Morality without God

[Random Person]

I think most readers would understand "By what authority" doesn't refer to a person. It means by what reason, rule power or justification.

I agree with your basic "observations" except I would call them "assumptions."

You failed to answer the question however. How would you know if someone is behaving morally or immorally?

I have no problem with calling them assumptions instead of observations.

I would have phrased it more like, "How would you decide to judge someone's actions as more or less moral?" In this case, I have explained that judgment: it would be based on how those actions contribute to -- or take away from -- the overall well-being of the individuals involved, taking into account any effects on the groups involved.

Your phasing of "How would you know if someone is behaving morally or immorally?" smuggles in two assumptions of its own:
(1) That you could "know" this as if it has an objective basis in reality, as opposed to merely a situational evaluation of the actions; and
(2) That there is some binary condition of "moral and "immoral", as opposed to a spectrum of effects.
I reject both of those assumptions.

I reject those two assumptions as well.

Why should I care about the well being of others?

 

[Random Person]

Regarding the “golden rule”, Jesus was repeating something written hundreds of years before: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.” Leviticus 19:18 (and Leviticus 19:33 expands it to foreigners so it wasn’t meant just for kinsfolk).

People say it’s in other religions and philosophies including some that predate Jesus, and this is correct. Christians counter that those all are based in reciprocity, in expecting something back — which is as good as saying “But those are based merely in reason and reality and not on 'just cuz'".

It looks to me the Christian version expects reciprocity too. It just fails to say so because it stops short of reasoning "Why be nice to your neighbors?" through and resorts to mere authority. Its “love your neighbor” statements are always accompanied with “This is the law” or “I am the Lord” as if that divests it of “do this so that things work well for you and others” but it’s just snipping out any good reason for this “law” and replacing it with unreason: “Cuz God says so”.

The wish for anything to be authorized by something “greater than human” only references yet an opinion-maker. Theists fail to ask their God “Why?” though it is a necessity of reason to do so. And that’s assuming such an "authority" exists ... But then that is irrelevant to morality because everyone still must decide their reasons anyway, with or without a God around.

Right. Instead of reciprocity to the person you are being nice to they are obeying God.

I agree that Christians are seeking the guidance of a power outside of humanity.

It helps if you could differentiate between what they believe and what you believe if you want to discuss it.

Morality is an opinion.

 

[abaddon]

Right. Instead of reciprocity to the person you are being nice to they are obeying God.

In expectation of what in return? Was the value of reciprocity rejected because it seemed selfish?

I agree that Christians are seeking the guidance of a power outside of humanity.

And finding it, not by looking at nature as in Veritass' "basic observations", but in some old book.

It helps if you could differentiate between what they believe and what you believe if you want to discuss it.

Not really. I want to describe my observations of how theists prefer word-based confabulations to observable reality. I'm pointing at what they don't seem conscious of. So it cannot "help" if I merely describe what Christians say they believe, since their wish to believe beliefs delivered from beyond nature and disdain for observing nature inevitably makes their self-descriptions wrong.

Morality is an opinion.

Somewhat. I think the "basic observations" could be expanded on and we'd find why we're altruistic and empathetic and there'd be grounds for establishing some things inherently right and good, still taking context into account where necessary, and that'd be far more objective than references to the will of any gods.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why should I care about the well being of others?

Do you agree that if everyone didn't care about anyone's well-being, society wouldn't exist? Everyone would have a much harder time existing if that were the case.

 

[Random Person]

In expectation of what in return? Was the value of reciprocity rejected because it seemed selfish?

I agree that Christians are seeking the guidance of a power outside of humanity.

And finding it, not by looking at nature as in Veritass' "basic observations", but in some old book.

It helps if you could differentiate between what they believe and what you believe if you want to discuss it.

Not really. I want to describe my observations of how theists prefer word-based confabulations to observable reality. I'm pointing at what they don't seem conscious of. So it cannot "help" if I merely describe what Christians say they believe, since their wish to believe beliefs delivered from beyond nature and disdain for observing nature inevitably makes their self-descriptions wrong.

Morality is an opinion.

Somewhat. I think the "basic observations" could be expanded on and we'd find why we're altruistic and empathetic and there'd be grounds for establishing some things inherently right and good, still taking context into account where necessary, and that'd be far more objective than references to the will of any gods.

I get the impression that you think I'm a Christian. Perhaps you would better understand my comments now knowing that I am not.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should I care about the well being of others?

Do you agree that if everyone didn't care about anyone's well-being, society wouldn't exist? Everyone would have a much harder time existing if that were the case.

I hope everyone else cares about the well being of others, just don't expect me to. Why would I?

 

[abaddon]

In expectation of what in return? Was the value of reciprocity rejected because it seemed selfish?


And finding it, not by looking at nature as in Veritass' "basic observations", but in some old book.

It helps if you could differentiate between what they believe and what you believe if you want to discuss it.

Not really. I want to describe my observations of how theists prefer word-based confabulations to observable reality. I'm pointing at what they don't seem conscious of. So it cannot "help" if I merely describe what Christians say they believe, since their wish to believe beliefs delivered from beyond nature and disdain for observing nature inevitably makes their self-descriptions wrong.

Morality is an opinion.

Somewhat. I think the "basic observations" could be expanded on and we'd find why we're altruistic and empathetic and there'd be grounds for establishing some things inherently right and good, still taking context into account where necessary, and that'd be far more objective than references to the will of any gods.

I get the impression that you think I'm a Christian. Perhaps you would better understand my comments now knowing that I am not.

Yes, and I realized perhaps you're not after posting so I went back to reword it but you were here quoting me and responding while I was doing that.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I hope everyone else cares about the well being of others, just don't expect me to. Why would I?

Generally speaking there's a good chance that if you don't care about the well being of others, there's a higher chance that you'll end up exploiting them.

 

[iolo]

I have no problem with calling them assumptions instead of observations.

I would have phrased it more like, "How would you decide to judge someone's actions as more or less moral?" In this case, I have explained that judgment: it would be based on how those actions contribute to -- or take away from -- the overall well-being of the individuals involved, taking into account any effects on the groups involved.

Your phasing of "How would you know if someone is behaving morally or immorally?" smuggles in two assumptions of its own:
(1) That you could "know" this as if it has an objective basis in reality, as opposed to merely a situational evaluation of the actions; and
(2) That there is some binary condition of "moral and "immoral", as opposed to a spectrum of effects.
I reject both of those assumptions.

I reject those two assumptions as well.

Why should I care about the well being of others?

Because the shifting states you call 'I' have no long-term reality and don't matter, and because to suppose they are more important that other illusions is ludicrous, since you ask.

 

[abaddon]

I hope everyone else cares about the well being of others, just don't expect me to. Why would I?

Why would the others care then?

Reciprocity matters a great deal.

There’s no isolate self that exists independently of others and the social self's condition depends on the quality of its relatedness with others. Lack of caring for others leaves one alone with a diminished, devitalized, possibly antagonism-ridden self. What’s the motivation to lose one’s sense of caring, or not develop on the innate capacity for it? Trauma and fear? A wish for peace of mind? Isolating won’t help with that. Nature says so.

Caring = expansive sense of “self”. Not caring = diminished self.

Ethics generally is advice on flourishing. People take it as a list of Shoulds and go on about duties but most Shoulds are advice. The problem I was pointing at with Christians is they tend to leave off what the benefits are so it sounds like a dogmatic Should when probably there is, or once was, a good reason.

What comes around goes around is generally true. I knew of a guy that was fraudulently advertising multiple fake business names to maximize customers, to in effect steal customers from other businesses. He expressed a lot of frustration when other frauds did the same, because then he felt his potential customers were being stolen. He’d hoped the rest of society went on “being good” so that the cheating would be a one-way affair, but that’s the short-sighted idiocy of being a cheat: he helped create the conditions in which he too got cheated. All frauds are in competition with one another too, so they made ‘making a living’ harder for themselves too. They’re too narrowly focused on “I, me, mine” to see how they diminish their own lives.

Same with being apathetic of others. One apathetic person -> millions of apathetic persons. Someday when you need somebody else to care, it won’t be there. They’ll be asking “Why should I?”

 

[Random Person]

I hope everyone else cares about the well being of others, just don't expect me to. Why would I?

Why would the others care then?

Reciprocity matters a great deal.

There’s no isolate self that exists independently of others and the social self's condition depends on the quality of its relatedness with others. Lack of caring for others leaves one alone with a diminished, devitalized, possibly antagonism-ridden self. What’s the motivation to lose one’s sense of caring, or not develop on the innate capacity for it? Trauma and fear? A wish for peace of mind? Isolating won’t help with that. Nature says so.

Caring = expansive sense of “self”. Not caring = diminished self.

Ethics generally is advice on flourishing. People take it as a list of Shoulds and go on about duties but most Shoulds are advice. The problem I was pointing at with Christians is they tend to leave off what the benefits are so it sounds like a dogmatic Should when probably there is, or once was, a good reason.

What comes around goes around is generally true. I knew of a guy that was fraudulently advertising multiple fake business names to maximize customers, to in effect steal customers from other businesses. He expressed a lot of frustration when other frauds did the same, because then he felt his potential customers were being stolen. He’d hoped the rest of society went on “being good” so that the cheating would be a one-way affair, but that’s the short-sighted idiocy of being a cheat: he helped create the conditions in which he too got cheated. All frauds are in competition with one another too, so they made ‘making a living’ harder for themselves too. They’re too narrowly focused on “I, me, mine” to see how they diminish their own lives.

Same with being apathetic of others. One apathetic person -> millions of apathetic persons. Someday when you need somebody else to care, it won’t be there. They’ll be asking “Why should I?”

Your post condenses to an opinion that sounds like self interest with some faith mixed in.

 

[another1]

When I was growing up there were two versions of the golden rule. The main one was do unto others as they do unto you. I heard that one more often. I chalk it up to country people shortening phrases and making them all wrong without knowing it. Like calling Alzheimer's "old timers". But it does seem like those are the ultimate options. Like morality is two choices summed up in similar phrases.

On morality in actual life, I question if anyone at all can be considered moral when 100x the water it would take to save 10,000 lives is used to make concrete every day. That means we all consider some humans to be expendable and worth less than a sidewalk. I don't mean to seem stupid here. Take it as you will but please don't think that I'm trying to insult you.

But yeah, who can say they have much morality when the simplest of needs aren't met for everyone in the world? "Yes God, we can split atoms but we can't get a boat of Gatorade and snack bars to over to Ethiopia". God would cancel the Resurrection and go back to Heaven if he stumbled over some staving kids on his way through the door. He'd be like what the Hell man.

If I were to have others do unto me as I do unto them, I'd die of starvation. Seriously though. Once, I saw an animal rescue ad air in the same commercial block as Save the Children. And I'm sad to admit I was more moved by seeing the damn animals! That seems warped and wrong but most people I talk to feel the same way. I wasn't surprised to find this vid. Forgive me for interrupting and being slightly off topic.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHd65JXTtOc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ronburgundy]

Morality can only exist when there is no cause to be immoral or when there is a human framework to punish immorality. The only thing God has to do with morality is that it acted as a justification for ancient moral systems. Nowadays 'thou shalt not kill' means 'don't kill other people or you'll go to prison', not 'don't kill other people or God will send you to hell'.

Interestingly though, the law is the same regardless.

What about natural empathy? Most people feel negative emotions at the sight of others in their social group being harmed, and there is evidence this is innate and not limited to humans.
Combined with natural motives to reduce such negative emotions, that would create a desire to avoid producing needless suffering of those within one's social group and for creating a moral system that reduces such suffering. Simple pragmatism would dictate that even when one would gain personally from causing harm, the undermining of that system leads to negative emotional consequences for oneself.

Fear of authority does more to undermine real morality and natural empathy as it does to reinforce it. It often pits the negative emotion of fear of angering the authority against empathy, allowing people to cause more needless suffering than they otherwise would allow themselves.


Fearing retribution from others is not the only motive people have for

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why would the others care then?

Reciprocity matters a great deal.

There’s no isolate self that exists independently of others and the social self's condition depends on the quality of its relatedness with others. Lack of caring for others leaves one alone with a diminished, devitalized, possibly antagonism-ridden self. What’s the motivation to lose one’s sense of caring, or not develop on the innate capacity for it? Trauma and fear? A wish for peace of mind? Isolating won’t help with that. Nature says so.

Caring = expansive sense of “self”. Not caring = diminished self.

Ethics generally is advice on flourishing. People take it as a list of Shoulds and go on about duties but most Shoulds are advice. The problem I was pointing at with Christians is they tend to leave off what the benefits are so it sounds like a dogmatic Should when probably there is, or once was, a good reason.

What comes around goes around is generally true. I knew of a guy that was fraudulently advertising multiple fake business names to maximize customers, to in effect steal customers from other businesses. He expressed a lot of frustration when other frauds did the same, because then he felt his potential customers were being stolen. He’d hoped the rest of society went on “being good” so that the cheating would be a one-way affair, but that’s the short-sighted idiocy of being a cheat: he helped create the conditions in which he too got cheated. All frauds are in competition with one another too, so they made ‘making a living’ harder for themselves too. They’re too narrowly focused on “I, me, mine” to see how they diminish their own lives.

Same with being apathetic of others. One apathetic person -> millions of apathetic persons. Someday when you need somebody else to care, it won’t be there. They’ll be asking “Why should I?”

Your post condenses to an opinion that sounds like self interest with some faith mixed in.

People care about other people, dude. Deal with it.

 

[Random Person]

Your post condenses to an opinion that sounds like self interest with some faith mixed in.

People care about other people, dude. Deal with it.

I not only deal with it, I count on it.

 

[Random Person]

I hope everyone else cares about the well being of others, just don't expect me to. Why would I?

Generally speaking there's a good chance that if you don't care about the well being of others, there's a higher chance that you'll end up exploiting them.

I think that it is almost guaranteed that others will be exploited given the opportunity. It makes it easier if you pretend to care about them.

 

[another1]

It makes it easier if you pretend to care about them.

It does though doesn't it. I'm not digging wells on the Sahara and I don't plan on making any sandwiches to mail out. I'm really limited in what I can actually do. The doing part (in my interpretation) is more of an illusion for most people. In my personal case, I have talked about starving people since before I can remember. It doesn't make other people feel any better but it makes me feel something when I say "hey 10 kids will die of dehydration before you finish that Pepsi", or something a-hole like that. I could do that or I could just drink Pepsi and share a nice moment, but the torment of morality is always present, ruining my day.

I defined for myself that parts of my morality are a parody of telling myself that I need to tell someone else that I would do something moral if it were in my power. I can't sail a pirate ship around the world building desalinization cities. All I can do is dream about being a pirate, and brag about how awesome a pirate I'd be.

The limitations of an organism are related to how far it can see, or something like that. I read something about that somewhere. It was explaining how primitive the world is because we have limited eyesight, and how lizards live in a fog even though they thrive on sunlight. Like in my life, 5,000 miles away is completely unreal. Whatever is happening there may as well have happened in the past. It isn't occurring.

I have accurate statistics and some photographs, but out there is a whole other reality of nonsensical pain that I (in my own selfish and clouded little reality) care no more about than eyebrow dandruff. That in itself is completely immoral... that separate realities where people starve to death every minute run concurrent with my reality - where I just threw away a sandwich because I didn't slice it artistically enough to upload a picture of it.

So giving my unrequested opinion about this sort of thing is basically me pretending to care. Even though I know that I do very much. My sight only allows me to make certain motions that gesture caring but nothing happens anywhere other than in my brain. The actual bravery and sacrifice necessary to change my environment are an abstract thing in such a stifling world, where I can easily get killed just trying to fulfill my own needs. The reality of the world is in sections, and I'm helpless to reach into some parts. So I imagine reaching in, and it causes me to suffer needlessly. In that sense, morality becomes a tormentous thing really. Constantly reminding myself that I would be a better person if. So since I am limited in sight and so many other ways, morality is a sort of an unnecessary choreographed torment.

Is that in any way related to what you were thinking?

 

[rousseau]

Morality can only exist when there is no cause to be immoral or when there is a human framework to punish immorality. The only thing God has to do with morality is that it acted as a justification for ancient moral systems. Nowadays 'thou shalt not kill' means 'don't kill other people or you'll go to prison', not 'don't kill other people or God will send you to hell'.

Interestingly though, the law is the same regardless.

What about natural empathy? Most people feel negative emotions at the sight of others in their social group being harmed, and there is evidence this is innate and not limited to humans.
Combined with natural motives to reduce such negative emotions, that would create a desire to avoid producing needless suffering of those within one's social group and for creating a moral system that reduces such suffering. Simple pragmatism would dictate that even when one would gain personally from causing harm, the undermining of that system leads to negative emotional consequences for oneself.

Fear of authority does more to undermine real morality and natural empathy as it does to reinforce it. It often pits the negative emotion of fear of angering the authority against empathy, allowing people to cause more needless suffering than they otherwise would allow themselves.


Fearing retribution from others is not the only motive people have for

I guess the natural empathy you speak of is probably a spring-board for the human systems I mentioned. Law would be a result of social empathy of some kind. So yes, if natural empathy didn't exist moral systems might not arise.

 

[Treedbear]

The ToE teaches us that we have evolved genetically as well as culturally as a social species, and that evolution is about survival of the species. Therefore at its most basic level the purpose of empathy and morality is the survival of the human species. And this goal depends on the survival and well-being of the smaller social units, from nation to community to family to individual. There are a few maxims, but any of them can be overridden in the interest of the welfare of the species as a whole.

1) We favor those social units that we have the closest ties with. This is mostly a matter of maintaining trust within one's community for everyday basic needs, but is also an essential factor in determining relative fitness.

2) Moral values aren't limited to utilitarian effects only, but are often symbolic. The human mind understands the world through metaphor. Therefore, as an example, the killing of non-human life is also considered morally wrong without a recognized benefit to the social unit.

3) Societies flourish best when they are a mixture of altruistic as well as self-interested individuals, not a mono-culture of one or the other.

 

[rousseau]

The ToE teaches us that we have evolved genetically as well as culturally as a social species, and that evolution is about survival of the species. Therefore at its most basic level the purpose of empathy and morality is the survival of the human species. And this goal depends on the survival and well-being of the smaller social units, from nation to community to family to individual. There are a few maxims, but any of them can be overridden in the interest of the welfare of the species as a whole.

1) We favor those social units that we have the closest ties with. This is mostly a matter of maintaining trust within one's community for everyday basic needs, but is also an essential factor in determining relative fitness.

2) Moral values aren't limited to utilitarian effects only, but are often symbolic. The human mind understands the world through metaphor. Therefore, as an example, the killing of non-human life is also considered morally wrong without a recognized benefit to the social unit.

3) Societies flourish best when they are a mixture of altruistic as well as self-interested individuals, not a mono-culture of one or the other.

I'm always a bit cautious when speaking about altruism as if you can distinguish between it and self interest. What a lot of people perceive as altruism is really just the most efficient action to take for continued survival. For instance, someone doing something as simple as holding a door for someone else, is it because they want to help or because they'll be scorned if they don't meet the social expectation? The reality is there is minimal cost for avoiding scorn, so the resulting behaviour appears to be altruistic, when really it's just the outcome of reasoned consideration.

Likewise, most behaviour is this way. You could call a criminal immoral for breaking laws, but often-times that behaviour is just a result of social circumstance. So the take home is that 'moral' behaviour (let's just call it behaviour that doesn't cause short-term harm) usually results when you give people the conditions to be moral. When you take away someone's ability to act selflessly, or at least neutrally, then immorality is the natural result.

God or any type of authority has nothing to do with it, we're just a group of people in political situations making decisions for ourselves that lead to a better ability to survive. Take the whole framework of morality out of the equation, and this is the parent concept.

That said, unspoken moral frameworks do tend to arise in societies as a necessary mechanism to keep order, but labelling those who follow or don't follow these frameworks 'altruistic' or 'self-interested' isn't quite so simple. Rather it's better to look at human behaviour as a complex, free range of actions that's usually looking out for number one, whether that is one or the other side of whatever moral code is in place.

 

[Atheos]

"As you would have them do unto you" implies at least the hope of reciprocity, which is an expectation of sorts.

"Do unto others as you would do unto yourself" would be a version without reciprocity. Since I was the first one to actually say it in a way that did not imply reciprocity would all the Christians kindly start worshiping me instead?