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

[harvey1]

From your wording here it seems that you still don't accept the idea that the universe can give rise to universals through its collective properties.

I think you are confusing universals and tropes. You appear to be presenting a trope bundle theory where likeness of a quality (e.g., redness, morality, etc.) is a particular state of an object (or state of affairs) having properties whereby the particular (object/state of affairs) is identical to its properties. For instance, the state of affairs that comprise a particular instance of deceit is identical to a bundle of properties that construct a situation where another creature is misled to believe something is not the case (e.g., a Corn snake possessing a similar color of a deadly Coral snake). This is not a universal. As Armstrong points out universals are an identity relation that exists across many particulars. It's not just a mere equivalence relation as trope theory implies.

So, when I ask you whether you believe objective morals exist (i.e., there is a set of universals called morals), I'm not asking you if a bundle of properties comprise some particular set of morals that have an equivalence relation between another set of morals which make for those morals being better. I'm asking you if there is some non-material concept that exists which allows all the particular moral instances to be identically classified as a good moral action (or bad moral action).

As I said, you sound like a trope bundle theorist. In which case, there are no moral universals that exist. That would make you an anti-realist about morality. So, a bundle of properties that construct a trope does not allow for anyone to say that certain moral actions are good or bad. Rather, various moral actions just bare different contingent relations to each other. The contingent relation makes all moral actions as morally equivalent.

[QED]

From your wording here it seems that you still don't accept the idea that the universe can give rise to universals through its collective properties.

I think you are confusing universals and tropes. You appear to be presenting a trope bundle theory where likeness of a quality (e.g., redness, morality, etc.) is a particular state of an object (or state of affairs) having properties whereby the particular (object/state of affairs) is identical to its properties.

No, I'm aware of the distinction, and I see a difference in measuring moral values against the criteria of existence against there being a mere likeness of quality. That's how I see there being such a thing as an objective moral.

So, when I ask you whether you believe objective morals exist (i.e., there is a set of universals called morals), I'm not asking you if a bundle of properties comprise some particular set of morals that have an equivalence relation between another set of morals which make for those morals being better. I'm asking you if there is some non-material concept that exists which allows all the particular moral instances to be identically classified as a good moral action (or bad moral action).

Well I may be wrong about this, but I think that the natural selection criteria is a prime candidate for one of your so called "universals". The potential for existence would seem to be present at least from the very first moments of the "material" universe. I can then see a set of objective morals being measured using the same criteria.

But then what of potentials before the existence of anything material? That's another matter altogether.

[harvey1]

Well I may be wrong about this, but I think that the natural selection criteria is a prime candidate for one of your so called "universals". The potential for existence would seem to be present at least from the very first moments of the "material" universe. I can then see a set of objective morals being measured using the same criteria. But then what of potentials before the existence of anything material? That's another matter altogether.

Universals would require the universals to exist before the existence of anything material. Or, in the case of an infinitely old universe, the universals would exist if every material thing were bunched up together into a physical singularity (i.e., assuming it was logically possible they could exist). Tropes on the other hand would be potentially there if the properties assembled themselves into the appropriate bundle to instantiate that trope. I think that fits more along with what you are saying about morality because natural selection produces a set of properties in the world that under the appropriate conditions create a trope bundle that is what we call moral codes. In that case, moral codes don't exist (as in universals), rather they are particulars that fall into that equivalence class.

[QED]

Well I may be wrong about this, but I think that the natural selection criteria is a prime candidate for one of your so called "universals". The potential for existence would seem to be present at least from the very first moments of the "material" universe. I can then see a set of objective morals being measured using the same criteria. But then what of potentials before the existence of anything material? That's another matter altogether.

Universals would require the universals to exist before the existence of anything material. Or, in the case of an infinitely old universe, the universals would exist if every material thing were bunched up together into a physical singularity (i.e., assuming it was logically possible they could exist). Tropes on the other hand would be potentially there if the properties assembled themselves into the appropriate bundle to instantiate that trope. I think that fits more along with what you are saying about morality because natural selection produces a set of properties in the world that under the appropriate conditions create a trope bundle that is what we call moral codes. In that case, moral codes don't exist (as in universals), rather they are particulars that fall into that equivalence class.

I'm still not happy with your argument here. It seems to me that when accepting the working definition of "universals" we will find certain things as a matter of necessity rather than contingency. One of these things is natural selection -- the principle that is, rather than any collection of actual instances. Therefore I'm claiming that when using the accepted definition of universals, the principle of natural selection and it's criteria (existence) are universals as well. From these I can then envision the sort of moral that is sought to be objective. Perhaps it was my use of the word "potential" that put you off. Sure natural selection has the potential to generate a wide range of arbitrary situations and I appreciate that these would constitute a trope bundle. But I'm trying to focus your attention on the underlying principle rather than its highly contingent outcomes. This, as I see it, presents us with a consistent frame of reference representing something that people might like to call "the sanctity of existence".

[harvey1]

I'm still not happy with your argument here. It seems to me that when accepting the working definition of "universals" we will find certain things as a matter of necessity rather than contingency. One of these things is natural selection -- the principle that is, rather than any collection of actual instances. Therefore I'm claiming that when using the accepted definition of universals, the principle of natural selection and it's criteria (existence) are universals as well.

Are you saying that you are committed to the principle of natural selection as being an existent independent of the particulars that bundle together to make up natural selection? You are becoming more of a platonist than I could have ever dreamed. Do you think that Occam's razor is a universal? How about the Golden Rule? What about the resurrection of the God-man that is common in myth? How about the mindscape of each individual (for fun let's call it a soul)? Do individuals have souls, QED?

From these I can then envision the sort of moral that is sought to be objective. Perhaps it was my use of the word "potential" that put you off. Sure natural selection has the potential to generate a wide range of arbitrary situations and I appreciate that these would constitute a trope bundle. But I'm trying to focus your attention on the underlying principle rather than its highly contingent outcomes. This, as I see it, presents us with a consistent frame of reference representing something that people might like to call "the sanctity of existence".

If you open the floodgates to universals existing, then you might be more inclined to a religious view than you think you are. Universals are the domain of religion.

[QED]

In introducing what I wrote above I stated the following:

It seems to me that when accepting the working definition of "universals" we will find certain things as a matter of necessity rather than contingency.

So I was bringing my argument into your frame of reference to show that even there it still works as a mandate for the existence of objective morals. That's because I believe it to be inextricably linked to the criteria for natural selection irrespective of how such a state of affairs has come to be. My personal view is that the apparent dualism built-up around the concept of eternal platonic universals and the substantive universe is a false impression leading to an over-interpretation on the theists part.

[harvey1]

So I was bringing my argument into your frame of reference to show that even there it still works as a mandate for the existence of objective morals. That's because I believe it to be inextricably linked to the criteria for natural selection irrespective of how such a state of affairs has come to be. My personal view is that the apparent dualism built-up around the concept of eternal platonic universals and the substantive universe is a false impression leading to an over-interpretation on the theists part.

If we have the natural selection principle being translatable into trope bundles (e.g., this particular animal lacks a long neck and therefore starves while its buddy with a genetic variation that gave it a longer neck was able to eat--multiplied by thousands and thousands of other animals and similar episodes for that species), then you don't actually have a principle that exists. Rather, what you have is particulars that fit a certain equivalence class of events which we call natural selection. The principle doesn't actually exist for a nominalist tropist.

Similarly, morals and moral codes don't exist for the same reason. What you actually have are particular episodes where certain actions bring about certain desirable and undesirable effects for a collection of individuals in a spatiotemporal location. These episodes become recognized as a kind of equivalence class of actions, and this evolves into morals and moral codes. It does not matter if some particulars within that class are exceptions to the rule (e.g., someone becomes a king by acting very immorally), since no one (among tropists) is saying that a moral code actually exists.

The one who became king by acting "immorally" is not moral or immoral in this perspective anymore than a particular is an instantiation of a universal. For tropists the particular does not instantiate a universal. It is just in a sense a loose member of an equivalence class that is subjective based on the interpretation. For example, the king might have a subjective view that they acted morally by being immoral because the ends justifies the means. War is another example where people justify killing and all sorts of terrible acts on others because of some ends justifying the means (of course, they might consider themselves moral all along by rejecting funding for stem cell research, for example).

What I see from you QED is a reluctance to commit to your philosophy. If you are a nominalist, then be a nominalist. If you are a platonist, then be a platonist. You do your philosophy a discredit by trying to be both and neither.

[Grumpy]

Harvey !

Names, names, names!!! Why must you always be labeling people using your definitions. We don't fit into your weird little pegboard, we don't CARE if our philosophy doesn't fit into your carefully spaced holes!!!

And as far as discrediting philosophies, Good deal, they need modifying and debunking once in a while. And if it's been a while since a philosopher has gone into the real world and LOOKED, maybe it's time to stretch those classifications a bit. I realize it puts a crimp in the strawmen you were setting up, never the less, it's a good thing, trust me(have faith)

Grumpy

[QED]

Harvey, never mind natural selection (a principle for which the outcomes are highly contingent and certainly do map to the trope bundles you mention) there's one and only one "universal" criteria that propels all these outcomes and that's the "universal" that I'm talking about against which we can measure morality.

And I am well within my rights to use the word "universal" without fear of committing to Platonic realism in any way. All living things (the scope of my claim) are subject to the working-out towards the criteria for natural selection and this would seem to me to warrant the use of the word in this context.

Maybe you have a particular impression of natural selection; nature red in tooth and claw, but this would be just one particular spin on the truly neutral criteria which is existence. I think this, being the governing force behind all life, provides a steady reference for us to measure our morality. Do you disagree?

[harvey1]

...there's one and only one "universal" criteria that propels all these outcomes and that's the "universal" that I'm talking about against which we can measure morality.

What universal are you referring to? The criteria of natural selection? What do you mean by that?

And I am well within my rights to use the word "universal" without fear of committing to Platonic realism in any way. All living things (the scope of my claim) are subject to the working-out towards the criteria for natural selection and this would seem to me to warrant the use of the word in this context.

How would you distinguish this universal from a trope bundle of particulars? Besides, even if we grant that these "natural selection criteria" particulars compose an equivalence class that resembles a universal FAPP (for all practical purposes), then it still doesn't mean that there is a moral code. It just means that there's this equivalence class out there where survival is a "value" (i.e., not a value in terms of a universal, rather a value in terms of a happenstance result). There's plenty of examples of this kind of instrumentalist value. For example, as a result of primate dominance hierarchy, being a large male (versus a female) was a value in terms of the alpha male being able to withstand challenges from other males. So, today, many leaders of countries tend to be male and taller than the average population of that country. However, this doesn't actually mean that it is better that leaders be male and taller than average population, right? This is just a trope bundle of properties that led to this trope (i.e., equivalence class) that values tall male leaders. There is no universal "out there" that exemplifies the image of a tall, male leader, right?

So, I don't see how your argument leads to their being moral codes. There's just subjective values that based on happenstance that the individual may or may not believe has utility for them.

Maybe you have a particular impression of natural selection; nature red in tooth and claw, but this would be just one particular spin on the truly neutral criteria which is existence. I think this, being the governing force behind all life, provides a steady reference for us to measure our morality. Do you disagree?

I agree that "existence" is a brute fact result of natural selection tropes. However, I don't see how that can construct legitimate moral codes. The individual always has the option of taking these so-called morals developed from a long history of natural selection with a grain of salt. Certainly, no one should use the argument that leaders should have the qualities of alpha males in terms of them being male and tall. Yet, that's just as much a moral code of natural selection as "thou shall not steal." It all depends on the circumstances the individual has to that trope. Some trope morals might be good for GM, but bad for the country. The individual must decide case by case in the world of the nominalist.