of human extinction. If humans go extinct did it really matter if dogs were domesticated or not? If we were examining a culture of chimpanzees that domesticated dogs over 2 million years ago, would we think of it as a validity of moral realism? I don't see how. Moral realism is a much stronger proposition. It says that there exists these standards that exist as universals. These universals exist whether the particulars (humans, dogs, etc.) exist or not.

You can certainly ask them if they ever feel good about helping others, but you can't condemn them if they tell you that they took used hypnosis to cure them of this psychological vestige of evolution.

Sure I can, by the same reasoning I know that their attempt to bypass their evolved moral instinct is very likely to lead to a sub-optimal survival strategy for the human race as a whole. I've got kids Harvey, and I hope they have kids too. All these hopes and wishes are hardwired into most human beings to the extent that they will lay down their own lives for the sake of the next generation -- even for other peoples kids. This stuff is as strong as the instinct to breath, and tracing it all back to an evolved response is a doddle to do.

I agree with you that morals are important, but I'm asking you to think about whether moral realism is a correct philosophy or not. I'm not asking you to give me your reasons why you wish for people to be moral beings (e.g., so that humans live on to satisfy their instincts to survive, etc.). Is moral realism a correct philosophy? If you think so, then you are saying a universal exists. That commits you to a metaphysical perspective of the world that there is some moral purpose to the world. How can that possibly be consistent with atheism where there is no purpose to the world, much less a moral purpose?

Why do we wash our dishes? They only get dirty again. I say moral codes are not inherited from religion but from our genes. That's our strength and I think you'll find that it gets us through better in the long-run.

Yes, of course morality is in our genes. The question is why. Is it because moral realism is based on universals that matter cannot but help be organized accordingly, or is it because morals just happen to accomplish a task that just happens to be the case--they are subjective? If subjective, then just having them in our genes is not a suitable reason for us to be moral, or condemn someone for not meeting our standard of morality.

That's an example of a misapplication. I meat what I said, the question of whether we have free-will or not is purely a philosophical one. I think it can only ever be misapplied while the true nature of consciousness remains unknown. Far better understood, yet no less controversial is sleepwalking murder. This gives us a fascinating glimpse of our animal heritage, transforming a person into the kind of animal they might have been had the cerebral cortex not evolved as it has. The point being that in certain phases of sleep it is "switched off" while the more primitive components of the brain remain functional.

This would suggest that you do not agree with moral realism. Our morals contingently evolved as they did, and had evolution been different perhaps we would have totally different morals.

It's all too easy: if the consequences of one persons behaviour affect other people in an adverse way then that's all that's needed to establish a moral code.

Oh, we can have moral codes without moral realism, but these norms are invented they are not discovered. As inventions they are voluntary to the point to where an individual would suffer from society if they do not conform. So, it is better to conform lest they suffer. If they choose to take that risk, then the invented codes are rejected at their own risk.

Notice, though, that this is different than the individual who holds to moral realism. There is always a cost to the rejection of moral standards since this is the ultimate structure of the universe.

If you would just step down from the pulpit for one moment, I'd like to ask you why repentance is appropriate given the endless ambiguities that God has installed in the world

Moral repentence is part of the process of becoming a moral person. When someone confronts you with a mistake you've made, the first step in the process is to admit that you are wrong. If you can't even admit you are wrong, then the moral misbehavior will continue.

[harvey1]

I believe that this is the honest but mistaken understanding of the debater's point of view.

I don't think my view is mistaken. I don't know of any atheist philosophers that defend moral realism, but perhaps there's a few.

[QED]

Some of us have been trying to explain how we can gain objective morality through evolution and game theory.

Evolution is based on might makes right. If anything, evolutionary morality would look more Hitler-esque than anything else.

You can't simply dismiss this with yet another argumentum ad nazium. Evolution is dynamic. Hitler and his regime are not around today. In the global moral economy such enterprises are doomed to brief excursions from the moral norms. I've been over to check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to see what you mean by moral realism and I'm surprised to see that there is no mention of evolution there.

It's still subjective since the values instilled by natural selection do not need to be our values. You of all people know that natural selection is brutal since you've used this as an argument against there being a God.

Apart from the fact that you continue to make the mistake of singling out individuals from the effects of evolution, you're also neglecting the other side of evolution; e.g the love and care a extended by parents.

Humans aren't obliged to accept that natural selection has given us objective morals. They can choose their own moral behavior that is best for them, or their families, or their country.

Of course. We do see excursions from the norms, but the norm is built upon the entire sum and is filtered by the effect this sum has on the ability of societies to persist. This norm is what I would term the objective.

If the universe exists for no moral purpose, then there is no moral standard by which to judge any action.

But "existence" has a built-in requisite. This is as good as any standard and I firmly believe that it is the only standard -- being frequently mistaken for a God given code.

Evolutionary processes just tell us how it is we survived, but it doesn't actually answer the question whether our survival matters.

Well that's too bad. If you're interested in that particular question I'd go as far as saying it's definite that our survival is not the goal of the cosmos. We will survive for a finite time in a constant struggle against the laws of physics and our own natures.

Even if it did answer that question, the individual has no reason to accept the morals that make for better survival if they believe that we won't survive. Eventually we are going extinct according to many atheists, and how they choose to live based on this meaningless fact is purely subjective and relative to them and their interests.

Every time you make this error I have to remind you that the survival I am talking about is long-term. It surfaces in our genes and prods our conscience now and then. It's as instinctive as pulling back from a flame but if we try really hard, yes we can burn ourselves.

Again, let's think in terms of human extinction. If humans go extinct did it really matter if dogs were domesticated or not? If we were examining a culture of chimpanzees that domesticated dogs over 2 million years ago, would we think of it as a validity of moral realism? I don't see how. Moral realism is a much stronger proposition. It says that there exists these standards that exist as universals. These universals exist whether the particulars (humans, dogs, etc.) exist or not.

Again I answer with a question: Why do we wash the dishes when we know they'll just get dirty again?

I agree with you that morals are important, but I'm asking you to think about whether moral realism is a correct philosophy or not.

This is far too subtle a question for a simple yes or no answer. As a universal absolute where existence is the the ultimate selection rule then yes, I can agree that there really are objective morals. But I see these as the inevitable out-workings of a vast process, not as some divine declaration proclaimed at the beginning of all time. As ever though, I imagine you could still work God into that process but it's yet to be a convincing explanation for me.

I'm not asking you to give me your reasons why you wish for people to be moral beings (e.g., so that humans live on to satisfy their instincts to survive, etc.). Is moral realism a correct philosophy? If you think so, then you are saying a universal exists. That commits you to a metaphysical perspective of the world that there is some moral purpose to the world. How can that possibly be consistent with atheism where there is no purpose to the world, much less a moral purpose?

Just to elaborate on what I've said so far that answers this, the "universals" implicit in the selection rules are subject to the full state space of "possible games" that can be played out on all "possible worlds". This means that the evolution of any given population may not have met up with the full range of selection effects and hence we would expect to see constant deviations from the norms. But that doesn't mean that norms don't exist.

Notice that I wasn't forced to refer to "purpose" or "meaning" in this explanation. Once more these are anthropocentric concepts that only have a superficial similarity to the out-workings of nature. Naturally these concepts are never far away from our thinking us as we are so accustomed to them. But you already understand how this way of thinking has confused thinkers in the past.

Yes, of course morality is in our genes. The question is why. Is it because moral realism is based on universals that matter cannot but help be organized accordingly, or is it because morals just happen to accomplish a task that just happens to be the case--they are subjective? If subjective, then just having them in our genes is not a suitable reason for us to be moral, or condemn someone for not meeting our standard of morality.

Are you getting any nearer to understanding why I see this as flawed? In order to change my mind you will have to convince me that evolution lacks the power to regulate behaviour in a fashion that best serves our persistence in the world.

This would suggest that you do not agree with moral realism. Our morals contingently evolved as they did, and had evolution been different perhaps we would have totally different morals.

Locally contingency will shape the moral codes to a degree, but first order effects will dominate from very early on. Frivolous disputes that seem to take up so much time and energy in other sub forums are the subject of Nth order effects and will probably smooth themselves out in the fullness of time.

Oh, we can have moral codes without moral realism, but these norms are invented they are not discovered. As inventions they are voluntary to the point to where an individual would suffer from society if they do not conform. So, it is better to conform lest they suffer. If they choose to take that risk, then the invented codes are rejected at their own risk.

I have attempted to show how moral realism becomes a law of nature that in the long-run can no more be ignored than the law of gravity.

Notice, though, that this is different than the individual who holds to moral realism. There is always a cost to the rejection of moral standards since this is the ultimate structure of the universe.

Do you mean because the "Boogey Man" will get you?

Moral repentence is part of the process of becoming a moral person. When someone confronts you with a mistake you've made, the first step in the process is to admit that you are wrong. If you can't even admit you are wrong, then the moral misbehavior will continue.

All the importance then rests upon the appreciation of the mistake. We tend to learn by our mistakes -- too bad the spiritual way of doing things fails to provide this sort of tangible feedback.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

It's not that God implements an objective moral code, rather a universe without God has no ultimate moral purpose or moral reason for its existence.

Precisely, there are no "morals", "purposes" or "reasons" for the universe to exist, it just does. All of these concepts are completely man made(from a completely unjustified "man centered" point of view).

Moral realism comes about if an asymmetry actually exists with respect to some objective standard. This objective standard can only exist if there is an ultimate moral purpose. If no moral purpose exists, then there's no objective standard.

The purposes, morals and reasons are entirely a construct, they have no existence of their own in nature. But nature is not the only source of objectivity(at least in this case). Society(IE More than one human)restricts our freedoms to behave as we wish(that is if we wish to live). As one shade tree philosopher put it, "My freedom to swing my arms about ends at the end of your nose." Reciprocity limits many of our activities. So the "Golden Rule" that we all learned in kindergarten has very definite objectivity, without the need of a god to hand it down from on high, indeed, without the need for his existence at all!!! Some of what theists claim as morals are very subjective. For instance I cannot concieve of "do not square the corners of your beard" as being engraved on the fabric of the universe.

More later

Grumpy

[harvey1]

QED,

Let me try to understand your position a little better. As I understand it, your moral realism is not based on there being universals that there are moral truths, rather it is based on there being a whole collection of particular facts that make it the case that there are moral truths. For example, if evolution had different facts such as higher mammals never evolved, then it would not be morally true that it is wrong to lie. That is because there would be no creatures who could in principle lie in order for it to be a truth. Is that correct?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

For example, if evolution had different facts such as higher mammals never evolved, then it would not be morally true that it is wrong to lie.

What is it that makes you think that lying is wrong?(as a concept that is true at all times and places) In your own example was the sky being called blue not a truth, because it is sometimes gray? So, according to your logic, if one instance of lying being right would negate the truth of that concept.

Camoflage and deciet is one of natures most sucessful survival stratigies. A Corn snake lies by it's coloring which says "I am a deadly Coral snake!!!"

A Hognosed snake rolls onto it's back and exudes the odor of putrification when threatened, lying tjat it is days dead and not edible. Butterflies lie with brilliant eyespots, lying that it is a much larger animal. Birds lie, cheat, and steal from each other constantly.

It is ONLY man that has come to the conclusion that lying is wrong, it is not an intrinsic property of the universe. In fact, when you break them down, all the moral absolute "truths" you are speaking of are also seen to be falsified by numerous counter examples.

So Gould was correct when he pointed out that there are no truths in the real world, no certainties, nothing "proven" beyond question.

Grumpy

[QED]

QED,

Let me try to understand your position a little better. As I understand it, your moral realism is not based on there being universals that there are moral truths, rather it is based on there being a whole collection of particular facts that make it the case that there are moral truths.

From your wording here it seems that you still don't accept the idea that the universe can give rise to universals through its collective properties. A natural moral criteria is presented to us and it is called existence.

For example, if evolution had different facts such as higher mammals never evolved, then it would not be morally true that it is wrong to lie. That is because there would be no creatures who could in principle lie in order for it to be a truth. Is that correct?

If I stick to my ideas on this matter then I will say that the criteria of existence is a ready-made moral compass that comes directly from the criteria of natural selection itself. Unlike the arbitrary nature of many anthropically inspired morals, this is something that extends to all units engaged in the game of life. So, as Grumpy points out, we can see that it has a very complex application in the case of deceit. But as far as I'm concerned it's just as applicable, only it's not always a simple matter to follow it through to a conclusion. That's not to say that it's non-computable in principle though.

[McCulloch]

It is not quite that simple. Anyone knows that there is aways the risk of getting caught. So an atheist working under this kind of thinking, would estimate the risk of getting caught, and the punishment associated with that against the cost of cost of not acting badly.

Well, let's say that neighbor's child said to you, "McCulloch, I've thought about you being an atheist for a long time, and I realize now that you are right. Atheism is the way to go. I especially like the part where I can choose my morality like I choose to color my hair purple today. So, I've decided to start a life of heinous crime. Don't worry neighbor McCulloch, I'm not going to get caught. I am absolutely convinced." Now, as much as you try to tell them that they could get caught, they tell you that they are convinced that they won't get caught. Doesn't that justify their immoral actions? Afterall, why is immorality any different than getting caught for doing the right thing when it is actually against the law (e.g., helping potential Nazi victims to escape Nazi arrest in WWII)?

I am not sure where you get the idea that atheism is equivalent to being able to arbitrarily choosing your morality. Humans are a social species. We cannot survive for very long without the support of others. In order to survive, as a species and as groups of individuals within the species, we have developed codes of conduct and forms of morality. My imaginary neighbour would soon find that his chosen conduct is not consistent with his own survival within human society. Even when immorality has been codified into law, such as in the Nazi Reich, the inconsistencies of their immorality with human survival eventually caught up with them.

Some atheists believe that we, the human species, have evolved a set of morals. Human societies which adopt sets of morals best suited to the long term survival of their own group, tend to thrive and grow, human societies which adopt sets of morals not well suited to the long term survival of their own group, either change or fade out. Those of us who behave morally do not do so because of some kind of superstition, but because it is the right thing to do.

Well, evolution doesn't say that adaptation is "right" or "wrong," it just says this is what is the case of what happened and why that species survived or evolved into a fit species. We know there's examples from the natural world where lions will kill the cubs of another lion if they mate with their mother (i.e., less competition for their offspring), so isn't that right? Or, if you need an example from human evolution, I think that adultery has been around an awfully long time. Perhaps it's part of our evolutionary history. Is it okay to commit adultery since evolution makes right?

I believe that social evolution has worked in such a way that societies where a person's honesty and commitment to keep his or her word thrive and societies where trustworthiness is lacking do not, since more effort must be expended to protect individual from untrustworthy individuals. Marriage is a social contract (among other things). If that contract had been entered into with both parties committing to be faithful to each other, then it would be immoral for either of the spouses to commit adultery.

In a world where humanity will someday be history, and traces of our existence are all but blotted out by natural processes, there is no objective meaning to our actions. If we could time travel to the time when humans are no longer here then all the events in history really do not matter. Does it matter that an ant gave a crumb to its queen a few seconds before yesterday's tsunami hit Java? I don't see how it was meaningful in the least to our universe. It was no more meaning than an ant being stepped on shortly before the tsunami. Stuff happens. It has no meaning either way if you really grab hold and cherish the intentionally immoral atheist's perspective.

We do not know what will happen. Our lives have whatever meaning we bring to them. Our lives mean something to us and perhaps to those around us. We can accept that rather evident truth or we can pretend that we have some kind of cosmic meaning beyond that.