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

[QED]

What universal are you referring to? The criteria of natural selection? What do you mean by that?

The criteria for natural selection is, of course, the ability to survive. Individuals can go about this in many different ways but there is an aggregate effect whenever we study populations. Unfortunately survival is a rather emotionally loaded term as well. Ability to survive could be re-phrased as ability to persist which carries far fewer negative connotations. This (one and only) natural selection criteria is interesting because for me it goes a long way to explain how things come to exist. All extant life is subject to this one criteria so you'll have to forgive me for seeing existence as an absolute that all morals may be measured against.

Things like "thou shalt not kill" are fairly easy to deduce from this criteria (although it's still not trivial), other morals much less so. But in principle I think any situation can be audited all the way back to how it influences existence in general. Even whether or not beards should be square cut (if enough computing power is available).

[harvey1]

This (one and only) natural selection criteria is interesting because for me it goes a long way to explain how things come to exist. All extant life is subject to this one criteria so you'll have to forgive me for seeing existence as an absolute that all morals may be measured against.

I wouldn't call it a universal though. It's still a trope. There's little reason for an individual to accept this trope of survival if their existence will be a painful one, or it would contribute to the suffering of those they care for. For example, the hemlock society would be amoral according to this trope, and yet I see no reason why the "goals" of natural selection ought to be the goals of individual human beings.

[QED]

This (one and only) natural selection criteria is interesting because for me it goes a long way to explain how things come to exist. All extant life is subject to this one criteria so you'll have to forgive me for seeing existence as an absolute that all morals may be measured against.

I wouldn't call it a universal though. It's still a trope.

Surely for Existence to be a trope it has to be instantiated. Isn't this is why you continually bring up examples relating to individuals in your replies? I was hoping that you would see Existence to be non-arbitrary in its role as the goal for all forms of natural selection. Of course we can turn a universal into a trope by instantiating it.

There's little reason for an individual to accept this trope of survival if their existence will be a painful one, or it would contribute to the suffering of those they care for. For example, the hemlock society would be amoral according to this trope, and yet I see no reason why the "goals" of natural selection ought to be the goals of individual human beings.

All these instances are a complete distraction from the point I'm trying to make. Of course individuals will deviate from whatever norms we imagine. Deep down though I feel that we are all connected by this property of Existence which acts through natural selection to order the world. This ordering process has a natural balance that I don't think can be upset by extremes from the norms over time -- such that your favourite examples of human excess fail to survive in the long term.

[harvey1]

This (one and only) natural selection criteria is interesting because for me it goes a long way to explain how things come to exist. All extant life is subject to this one criteria so you'll have to forgive me for seeing existence as an absolute that all morals may be measured against.

I wouldn't call it a universal though. It's still a trope.

Surely for Existence to be a trope it has to be instantiated. Isn't this is why you continually bring up examples relating to individuals in your replies? I was hoping that you would see Existence to be non-arbitrary in its role as the goal for all forms of natural selection. Of course we can turn a universal into a trope by instantiating it.

I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the outcome of the natural selection principle to keep the more fit species alive is a universal value. This is a value trope since there are just hundreds of millions of particulars where having a certain bundle of properties (adaptations) led to a particular creature of a certain equivalence class (species) to survive long enough to have children (to continue that species). (That's why it became a "moral value" in species that survived.) Notice, that this is compared to the particular creatures (of a different species) that did not live long enough to keep that species from going extinct. Species, adaptations, natural selective events, and values that promote surviving are tropes.

I don't consider existence qua existence as a trope or universal since I don't think it is an object, event, property, relation, or attribute (i.e., predicate). That is, we don't have the property of existing. Real properties are those which real things have by being real, and "real" just means that it has (or had or will have) some form of existence. Existence is what tropes, universals, properties, etc., etc., all have. It is their haecceity (i.e., primitive this-ness). Haecceity (identity) and existence are so mired together that they cannot be separated. These are primitives that any ontology must share.

All these instances are a complete distraction from the point I'm trying to make. Of course individuals will deviate from whatever norms we imagine. Deep down though I feel that we are all connected by this property of Existence which acts through natural selection to order the world. This ordering process has a natural balance that I don't think can be upset by extremes from the norms over time -- such that your favourite examples of human excess fail to survive in the long term.

I understand your point, but what you are talking about are statistical values that form from a certain equivalence class (that is, the statistical value of being more fit so as to survive in one's environment). These are not objective values for the individual since particular individuals can usually go very far astray of those "values" without jeopardizing the survivability of the species or the planet. And, in many cases, they can actually improve their individual conditions by doing so. For that reason, the morals are tropes. They say nothing about the particular person requiring to live a certain way. Rather, they talk about an equivalent class (i.e., the species) having certain trope values in place. That's it. For the atheist who believes that universals don't exist, there is no reason for them to act out these trope values (that is, those good for the species as a whole) unless there is a specific reason to do so.

[QED]

I understand your point, but what you are talking about are statistical values that form from a certain equivalence class (that is, the statistical value of being more fit so as to survive in one's environment). These are not objective values for the individual since particular individuals can usually go very far astray of those "values" without jeopardizing the survivability of the species or the planet. And, in many cases, they can actually improve their individual conditions by doing so.

Enter "Game theory": What if everyone was to follow suit? You were trying to suggest that there are no objective morals (in the absence of God's various proclamations to mankind) now you're saying that they're not objective values for the individual (values based on the natural selection criteria) -- well they can be transformed into such by simply considering the result of everyone choosing to behave in the same way. This is where I came in on this debate.

[harvey1]

Enter "Game theory": What if everyone was to follow suit?

What if everyone were to not work weekends? What if everyone became a doctor? I don't see how you can use that kind of reasoning to justify morals at the individual level.

You were trying to suggest that there are no objective morals (in the absence of God's various proclamations to mankind) now you're saying that they're not objective values for the individual

There are no objective values for the individual, but for society there are moral tropes (i.e., equivalence classes that describe a set of "optimal" behaviors of society acting as a whole-with the term "optimal" being a subjective description based on what one values). I've always acknowledged that a society has certain restrictions placed on it in order to function properly. Assuming that society values functioning properly and they value survival (all optional I suppose).

Are tropes objective? Not in the universal sense. But, as an approximation of how things function in large crowds, they are semi-objective in that very limited sense. That doesn't mean the morals exist independent of the holder of those morals (i.e., speaking from the perspective of a nominalist) anymore than it means that good jokes exist independent of the one who laughs at the joke.

(values based on the natural selection criteria) -- well they can be transformed into such by simply considering the result of everyone choosing to behave in the same way. This is where I came in on this debate.

Of course it is optional that someone think that way if they want to sacrifice their own interests in some cases. It does not harm society in any significant way if a person commits adultery because they want to get a hot girl. However, if an atheist passes up every opportunity because they want to avoid a world where everyone becomes doctors, then no one would be a doctor. This is why morals can only be considered subjective for the atheist who frames their decisions based on what benefits them. If you have any doubt, look at the secular answers to Reggie Jax when he asked if it was okay to commit adultery. The secular answers basically concluded that it was neither right or wrong for an individual to commit adultery. This is true of any secular moral.

[QED]

Enter "Game theory": What if everyone was to follow suit?

What if everyone were to not work weekends? What if everyone became a doctor? I don't see how you can use that kind of reasoning to justify morals at the individual level.

Not everyone wants to (or can) be a Doctor. But we can all choose whether or not to drop our litter in the street or park.

There are no objective values for the individual, but for society there are moral tropes (i.e., equivalence classes that describe a set of "optimal" behaviors of society acting as a whole-with the term "optimal" being a subjective description based on what one values). I've always acknowledged that a society has certain restrictions placed on it in order to function properly. Assuming that society values functioning properly and they value survival (all optional I suppose).

Which is why existence plays an ultimate role in defining what's good. It's all performed within this frame of reference.

Of course it is optional that someone think that way if they want to sacrifice their own interests in some cases. It does not harm society in any significant way if a person commits adultery because they want to get a hot girl. However, if an atheist passes up every opportunity because they want to avoid a world where everyone becomes doctors, then no one would be a doctor. This is why morals can only be considered subjective for the atheist who frames their decisions based on what benefits them.

Who said anything about benefiting the individual? Besides, the individual is never in complete isolation. Respect is required no matter where the morals are coming from. Respect for existence is something I can readily identify with. I think it only takes a marginal amount of thought to turn this into a guide for good behaviour.

If you have any doubt, look at the secular answers to Reggie Jax when he asked if it was okay to commit adultery. The secular answers basically concluded that it was neither right or wrong for an individual to commit adultery. This is true of any secular moral.

That's one heck of a generalization, can you apply it to murder?

[harvey1]

Not everyone wants to (or can) be a Doctor. But we can all choose whether or not to drop our litter in the street or park.

My point though is that reasoning based on "what if everyone did this?" is faulty. The individual must choose for themselves based on what if they did this (e.g., "what if I became a doctor," or "what if I littered," etc.). Those secular values arrived at are solely based on the impact an action has on them and those they are concerned about. We might not like such a secularist individual because of their selfish motivation, but I also don't like to see male lions devouring the cubs of another lion because they wish to mate with that lioness and don't want the competition for their cubs. It's "not right" when we consider the impact that would have if every lion were to do that, but that's just the way nature is. Nature is amoral. Humans choose to do differently because they (mostly) believe that moral codes actually exist. If that's no longer considered true, then the lion's actions are not right or wrong in any objective sense.

There are no objective values for the individual, but for society there are moral tropes (i.e., equivalence classes that describe a set of "optimal" behaviors of society acting as a whole-with the term "optimal" being a subjective description based on what one values). I've always acknowledged that a society has certain restrictions placed on it in order to function properly. Assuming that society values functioning properly and they value survival (all optional I suppose).

Which is why existence plays an ultimate role in defining what's good. It's all performed within this frame of reference.

But, existence does not come with any requirements as to what human beings must value. It also doesn't insist that individuals act in ways that are for the greater good. Individuals continue to exist just fine if the greater good is not accomplished (e.g., the male lion acts for its greater good even though it is not good for the group that it belongs to.)

Who said anything about benefiting the individual?

Moral actions mostly come down to the individual level. When we are deciding to do an action, our morals translate down to us and our decision.

Besides, the individual is never in complete isolation. Respect is required no matter where the morals are coming from. Respect for existence is something I can readily identify with. I think it only takes a marginal amount of thought to turn this into a guide for good behaviour.

If you choose to do so. You could, on the other hand, act in ways that are totally selfish and in your self-interest. If we think someone might arrest us, then self-interest might cause us to reconsider. What is wrong with this kind of morality? Look at this way. When we buy goods and services we try to do so at the least value, even if it lowers the wages of people who are servicing or producing goods for us. Do we care? Perhaps. But, we feel justified in acting in our self-interest. How is moral action any different if we look at it secularly? For example, if the Christian tradition strongly required that we seek to buy goods at "fair value," then there would probably be more economic laws on the books in our society that establish fair value for every possible product. Since that tradition does not exist, people have felt fairly justified in seeking lower prices even if it puts people out of work. In the case of morals, Christian tradition (and other religions of course) put much more emphasis on "fair treatment" and therefore our society has a history of seeking the equal treatment of others. If we live in a world where these moral codes are mere tropes, then society as a whole can still pursue those moral codes to keep civilization stable, but the secular individual can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong for them. Let me quote from McCulloch's reference for humanist ethics code to show this is the case:

We still need ethical standards because they provide an essential lubricant that reconciles the selfish interests of the individual with the interests of the group. The humanist.. develops and asserts ethical standards based on a candid assessment of the state of contemporary society and its needs. Such an assessment has to be at the same time realistic and visionary.

Now, a lot was said in the article about benefitting society and thinking for the welfare of others, etc.. But, what I object to is that there is no reason for a humanist to act fully outside their selfish interests--just like their is no reason for a buyer of goods and services to act fully outside their wants and desires. Morality becomes a free market of choices that is made by the individual with the added hope that the individual will buy into the idea that they ought to value acting selflessly. However, that's not often what happens in economics. People veto Kyoto treaties and attack nations because the economics benefit them. This is not the case for religious values and morals where scriptures and the words of valued religious leaders (e.g., the words of Jesus) must be ignored and discounted in order to act in ways that hurt others. That's not to say this hasn't happened--it does--but the words of those religious leaders are haunting to the generation seeking to escape from them. Hitler is a good example since his ideas and ambitions put Christianity in his way. Hence, the effort by him to discredit Christianity. The same, I think, could be said of the communist revolution where Christian values and morals for individual rights stood in their way.

If you have any doubt, look at the secular answers to Reggie Jax when he asked if it was okay to commit adultery. The secular answers basically concluded that it was neither right or wrong for an individual to commit adultery. This is true of any secular moral.

That's one heck of a generalization, can you apply it to murder?

I don't think so. The reason is that it's very difficult to act in selfish ways when considering heinous crimes due to the high possibility of being caught or being on the run. That's the upside of secular moralities actually since a "moral" religious person is much more likely to engage in behavior that is heinous if they see it as a greater good for their religious ideals. It's why fundamentalist religion can be so potentially dangerous since the religious ideals of fanatics can threaten society if they obtain WMDs.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

My point though is that reasoning based on "what if everyone did this?" is faulty. The individual must choose for themselves based on what if they did this (e.g., "what if I became a doctor," or "what if I littered," etc.). Those secular values arrived at are solely based on the impact an action has on them and those they are concerned about. We might not like such a secularist individual because of their selfish motivation, but I also don't like to see male lions devouring the cubs of another lion because they wish to mate with that lioness and don't want the competition for their cubs. It's "not right" when we consider the impact that would have if every lion were to do that, but that's just the way nature is. Nature is amoral. Humans choose to do differently because they (mostly) believe that moral codes actually exist. If that's no longer considered true, then the lion's actions are not right or wrong in any objective sense.

Of course it is "right" for the lion to eliminate it's predicessor's cubs, the lion is trying to further his own genes and in that situation is entirely correct(according to it's own morals). And every MALE lion DOES act exactly like that.

Humans choose to do differently because they (mostly) believe that moral codes actually exist.

But those moral codes are strictly man made and are based on what is best for humanity in general. Society enforces those morals through laws. Those individuals who don't conform are discouraged by society's reactions. Thus our ethics develope from the bottom up and are every bit as valid as those imposed from the top down(maybe moreso). Of course there is no really valid source outside of reality for those "Absolute" values, man made god in his own image and the so-called "Biblical" morals are also, in the end, man made.(as are all others)

Grumpy

[harvey1]

...moral codes are strictly man made...

QED, if you agree with this, then how can you not come to the same conclusion:

Those individuals who don't conform are discouraged by society's reactions.

This strikes me as the only reason that a secular atheist can give for acting morally. If the secularist has good reason to believe that the society around them will not know or will not be in a position to discourage them, then the secularist can ignore the moral tropes.