Nontheist ethics.

[Corvus]

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

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

[ST88]

Then if we are to be VIRTUOUS - "VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character"

We must Excsell In what Socity belives is Right.

So Is ethics really ours or is it just Condsioning Placed apon us as a Child.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean to imply that because society places ethical expectations on us, we must necessarily be conditioned that way? Or is it that societal ethics are dictated by what individuals say they should be? Which is the cause and which is the effect?

our Id, Ego and Super Ego all Shakeing hands and we are just running Off a Long chain of Cause and effect. In a World where everyone is trying to make sence of everything.

So the bottem Line. If your Confroming, Your not fighting, and if your not fighting, Your Liveing

I don't agree with this. "Living" shouldn't need to imply a dichotomy of fighting or not fighting. There is a certain amount of choice whether or not to conform -- though it is easier to conform than not to -- and whether or not we fight to conform or fight to not conform, we're still fighting.

Also, strictly speaking, I don't think you could get your id, ego, and superego into a room and get them all to shake hands. They are in constant conflict with one another and would probably sooner play mumbletypeg than show affection.

[TQWcS]

perfessor said

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.

This however does not seem to be the case because anthropology and sociology have shown time and time again that there are only a few basic instincts that exist from culture to culture. This is true in even the most primitive setting. I don't believe that our ability to rationalize and verbalize our thoughts obscures our instincts. I think we simply addapted these traits in order to override natural instincts so we could constantly adapt to our surroundings instead of depending on a set of preprogrammed functions. This adaptation has in effect made us more versitile than anything before us.

As for morality, I believe that humans do need doctrine(esp. religous), rather written or passed down through socialization, to ascribe to us a set of normative values that is constant throughout the culture.

[bernee51]

This however does not seem to be the case because anthropology and sociology have shown time and time again that there are only a few basic instincts that exist from culture to culture.

like reproduction. flight or fight, eating, seeking shelter, etc. Basic indeed. I would like to see the references for "...anthropology and sociology have shown time and time again..."

I don't believe that our ability to rationalize and verbalize our thoughts obscures our instincts.

I disagree - instinct tells us to reproduce...this instinct is often compromised by rational and/or irrational thought.

As for morality, I believe that humans do need doctrine(esp. religous), rather written or passed down through socialization, to ascribe to us a set of normative values that is constant throughout the culture.

From this statement can I assume that you also believe the obverse of this i.e. without doctrine humans do not have values that are "...constant throughout the culture ?"

[TQWcS]

like reproduction. flight or fight, eating, seeking shelter, etc. Basic indeed. I would like to see the references for "...anthropology and sociology have shown time and time again..."

Yes, exactly those are some examples or crosscultural behaviors the only others that seem to be crosscultural are the belief in the supernatural and marriage (I think there are one or two more I just don't have time to get out my books and find them). However, all of these universals differ in how they are carried out. It is doctrine which tells us the right way to carry out these actions.

I disagree - instinct tells us to reproduce...this instinct is often compromised by rational and/or irrational thought.

I would have to disagree with that. The way we go about relatoinships is completey different from other animals that display instinctive mating patterns, although certain aspects can appear to be similar on the surface. For example baboons display characteristics that seem very much human... male friends for life, male friend protects females young, share food with the young. While these may seem like signs of compassion they are not. They are simply ways for the baboon male to have a better chance of mating with the female baboon and since other males also mate with his friend he must protect all of it's young because he has no way to tell whose is whose. Humans on the other hand mostly mate for the plain reason that it feels good(the only other animals that mate for pleasure are the bobono chimpanzee's and dolphins these also are questionable.), humans aren't more likely to mate with another women just because she is experiencing estrus. If human reproduction was instinctive, therefore meaning our patterns of mating are in place to secure our offspring, would we practice abortion?

From this statement can I assume that you also believe the obverse of this i.e. without doctrine humans do not have values that are "...constant throughout the culture ?"

That is quite true humans do not display values crossculturally. We receive our values from the norms of our society. Perhaps a better question is which came first doctrines or ethical behavior?

[bernee51]

like reproduction. flight or fight, eating, seeking shelter, etc. Basic indeed. I would like to see the references for "...anthropology and sociology have shown time and time again..."

Yes, exactly those are some examples or crosscultural behaviors the only others that seem to be crosscultural are the belief in the supernatural and marriage...

no I was actually listing instinctual behaviours...are you suggesting that belief in the superbnatural ad marriage are instinctual?

And could you please provide references as to where "...anthropology and sociology have shown time and time again..." otherwise it is just your opinion - one with which I do not necessarily agree.

I repeat my belief that instinctual behaviour still plays a significant part in our make-up. It is modified by cultural influences some of which may be cross cultural.

However, all of these universals differ in how they are carried out. It is doctrine which tells us the right way to carry out these actions.

doctrine is an influence, and a major one in some cultures. Whether or not doctrine "...tells us the right way..." is open to debate and opinion. Some doctrine has played havoc, for example, with attitudes to sex and sexualiity,

I disagree - instinct tells us to reproduce...this instinct is often compromised by rational and/or irrational thought.

I would have to disagree with that. The way we go about relatoinships is completey different from other animals that display instinctive mating patterns, ...

perhaps the way in which our reproductive behaviour has developed is the reason (in part) for our building of tribes in early human history. It is, I contend, still basically instinctual.

If human reproduction was instinctive, therefore meaning our patterns of mating are in place to secure our offspring, would we practice abortion?

why not? It is a cultural adaption - one that has been practiced for many millennia.

From this statement can I assume that you also believe the obverse of this i.e. without doctrine humans do not have values that are "...constant throughout the culture ?"

That is quite true humans do not display values crossculturally. We receive our values from the norms of our society. Perhaps a better question is which came first doctrines or ethical behavior?

I disagree - there are values that are cross cultural. For example...the so called 'golden rule' is evident in many cultures - across both time and space.

I believe that doctrinal thought is an attempt to codify ethical behaviour. It was the development of 'ethics', doing things for the good of the tribe, which led to the development of doctrines.