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

[Curious]

...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.

In Genesis it says that humans have the ability to know good and evil. This is what is written in the Bible. It makes no difference whether you are atheist or theist. In the bible it also says that humans have freewill to choose. Again, it makes no difference whether you are atheist or theist. It also says that Adam was ashamed of his nakedness even though God did not find his nakedness offensive in any way. Adam's shame at being naked was therefore subjective.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

There is a little book called"Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarden"

It's main point was that things like the Golden rule were learned mostly by our interactions in the first three years, before language is truly learned. And most of our morals are based on "Do unto others..." and are more"primitive" than our language is. Sounds like a good solid base to build on to me.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

Adam's shame at being naked was therefore subjective.

I agree, morality is partially subjective. But, I think that mathematics is partially subjective since mathematicians decide what axioms are justified (e.g., the Axiom of Choice). However, it's a long way from saying something is partially subjective to saying that it's a free for all (e.g., any axiom the individual mathematician wishes to believe as true is fine just as long as she doesn't hurt the careers of other mathematicians). Where would math be in such a scenario? (I guess it would be a lot easier for us non-mathematician types!)

[Curious]

Adam's shame at being naked was therefore subjective.

I agree, morality is partially subjective. But, I think that mathematics is partially subjective since mathematicians decide what axioms are justified (e.g., the Axiom of Choice). However, it's a long way from saying something is partially subjective to saying that it's a free for all (e.g., any axiom the individual mathematician wishes to believe as true is fine just as long as she doesn't hurt the careers of other mathematicians). Where would math be in such a scenario? (I guess it would be a lot easier for us non-mathematician types!)

I guess I must be equally abstruse to make any sense so here goes. Perhaps I was to give a seemingly trivial answer to a problem that was put to me. Maybe I was to give an answer that seemed to be at odds with my original response which seemed to show an initial understanding of the problem. The answer was thought to be trivial but was actually meant to invoke a response which was not forthcoming. Thereafter all responses were constrained.

[QED]

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.

In Genesis it says that humans have the ability to know good and evil. This is what is written in the Bible. It makes no difference whether you are atheist or theist. In the bible it also says that humans have freewill to choose. Again, it makes no difference whether you are atheist or theist.

I've just quoted the two statements above to save a little time here. In my mind Genesis is approximately right because humans have the advantage of greater imagination over animals. I think we can better know good and evil, right and wrong, using our imagination. This is why I don't think it's at all faulty to use the reasoning "what if everyone did this?". Harvey, you say it's faulty but I've understood nothing in your reply that tells me why this is so. I have to keep returning to the fact that we're all in the same struggle for existence and while individuals can do what the heck they like in ignorance of the consequences, if they use their grey matter, then there's a solution that can be arrived at (in principle at least) that maximises existence for all. It is the "all" that is sufficiently common to make this an objective rather than a subjective IMHO.

[harvey1]

...you say it's faulty but I've understood nothing in your reply that tells me why this is so. I have to keep returning to the fact that we're all in the same struggle for existence and while individuals can do what the heck they like in ignorance of the consequences, if they use their grey matter, then there's a solution that can be arrived at (in principle at least) that maximises existence for all. It is the "all" that is sufficiently common to make this an objective rather than a subjective IMHO.

It's objective for you, though, QED. The lion's morality is objective for the lion even though the lioness perhaps disagrees with that morality. There is nothing objective about these occurrences in nature from the nominalist perspective, nor is there anything objective about human occurrences from a nominalist perspective. What Hitler did, for example, was "right" if you were a Nazi. It's impossible to condemn such behaviors on a nominalist view of morality because the condemnation can only come from the winners of a conflict. If Hitler won the war, we'd be talking about all those races and religions that were in the way of all that's good in the world.

[Cathar1950]

Yet we have crimes against humanity.
It seems you are always going to put your steak someplace. Are we going to debate or question objectivity or subjectivity?


Even a biological imperative such as be fruitful and multiply might mean something in a world that is sparsely populated compared to a world where people are starving and over populated.

Early in our evolution some have suggested we(groups) killed off over aggressive individuals that hurt the social nature of the group. Even with out help nature could do the same. Even human concepts of God's justice change(evolve). Unless we "knew" (instincts?) what were God's laws it still seems we are stuck with being subjective. But knowledge thru experience such as science can help weed out the silly stuff.

[Curious]

It is the "all" that is sufficiently common to make this an objective rather than a subjective IMHO.

Is this an ironic statement?

[QED]

It's objective for you, though, QED. The lion's morality is objective for the lion even though the lioness perhaps disagrees with that morality. There is nothing objective about these occurrences in nature from the nominalist perspective, nor is there anything objective about human occurrences from a nominalist perspective.

But let's shift the frame of reference to the global criteria of natural selection. That is what I believe every living thing naturally owes its existence to; existence is what is being seived.

What Hitler did, for example, was "right" if you were a Nazi. It's impossible to condemn such behaviors on a nominalist view of morality because the condemnation can only come from the winners of a conflict. If Hitler won the war, we'd be talking about all those races and religions that were in the way of all that's good in the world.

The premature cessation of the victims existence counts for nothing in this view. As I see it this aids and abets the counteractive forces working against the existence of viable life placing a criteria drawn from an arbitrary, mental, source. I think this relatively new source of selection should be considered as unnatural as it can be drawn from any idea that pops into a mind whatsoever. The natural imperatives prior to this selection source flowed from a far more rigorous system.