Objective morality based in reality

[cholland]

I have an objective basis for my own morality. It's grounded in reality.

Honestly I don't have a topic for debate (maybe move to Random Ramblings). I just wanted to hear more explanation of what Autodidact means by these two statements.

[Autodidact]

You will ruin your life even if you're not caught.

Is this not because of two things: (1) Society will condemn you, and (2) you will condemn yourself (guilt)?

Well, guilt, or to put it differently, as a person, you will feel empathy with the person that you killed and the people you hurt by killing her, and this will cause you pain.

that is how we are made.

ID? (Jk)

ToE.

As social animals, we have evolved to be emotionally enmeshed with other humans. We cannot harm another person, or see another person harmed, without experiencing pain and sorrow

And you think this is a just foundation for objective morality? On what basis should I obey my chemical inclinations?

You threw "just" in. I think it's an excellent basis for morality. It's objective in the sense that it's based on empirical facts, which are objective. They exist, however I may feel about them.

It is our nature to care about other people, and to derive happiness from, among other things, caring for them

Why do we have a moral obligation to live in conformity with our nature?

You don't. It's simply a law/fact that if you violate it, you will make yourself miserable. If you want to be happy, you need to take your nature into account.

For more on this approach to morality from a religious, rather than biological/neurological perspective, I recommend the works of the Dalai Lama, including Beyond Religion and Ethics for the New Millenium. btw, if I call it "ethics" instead of "morality," is it easier for you to grasp or accept.

In other words, these rules are not rules like "Thou shalt not..." those are arbitrary and often silly. They're rules like scientific rules. If you do X, you will get Y. They are empirical/factual in nature. They're based on reality, not arbitrary ritualistic taboos.

[Defender of Truth]

Why do we have a moral obligation to live in conformity with our nature?

You don't. It's simply a law/fact that if you violate it, you will make yourself miserable.

This logic runs into the problem of Hume's Guillotine. One cannot go from descriptive statements to prescriptive statements. In this instance, you're going from the descriptive statements that (1) Some actions lead to happiness and others lead to misery, and (2) all humans desire happiness and not misery, to the conclusion that we (3) should do actions that lead to happiness.

You make this argument in Post 2. You say that

due to our nature as human beings, being kind to other people makes us happy

This is a true fact.

But then you say

Therefore, we should be kind to others

This is when the faulty switch is made. The "should" indicates obligation. One cannot go from a descriptive statement to a prescriptive statement.

[Autodidact]

Why do we have a moral obligation to live in conformity with our nature?

You don't. It's simply a law/fact that if you violate it, you will make yourself miserable.

This logic runs into the problem of Hume's Guillotine. One cannot go from descriptive statements to prescriptive statements. In this instance, you're going from the descriptive statements that (1) Some actions lead to happiness and others lead to misery, and (2) all humans desire happiness and not misery, to the conclusion that we (3) should do actions that lead to happiness.

You make this argument in Post 2. You say that

due to our nature as human beings, being kind to other people makes us happy

This is a true fact.

But then you say

Therefore, we should be kind to others

This is when the faulty switch is made. The "should" indicates obligation. One cannot go from a descriptive statement to a prescriptive statement.

Not "should" in the sense of obligation, but "should" in the sense of, "if you want a desirable result." If you want to be happy, then you should be kind to others, because being kind to others will make you happy. Here, let's do it as a syllogism.

People want to be happy.
Being kind to others makes people happy.
Therefore, it behooves people to be kind to others.

This kind of "is" to "should" we do all the time. Sun burns skin, therefore we should wear sun screen. Smoking causes cancer, therefore we should not smoke. It's that kind of "should."

from your cite:
Ethical naturalists contend that moral truths exist, and that their truth value relates to facts about physical reality. Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is", believing it can be done whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior. They suggest that a statement of the form "In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C" exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted. "Ought"s exist, then, in light of the existence of goals.

I agree with them. Maybe I am one; I haven't read up on them yet.

[Defender of Truth]

Not "should" in the sense of obligation, but "should" in the sense of, "if you want a desirable result." If you want to be happy, then you should be kind to others, because being kind to others will make you happy. Here, let's do it as a syllogism.

People want to be happy.
Being kind to others makes people happy.
Therefore, it behooves people to be kind to others.

This kind of "is" to "should" we do all the time. Sun burns skin, therefore we should wear sun screen. Smoking causes cancer, therefore we should not smoke. It's that kind of "should."

Ahhh, but if the "should" is limited to "if you want this goal", then it is weakened considerably. What must be established if you want the "should" to be significant is that we are obligated to maintain the said goal. Otherwise, if there is no moral obligation to the goal, then there is no moral obligation to the "should". Yes it is true that humans desire happiness, but if there is no true moral obligation to pursue that happiness then there is no basis for which one can condemn another who chooses not to take the best course of action to achieve that happiness.

Like you put it in the syllogism:

People want to be happy.
Being kind to others makes people happy.
Therefore, it behooves people to be kind to others.

Basically, it says that therefore (if one wants to be happy) he should be kind to others. But to make this a significant moral statement, you must demonstrate that one should want to be happy. See? If not, then the goal is irrelevant morally. For instance, I could say that one ought to practice if he wants to make the NBA, no one would dispute this. What would be disputed is that people should want to make the NBA. Undoubtedly people do, but is there any moral significance to that wish? I don't think so, but regardless, that's what would need to be established. Now with your argument, few would dispute that if one wants to be happy, he should be kind to others. The issue that needs to be addressed, however, is that the goal of happiness is something that should be morally desired. Of course, we already established that it is desired; all humans want to be happy by definition. The question is whether or not there is any moral significance to that desire. If not, then the "should" in "humans should be kind" is morally insignificant as well. Would it be encouraged? Yes. Recommended? Definitely. Morally required? No. That opens up a whole world of problems, because if it is not morally required, then we cannot condemn those who do not do it.

[Autodidact]

Not "should" in the sense of obligation, but "should" in the sense of, "if you want a desirable result." If you want to be happy, then you should be kind to others, because being kind to others will make you happy. Here, let's do it as a syllogism.

People want to be happy.
Being kind to others makes people happy.
Therefore, it behooves people to be kind to others.

This kind of "is" to "should" we do all the time. Sun burns skin, therefore we should wear sun screen. Smoking causes cancer, therefore we should not smoke. It's that kind of "should."

Ahhh, but if the "should" is limited to "if you want this goal", then it is weakened considerably.

Weakened from what? It's a factual statement. It's true. I don't know what you mean by weakened.

What must be established if you want the "should" to be significant is that we are obligated to maintain the said goal. Otherwise, if there is no moral obligation to the goal, then there is no moral obligation to the "should".

I'm not talking about obligations. I'm talking about empirical facts.

Yes it is true that humans desire happiness, but if there is no true moral obligation to pursue that happiness then there is no basis for which one can condemn another who chooses not to take the best course of action to achieve that happiness.

It doesn't matter whether I condemn them or not; they're still miserable. That's the point.

OTOH, if they seek my help in learning how to be happier, I can provide them with guidance on the issue.

Like you put it in the syllogism:

People want to be happy.
Being kind to others makes people happy.
Therefore, it behooves people to be kind to others.

Basically, it says that therefore (if one wants to be happy) he should be kind to others. But to make this a significant moral statement, you must demonstrate that one should want to be happy. See? If not, then the goal is irrelevant morally.

Sorry, you're wrong. It doesn't need "obligation" to work. Also, obligation doesn't work. What works is to help people learn how to live a better life.

For instance, I could say that one ought to practice if he wants to make the NBA, no one would dispute this. What would be disputed is that people should want to make the NBA. Undoubtedly people do, but is there any moral significance to that wish?

A lot of differences from your analogy. (1) All the practice in the world won't get most of us to the NBA. (2) Most people don't want to be in the NBA. So, not a very good analogy. As you said, everyone wants to be happy, and living your life right will make everyone (who isn't a sociopath) happier.

I don't think so, but regardless, that's what would need to be established. Now with your argument, few would dispute that if one wants to be happy, he should be kind to others. The issue that needs to be addressed, however, is that the goal of happiness is something that should be morally desired. Of course, we already established that it is desired; all humans want to be happy by definition. The question is whether or not there is any moral significance to that desire. If not, then the "should" in "humans should be kind" is morally insignificant as well. Would it be encouraged? Yes. Recommended? Definitely. Morally required? No. That opens up a whole world of problems, because if it is not morally required, then we cannot condemn those who do not do it.

I don't need any of that. It makes no difference about arbitary oughts or shoulds. What makes a difference is learning how to live a virtuous life.

You may see this as a more Greek approach to ethics. To the Greek philosophers, ethics was about living a good life. It's a science and an art. How should one live? What choices should one make? I believe that empirical science can help inform that decision. To Aristotle, virtue was the science of happiness. That's the approach I take.

[Defender of Truth]

It doesn't matter whether I condemn them or not; they're still miserable. That's the point.

OTOH, if they seek my help in learning how to be happier, I can provide them with guidance on the issue.

Ok, I understand a little more what you're model is proposing. However, I still find it very dangerous for the very reason that there is no condemnation. For instance, with the example I used earlier of murder, if I were to kill you, you would not be able to condemn me from a moral basis. I have no obligation to preserve life, it is simply the "smart thing to do if I want to be happy". Which means if I do kill someone, suppose your brother, you would not be able to accuse me of doing something wrong. You could of course say, "I don't think you made a wise decision, because now you're going to be miserable" but you can't say anything about the moral value of my action. In matter of fact, you shouldn't press charges, since I didn't do anything wrong. The truth is, people are horrified by actions done every day. I personally know people who were completely disgusted by the Penn State Scandal when Sandusky violated those little boys. Their disgust was not limited to "that was unwise", but they accused him of all kinds of terrible moral transgressions. They would even say things like "did he have a heart?" The assumption there is that there is a moral obligation to have a heart. If there's no obligation, then they shouldn't feel as if he did anything wrong.

Suppose you're preparing for a marathon with a $50,000 prize. The cross-country coach at my university just won a such marathon. It required much training and preparation. Let's say you've been training for a year for this event. You hire a personal trainer, put in the hard work and the sweat, and practice every day. Finally the marathon comes, and you feel you're ready. You battle throughout the whole race, you feel as if you have no energy left, but you still fight on. You are in second place, only to a man upon whom you're gaining fast. In the last stretch, you pull out every ounce of determination and energy remaining and pass the guy in first to take the first place prize. You earned the trophy and cash prize by your effort and hard work. However, the presider of the race gives the $50,000 to the man in second place! You ask him why, and he says "His shoes are way cooler. I mean, they're blue, that's my favorite color." What would you do? You would cry out that it is unfair! Well, at least that's what I would do. However, I would not just be claiming that "you should give me the $50,000 because ultimately long-term down the road you'll be happier". I would claim that he has an obligation based on fairness to give me the cash prize, since I won the race. According to your model, however, there is no basis for such a claim. There is no basis for any condemnation or moral plea. We cannot even say that Hitler was wrong, only that he was unwise for his personal happiness.

[Goat]

It doesn't matter whether I condemn them or not; they're still miserable. That's the point.

OTOH, if they seek my help in learning how to be happier, I can provide them with guidance on the issue.

Ok, I understand a little more what you're model is proposing. However, I still find it very dangerous for the very reason that there is no condemnation. For instance, with the example I used earlier of murder, if I were to kill you, you would not be able to condemn me from a moral basis. I have no obligation to preserve life, it is simply the "smart thing to do if I want to be happy". Which means if I do kill someone, suppose your brother, you would not be able to accuse me of doing something wrong. You could of course say, "I don't think you made a wise decision, because now you're going to be miserable" but you can't say anything about the moral value of my action. In matter of fact, you shouldn't press charges, since I didn't do anything wrong. The truth is, people are horrified by actions done every day. I personally know people who were completely disgusted by the Penn State Scandal when Sandusky violated those little boys. Their disgust was not limited to "that was unwise", but they accused him of all kinds of terrible moral transgressions. They would even say things like "did he have a heart?" The assumption there is that there is a moral obligation to have a heart. If there's no obligation, then they shouldn't feel as if he did anything wrong.
.

You are making some logical errors here, by doing the assumption that there is a non-abolute basis for morality Thatgirlagain pointed out a similar error that another theist did in the a recent thread.. and her explanation I think is spot on

She quote

Morals are the collection of practices that have enabled a community to survive and prosper. They are not absolute and God-given. Neither are they totally subjective and up to the individual. A society has the right to enforce those restrictions that foster the survival and well being of that society but the obligation to recognize when historical rules require modification to meet a changing social environment.

[Autodidact]

It doesn't matter whether I condemn them or not; they're still miserable. That's the point.

OTOH, if they seek my help in learning how to be happier, I can provide them with guidance on the issue.

Ok, I understand a little more what you're model is proposing. However, I still find it very dangerous for the very reason that there is no condemnation. For instance, with the example I used earlier of murder, if I were to kill you, you would not be able to condemn me from a moral basis. I have no obligation to preserve life, it is simply the "smart thing to do if I want to be happy". Which means if I do kill someone, suppose your brother, you would not be able to accuse me of doing something wrong. You could of course say, "I don't think you made a wise decision, because now you're going to be miserable" but you can't say anything about the moral value of my action. In matter of fact, you shouldn't press charges, since I didn't do anything wrong. The truth is, people are horrified by actions done every day. I personally know people who were completely disgusted by the Penn State Scandal when Sandusky violated those little boys. Their disgust was not limited to "that was unwise", but they accused him of all kinds of terrible moral transgressions. They would even say things like "did he have a heart?" The assumption there is that there is a moral obligation to have a heart. If there's no obligation, then they shouldn't feel as if he did anything wrong.

Suppose you're preparing for a marathon with a $50,000 prize. The cross-country coach at my university just won a such marathon. It required much training and preparation. Let's say you've been training for a year for this event. You hire a personal trainer, put in the hard work and the sweat, and practice every day. Finally the marathon comes, and you feel you're ready. You battle throughout the whole race, you feel as if you have no energy left, but you still fight on. You are in second place, only to a man upon whom you're gaining fast. In the last stretch, you pull out every ounce of determination and energy remaining and pass the guy in first to take the first place prize. You earned the trophy and cash prize by your effort and hard work. However, the presider of the race gives the $50,000 to the man in second place! You ask him why, and he says "His shoes are way cooler. I mean, they're blue, that's my favorite color." What would you do? You would cry out that it is unfair! Well, at least that's what I would do. However, I would not just be claiming that "you should give me the $50,000 because ultimately long-term down the road you'll be happier". I would claim that he has an obligation based on fairness to give me the cash prize, since I won the race. According to your model, however, there is no basis for such a claim. There is no basis for any condemnation or moral plea. We cannot even say that Hitler was wrong, only that he was unwise for his personal happiness.

Now you're not talking about morality, you're talking about justice and laws. Society has the right and should make laws that benefit society, that are fair and conducive to good order. They should not be based on personal morality. For example, giving to charity is good, but society should not mandate it.

I'm not too concerned about condemnation--who cares? When people break the law and harm others, then they should and will be punished. The marathon also has a legal obligation to abide by the terms it set for the race. All of these things are societal, not personal.

To use a different example, many Muslims believe it's absolutely, terribly immoral for a woman to show her face in public. That's their morality; which I disagree with. It's not a good basis for law, IMO. Morals and laws are two different things.

[Autodidact]

It doesn't matter whether I condemn them or not; they're still miserable. That's the point.

OTOH, if they seek my help in learning how to be happier, I can provide them with guidance on the issue.

Ok, I understand a little more what you're model is proposing. However, I still find it very dangerous for the very reason that there is no condemnation. For instance, with the example I used earlier of murder, if I were to kill you, you would not be able to condemn me from a moral basis. I have no obligation to preserve life, it is simply the "smart thing to do if I want to be happy". Which means if I do kill someone, suppose your brother, you would not be able to accuse me of doing something wrong. You could of course say, "I don't think you made a wise decision, because now you're going to be miserable" but you can't say anything about the moral value of my action. In matter of fact, you shouldn't press charges, since I didn't do anything wrong. The truth is, people are horrified by actions done every day. I personally know people who were completely disgusted by the Penn State Scandal when Sandusky violated those little boys. Their disgust was not limited to "that was unwise", but they accused him of all kinds of terrible moral transgressions. They would even say things like "did he have a heart?" The assumption there is that there is a moral obligation to have a heart. If there's no obligation, then they shouldn't feel as if he did anything wrong.
.

You are making some logical errors here, by doing the assumption that there is a non-abolute basis for morality Thatgirlagain pointed out a similar error that another theist did in the a recent thread.. and her explanation I think is spot on

She quote

Morals are the collection of practices that have enabled a community to survive and prosper. They are not absolute and God-given. Neither are they totally subjective and up to the individual. A society has the right to enforce those restrictions that foster the survival and well being of that society but the obligation to recognize when historical rules require modification to meet a changing social environment.

I don't see morality so much as societal. Rather I think it's something we work out individually. You decide what you think is moral.

[Defender of Truth]

Morals are the collection of practices that have enabled a community to survive and prosper. They are not absolute and God-given. Neither are they totally subjective and up to the individual. A society has the right to enforce those restrictions that foster the survival and well being of that society but the obligation to recognize when historical rules require modification to meet a changing social environment.

I have not agreed or disagreed with that model in this thread. I haven't even proposed my model, I was simply discussing Autodidact's model. And his is different than Thatgirlagain's because according to her, morals are the practices that enable survival, while Autodidact's thesis is that morals are the practices which promote happiness. I'd be happy to discuss Thatgirlagain's model, but up to this point I have been dialoguing concerning something entirely different.

Now you're not talking about morality, you're talking about justice and laws

Regardless of what I'm talking about, people in general appeal to morals when speaking of matters of fairness, murder, and rape. When people were in uproar over what Sandusky did to those boys, they didn't cry "you raped those boys! Rape is illegal!" They were appealing to a standard other than the law. The law was part of it, but it was something deeper. If you're theory of morality is true, all I'm saying is that those accusations fall void. What do you think? Am I overlooking something?