Nontheist ethics.

[Corvus]

This is a continuation of a debate started in general discussion.

If morality is not derived from doctrine, why act morally?

[Corvus]

In response to Bobby:

Firstly, you are not accountable to yourself, you are accountable to other people, since ethics is what describes the basis of your actions towards them. Secondly, the rest of this quote is in no way in opposition to what otseng said and clarified further in a separate post.

Of course you are accountable to yourself. Of course I have to answer to others that I come into contact with, but I live with me every minute of my life. I am the one who is going to ultimately pay for my actions. I will live with the consequences of my decisions more directly than any other person. If I choose badly, I will suffer the guilt or shame as a result. if I choose wisely, it will be my self image, self esteem and self respect that will benefit. I am accountable to others indirectly, as a result of my actions toward them, but I am still going to be directly affected, always.

Yes you will live with the consequences, but these consequences should only be a result of you being accountable to other people, not yourself, unless you feel shame or guilt for them. But why feel shame or guilt? What does it gain you? Kick a cat in an empty street and no one will hold you accountable. You may hold yourself responsible, however.

I do not understand how guilt or shame fits into this system. Guilt is self-reproach, and if you reproach yourself, you are unhappy with yourself, thus what you are doing is deviating from your goal of finding pleasure. It is often an internal feeling that one suffers from some sense of inadequecy. This inadequecy is a failure to live up to your own expectations, but I cannot understand where these expectations come from. Why do you have these expectations of how you should act?

Furthermore, why does everything I say need to oppose what he said. Is it not okay to agree on something, if that is the case? Are you naturally argumentive?

No and yes. You are not opposing what he said, you are opposing what I think.

Finally, pleasure should be the ultimate goal. I want nothing more than to be pleased. Pleased with everything I am and what I do. That can only be achieved through my value system, through moral conduct. Nothing is more pleasing than peace of mind.

But what you have constucted is a tautology. You are saying pleasure is the ultimate goal so I won't do anything that harms that, which is implicit with the whole pleasure is the ultimate goal thing.

No, that is not what he said. Read what I said. I spoke of pleasure being the ultimate goal, but I also mentioned that peace of mind is what is most pleasing. Meaning that if an individual doesn't have peace of mind, the pleasure will be insignificant. It won't matter. So if someone takes part in some impulsive act of momentary pleasure with extremely poor consequences, they will not sustain that pleasure. it will be fleeting. Peace of mind comes from the act of 'no harm done.'

But if one can kill someone and sleep peacefully with the thought they won't be caught, and not feel ashamed, it should be fine.

As far as doing something that a person would never be blamed for and what is stopping them from doing it, well, that depends on the person. But as far as I am concerned, me. Guilt and shame are heavy burdens. If no one knows about an immoral act except me, that is still enough. Do you have a conscience, or does it only work when others are watching?

My conscience only regards physical consequences, not emotional failings. Guilt I can understand as fear of being caught, not as sypathising with a victim. Why should I?

[rebecca]

If morality is not derived from doctrine, why act morally?

If I murder someone just because I want to, I am condoning another person doing the same to me. If I steal someone's television, I am creating a world in which someone else can steal mine. I only get one life, and that is not the world in which I want to live. Therefore, I act in the best interests of myself and others. I try my best to reduce the amount of suffering I cause to the rest of the world, and I also try to reduce the amount of suffering that others cause.

No where in this situation does theism come into play.

[Mightor]

Mightor say one time Mightor's little brother really bug Mightor. So Mightor hit him with club. Hard. Little brother hurt. Started crying. Mightor thought about what little brother had done to make Mightor mad. Had not been that bad, just being little brother. Mightor feel remorse. Mightor apologize to little brother by letting him play with Mightor's sabertooth tiger skull. Mightor resolve to treat little brother better. Fear of Spirit Bear reprisal not enter into decision.

[NuclearTBag]

Maybe instead of looking to a doctrine for morality, use common sense. You do not need a doctrine to decide if molesting children is wrong, that sort of thing should be obvious. You shouldn't need a doctrine to tell you right from wrong, you should be considerate of other's feelings, and try not to let personal feelings get in the way of your actions. For example if you are a homophobe, and you see a gay couple stuck in a burning house, you should do what ever you can to save them, eventhough you do not agree with what they do in private. If you decide not to help them, or even call the Fire Department because you hate them, then you are an aweful human being, and your actions are immoral.

[Corvus]

If I murder someone just because I want to, I am condoning another person doing the same to me. In a sort of universal way, yes. If I steal someone's television, I am creating a world in which someone else can steal mine. I only get one life, and that is not the world in which I want to live. Therefore, I act in the best interests of myself and others. I try my best to reduce the amount of suffering I cause to the rest of the world, and I also try to reduce the amount of suffering that others cause.

You act based on minimising the consequences of your actions, and thus giving a model to others to do the same. To an extent, I follow this rule. But if I were able to steal something without a single soul knowing or finding out, I see no problem with it. Murder too, though I find it distasteful. Imagine pushing someone out of a train for the sheer pleasure of it, as in Andre Gide's The Vatican Cellars. You do not take this person's money, and neither can people pin a motive for doing such a thing, so you will get away with it and everyone will believe he simply fell out of the open door. (Trains come with automatic doors now, but bear with me). I fail to see how this action is immoral.

Consider an ethical situation in which humans are not taken into account. Imagine I like to breed cats for the sole purpose of stomping on the kittens. Or that I like fighting cocks. If it was not illegal, there is no consequence here except having to mop up afterwards.

For example if you are a homophobe, and you see a gay couple stuck in a burning house, you should do what ever you can to save them, eventhough you do not agree with what they do in private. If you decide not to help them, or even call the Fire Department because you hate them, then you are an aweful human being, and your actions are immoral.

You may be an awful human being, and you may be rewarded with their gratitude if you do decide to help, but if you allow them to die and no one else knows, provided there is no shame or guilt at the action, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and it will make absolutely no difference in the world except to someone whom you do not know, who, when they find out, will come to a funeral, shed a few tears, then leave. But it will make no impact on your life. It's a no reward, no consequences issue.

[Rancid Uncle]

I don't think morality is derived from doctrine. I don't believe in God and I'm a very moral person. If I knew I could hurt someone without anyone knowing I wouldn't. I act morally because I love and respect my fellow man. It's not because I love and respect God. That makes a lot more sense to me, since God can't be affected by human actions. I think that's really the source of everyone's morality. If doctrine was the source of christian morality then all christians would have the same morals. Look at Pat Robertson he's really religous but he had a prayer session dedicated to making Ruth Bader Ginsburg die. The Dali lama isn't anywhere close to as religious and he is incredibly moral.

[perfessor]

The philosopher Adam Smith - also the founder of Capitalism back in the 18th century - opinied that the basis of morality was the ability to see the world from another's point of view. It's easy to see that virtually all of what we call "moral" behavior could be derived from this idea as a starting point. Maybe it's just another way of saying "Do unto others...", but without the religious trappings to accompany it.

Rather than think of Doctrine as a basis for moral behaviour, think of the example of a two-year-old child. Now, anyone who has been a parent (that includes me, three times) knows that a child at this age is an incredible selfish tyrant. All his life, he has had his wants and needs satisfied on demand. As those wants and needs become more complex, he encounters frustrating roadblocks - discipline - placed in his path by loving parents. I heard one child psychologist refer to this as "shaping" your child's behavior. These lessons, painful at first (to both child and parent!), are necessary to allow a person, no longer a child, to function in a complex society in which one's personal needs and wants are of no particular interest to society as a whole. For example, the restaurant down the street, which I enjoy so much, did not open purely for my benefit. They don't care if I walk through the door or not - only that someone does.

Some seem to argue that without doctrine, there is no motive to act morally; particularly if no one is watching. I think that this is a false conclusion, based on several false assumptions:
1. That people who follow a doctrine (such as the 10 commandments) behave more morally than others (you would have to prove this to me first);
2. That one can ever be so truly isolated from all elements of society as to render his actions inconsequential to any but himself. Even if no one is "watching", can you ever really feel that way? And why would it matter? Most of us don't even think about looking both ways before crossing the street - we just do it, although as children it took contant reminders.

In my own experience, I think the closest practical example would be something like this: You pay your check at the restauant, and the cashier accidentally, without knowing it, includes a $10 in place of a $1 when making change. Has this never happened to you? I can think of several times it has happened to me. Yet I always return the bill, because I know that at the end of the day, someone wil be suffering if I don't.

[Corvus]

Firstly, let me state that I do not believe morality has anything to do with doctrine. I am an agnostic and likely to become less religious in the future, not more.

What I am trying to discover is if morality is, as I believe it, an artificial construct for a way to achieve through reason what we lost through reason; instinctual behaviour.

I act morally because I love and respect my fellow man.

But what is the principle behind that love? Why do you love man? Again, this gives no reason for not torturing creatures of other genuses.

2. That one can ever be so truly isolated from all elements of society as to render his actions inconsequential to any but himself. Even if no one is "watching", can you ever really feel that way? And why would it matter? Most of us don't even think about looking both ways before crossing the street - we just do it, although as children it took contant reminders.

I accept the fact that there is rarely an action without a consequence. But I maintain that, though rare, they still exist and it may be instinct or education that keeps us from taking advantage of them, but not principle. Even so, this does not mean that a murderer is immoral, it means that the murder is either more reckless or more courageous than those of us whose pleasures are still tied up in consequences.

In my own experience, I think the closest practical example would be something like this: You pay your check at the restauant, and the cashier accidentally, without knowing it, includes a $10 in place of a $1 when making change. Has this never happened to you? I can think of several times it has happened to me. Yet I always return the bill, because I know that at the end of the day, someone wil be suffering if I don't.

I wouldn't because I don't care that another person suffers whom I can get no obvious reward from. If I really cared about someone suffering I would not limit this altruism to those nearest to me. I would not be eating at a restaurant at all, but donating the money instead to some charity for a wartorn place in Africa. Your love for man is here limited by your vision.

[perfessor]

Corvus wrote:

What I am trying to discover is if morality is, as I believe it, an artificial construct for a way to achieve through reason what we lost through reason; instinctual behaviour.

My opinion is that we have not lost our instinctuality; I think we are kidding ouselves when we say that our behaviour has no instinctive basis. But because we can rationalize, and verbalize, our thought processes, the instinctive basis becomes obscured. But it is still there, IMO.

I wouldn't [return the money] because I don't care that another person suffers whom I can get no obvious reward from.

But would you not consider this behavior antisocial?

If I really cared about someone suffering I would not limit this altruism to those nearest to me. I would not be eating at a restaurant at all, but donating the money instead to some charity for a wartorn place in Africa. Your love for man is here limited by your vision.

If you are suggesting that it is morally inconsistent to eat at a restaurant while children in Africa are starving, I fail to see the connection.

Your original question was, where does morality come from? My view is that, as a social animal, we feel a need (instinctively) to bind ourselves, whether loosely or tightly, with other humans as a group. For some, this group may be as small as their immediate family and friends; others may feel bound with a larger group, for example as fans of a particular sports team, or patriotism to country, or larger still. We have created a societal "glue" which we loosely term morality, as a way of keeping the needs of the larger community in mind, as opposed to acting out of pure self interest. Doctrines such as the 10 commandments are the result, not the cause, of our moral sense.

At the risk of flashing over to a topic on another forum, I believe that our social behaviours (morality) have an evolutionary component - they have served to increase the survivability of the group.

Since you asked.