Question about secular morality

[Sarevok]

Why would an individual follow a morality system if there is no God ? Why not be a selfish person who would do anything as long as he does not get caught ? Why not do anything as long as the gain outweighs the costs ?

I am honestly puzzled by these questions. Since we have a lot of secular humanists here I wish ask this to you guys. Since you don't belive in the unseen why would you chose to be good ? Other than feeling bad when being bad or feeling good when doing something nice is there any other reason ? It seems to me if there is no God the best course of action as an individual would be to become a successful amoral banker or lawyer or CEO. The rich people we blame for the current financial crisis are extremely well off an individuals and barely gets any punishment. So why not aim for such a successful life unbound by any restrictions ?

[Straha]

Pssst.

There's a huge and in-depth discussion of this going on in the 'Consequentialism' thread. Check it out.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Why would an individual follow a morality system if there is no God ? Why not be a selfish person who would do anything as long as he does not get caught ? Why not do anything as long as the gain outweighs the costs ?

Basic human morality and empathy.

If you need to have the threat of punishment in the afterlife to make you act like a good person, then I'd argue you're not actually a good person. The simple answer to your question is "I would find it difficult to live a happy life knowing my happiness was largely and intentionally founded upon the suffering of others", because I'm not an immoral shitstain. I know I only have one life, and I know other people only have one life as well, with no shiny eternal afterlife waiting after the fact, so I can't exactly be comfortable with the idea of making other peoples' lives shit just so my own finite life can be even cozier.

How can you even ask this question? Are you honestly saying the only reason you aren't a murdering, thieving rapist is because you believe in God and are worried you'd get punished in the afterlife for indulging in your desires to fuck over other people for your own personal gain?

[Lusankya]

Would you rather live in a world where everyone was moral to each other, or a world where everyone was immoral to each other?

How would you expect to help create a world where everyone was moral to each other without acting moral yourself?

In any case, "fucking people over by being an amoral banker or lawyer or CEO" does not necessarily equate to a fulfilling life. Sure, I could go around and do that, but I'd make sacrifices in terms of family, in terms of friendships, in terms of self-respect, and really while some people might find screwing others over to be enjoyable, most people don't.

[Simon_Jester]

Why would an individual follow a morality system if there is no God ? Why not be a selfish person who would do anything as long as he does not get caught ? Why not do anything as long as the gain outweighs the costs ?

I am honestly puzzled by these questions. Since we have a lot of secular humanists here I wish ask this to you guys. Since you don't belive in the unseen why would you chose to be good ? Other than feeling bad when being bad or feeling good when doing something nice is there any other reason ? It seems to me if there is no God the best course of action as an individual would be to become a successful amoral banker or lawyer or CEO. The rich people we blame for the current financial crisis are extremely well off an individuals and barely gets any punishment. So why not aim for such a successful life unbound by any restrictions ?

...Are you in there, Sarevok? It's me, Simon. I'm worried you may have been taken over by a pod person or something.

After nearly ten years on this forum, I imagine you've seen the basic outlines of the answer many times- quite simply, there are a lot of reasons to be ethical that have nothing to do with "God will crush me like a bug." We could sit here all day listing examples, but what it comes down to is that if the idea of right and wrong is even meaningful, it has to make sense whether God tells us to do it or not.

If murdering people is only wrong because God told us not to, then the very word "wrong" loses its meaning- because God could just as easily tell us to do something else, and the only difference between 'right' and 'wrong' would then be a deity's arbitrary whims.

If murder is wrong anyway (i.e. God tells us not to murder because murder is wrong, then murder would still be wrong without God telling us not to do it. In which case, by definition, we shouldn't do it- that's what wrong means.

[Shroom Man 777]

In childhood development, toddlers and other young kids do the right thing and not-do the wrong thing because they fear punishment from adults.

As the child matures, s/he realizes that doing the right thing makes either him/herself and/or others happy and/or benefit them, and that doing wrong things make others unhappy and/or harms them. This, with empathy, motivates one to do good things to help/benefit/enhappy people or avoid doing wrong things that unhappy/unbenefit/harm people.

I think a moral system based entirely on fear of spiritual punishment by god or hell is most akin to the toddler-like moral development level of fearing spankings or metaphysical time outs (in a corner with more fire and brimstone!).

[Shroom Man 777]

I think that a people who cannot by themselves empathize with the happinesses or sufferings of their fellow human beings, and rely on the threat of punishment - legal, physical, or metaphysical - as well as the word of higher authorities as guidelines for what is right and wrong, are a very poor people.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why would an individual follow a morality system if there is no God ? Why not be a selfish person who would do anything as long as he does not get caught ? Why not do anything as long as the gain outweighs the costs ?

I am honestly puzzled by these questions. Since we have a lot of secular humanists here I wish ask this to you guys. Since you don't belive in the unseen why would you chose to be good ? Other than feeling bad when being bad or feeling good when doing something nice is there any other reason ? It seems to me if there is no God the best course of action as an individual would be to become a successful amoral banker or lawyer or CEO. The rich people we blame for the current financial crisis are extremely well off an individuals and barely gets any punishment. So why not aim for such a successful life unbound by any restrictions ?

Because they're not complete scum. Its called empathy.

If that answer is too idealistic for you to believe, then fear of mortal consequences like police, judges, prison, and execution.

As for the idea that the best course is to become rich through amoral means- some people have goals other than wealth. For example, I'd much rather have a career I enjoyed than one that made me super rich, so long as I wasn't actually at risk of poverty.

[Broomstick]

While you might think that a lack of belief in god results in "amoral shitstains", the fact is, only the biggest and strongest amoral shitstain rises to the top. A rational operator looks around, realizes that he or she is NOT the biggest and strongest amoral shitstain because the vast, overwhelming majority of people are NOT the biggest or baddest, probably not even close. Therefore, joining together for mutual benefit becomes a rational strategy even without a god. It's a LOT easier to work cooperatively if everyone agrees to certain basic ground rules like don't take other peoples' stuff, don't attempt to murder others while they sleep, and don't fuck someone else's mate (at least, not without permission of all involved). Thus, even without a god you can wind up with a basic morality that says things like murder, rape, and robbery are bad based solely on rational self-interest.

[Korto]

Nice guys may finish last, but they do so in far better company.

In childhood development, toddlers and other young kids do the right thing and not-do the wrong thing because they fear punishment from adults.

Shroom, I disagree with you here. I feel that toddlers do "the right thing" mostly because they feel an instinctive need to fit in and be accepted. Of course, they don't really know or understand what's expected of them, and I've seen my kids (particularly the boy) get frustrated and angry due to not really understanding what was expected from them. Once he latches on to an idea though, he's the soul of diligence.

I feel the major foundation of moral behavior is an instinctive tendency try to fit in; it's not a thought-out choice, its the evoloved instinct to look-out for and co-operate with others and work as a group. We're a social species.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Why would an individual follow a morality system if there is no God ? Why not be a selfish person who would do anything as long as he does not get caught ? Why not do anything as long as the gain outweighs the costs ?

Short answer: You're a highly social animal for whom tens and hundreds of millions of years of evolution have given you this innate sense of "be nice to others," meaning anything that could harm the group dynamic usually comes with a built-in penalty.

Long, long, answer: Because a person is a social animal living in a social setting. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution of animals living in assorted social groups has produced two fundamental rules of interaction: Know your place, and submit to authority. Discovering one's place lead to the evolution of elaborate, ritual, displays aimed at determining status without resorting to deadly force. Why? Because it's hard to get any mating done if one dies asserting their "alpha" status. And due to this minimizing of costs thing, once an individual knew their place, they also knew who they could challenge and get away with it, and who they couldn't. And those that they couldn't challenge . . . well, they made the appropriate shows of submission to the dominant individuals; otherwise they'd be reminded of their place. You see it all the time in nature . . . "alpha" individuals in wolf packs, pecking orders in bird flocks, and even who gets the best territories in animals who normally aren't that social.

So there's the fundamental underpinning of every morality system ever devised. Discovering and knowing one's place, and submitting to those who can't be challenged. As has been said, human children learn this lesson very early on. They quickly learn a set of behaviors and rules to avoid angering those who can't be challenged.

Yes, there are evolutionary strategies out there that permit non-dominant individuals to breed.
Sometimes by what we'd perceive as underhanded means. On the other hand, if you live in large enough social groups, then cooperating with closely-related individuals gets your kin's genes spread even if you, personally, aren't breeding. Wolf packs, elephant herds, and lion prides are family units. Working in groups keeps these animals alive and breeding.

So, in evolutionary history, we see that kinship is an evolved trait . . . you're genetically pre-programmed to be nice to your relatives, and to want to do things to promote their well-being. As knowledge becomes less-innate, and more-learned, it eventually becomes in one's best interest to promote the well-being of kin that are beyond reproductive age, because they've got a lot of experience that is vital in giving the family unit an edge over other family units.

As we move up the ladder of neural complexity, we find that the brains of animals have more and more capability to recognize and categorize others of their kind. Unrelated elephant herds and dolphin pods can co-mingle in larger groups where family bonds are much less clear. Increase the complexity a bit more, and you get chimpanzee groups whose members aren't necessarily all related, and the ability for dolphins to form associations of unrelated individuals outside of the extended family structure.

If you've got the brains to live in large, stupendously complex, social groups; then you've got the brains to stretch the definition of "kinship." You have to, to survive within the social setting, and for the social group to make the best use of available resources. So you eventually extend the concept of being nice to family members to being nice to those in your social group. Eventually, this evolves into "be nice to everybody," otherwise known as altruism. In evolutionary terms, altruism makes more sense than selfishness to the highly social animal, because you never know what social group you're going to end up being a part of. Being nice to strangers may give you higher social status should you, someday, end up being part of their social group.

So, all the evolutionary programming that makes us social creatures also makes us prone to morality . . . since morality is the fundamental set of guidelines to getting along with others in the social group. A 'God' is a human-invented tool to enforce this, since we tend to innately submit to authority and follow the leader, and we understand that those in certain groups enjoy higher social status than others. For a primitive example: While the willful young unmarried tribal initiate may be faster and stronger than the elderly shaman, the elderly shaman has the gods on his side. The same gods that the young man learned govern everything beyond the tribe's ability to control. The same gods that generations of tribesmen have evolved rituals aimed at appeasing (since these are highly-social animals with brains big enough to assign human symbolism to natural, mechanistic processes.) So since the shaman is in with the gods, that makes him beyond reproach to the willful young initiate.

Carry that forward a couple thousand years, and you have the notion of a 'God'-based morality system, since the invisible, omnipotent, god that controls all things that you can't is obviously the Alpha Male in the Sky. However, you don't need the Alpha Male in the Sky to get your morality, because we've invented writing and guns. Moral authority can now rest in the hands of those who write the codification of morality, otherwise known as "laws," with the enforcement of the social order coming from those with the swords or guns.

However, bear in mind that the threat of force is mostly for those who lie on the outskirts of the bell curve (in terms of socialization.) Most individuals in the center of the bell curve have a better-developed sense of altruism and the desire to get along with those in their social group. They also understand their place in the social order, so they'll naturally submit to the authority; regardless of whether it's derived from the Alpha Male in the Sky, or from human legislators and rulers.

[Skgoa]

To simplify Terwynn's and Broomstick's answers a bit: Due to the way our brains are wired, most humans enjoy doing good things and being nice to others. That, right there, is a gain that almost no selfish act can bring.
Why do I donate, volunteer, listen to friends whine about their problems? Because it makes me feel good about myself.

[Skgoa]

Nice guys may finish last, but they do so in far better company.

In childhood development, toddlers and other young kids do the right thing and not-do the wrong thing because they fear punishment from adults.

Shroom, I disagree with you here. I feel that toddlers do "the right thing" mostly because they feel an instinctive need to fit in and be accepted.

This reminds me of an experiment I once saw in a documentary, proving that small children can't lie. They were given a brownie that they were not supposed to touch. Then the experimenters waited untill the inevitable happened and asked the child whether or not it had touched the brownie. Even when the children were explicitely informed of the fact that they could get away with claiming they didn't, they simply couldn't understand that concept.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

To simplify Terwynn's and Broomstick's answers a bit: Due to the way our brains are wired, most humans enjoy doing good things and being nice to others. That, right there, is a gain that almost no selfish act can bring.
Why do I donate, volunteer, listen to friends whine about their problems? Because it makes me feel good about myself.

So:

1. Your morality is then based on entirely selfish concerns, ie, you do what makes you feel more pleasurable and that just happens to co-incide with doing what helps others. What do you do when what would make you feel good doesn't co-incide with helping others? What would be the moral option?
2. If someone didn't feel good from helping others, but felt good by doing things which pleased himself and sometimes hurt others, would he then be just as moral as you?

[Skgoa]

Don't equate "reason why there is morality in people who don't believe in any god" with "this is the full breadth of what their morality is."

[Simon_Jester]

1. Your morality is then based on entirely selfish concerns, ie, you do what makes you feel more pleasurable and that just happens to co-incide with doing what helps others. What do you do when what would make you feel good doesn't co-incide with helping others? What would be the moral option?

Speaking for myself, I often feel good or cease to feel bad when I do good and other-helping things... but I can't answer this question, because if I had no feeling of pleasure or happiness at helping others, I'm not sure I'd be me in any definable sense.

Removing that part of my personality would leave me a very different person I'm not sure I'm qualified to speak for.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

To simplify Terwynn's and Broomstick's answers a bit: Due to the way our brains are wired, most humans enjoy doing good things and being nice to others. That, right there, is a gain that almost no selfish act can bring.
Why do I donate, volunteer, listen to friends whine about their problems? Because it makes me feel good about myself.

So:

1. Your morality is then based on entirely selfish concerns, ie, you do what makes you feel more pleasurable and that just happens to co-incide with doing what helps others. What do you do when what would make you feel good doesn't co-incide with helping others? What would be the moral option?

Selfish concerns are what power all moral systems, including the religious ones. It's just that, as social animals, the "self" identity of most human beings is inextricably intertwined with their group identity; so at some level, a person's selfish concerns will usually advance their group's well-being in some way.

This is true for people we might consider to be selfish. Rabid gun rights advocates may be advocating a position that is more harmful to society as a whole, but it promotes the well-being of gun owners as a group. Rich white assholes might be screwing over the 80% of people who aren't well-off, but again, their selfish interests serve the well-being of rich white assholes as a collective whole. In terms of rabid gun owner or rich white asshole morality, their actions are perfectly moral; as harmful to overall society as they might be.

However, generally-speaking, since a human being has to exist within a social context, the more moral option is the one which better-advances the collective well-being. The selfish motivation here is that if the collective whole is doing better, then it will generally boost the individual's well-being and status as well. This does, sometimes, require the mental stretch of expanding one's group identity beyond their immediate social circles.

[Shroom Man 777]

Nice guys may finish last, but they do so in far better company.

In childhood development, toddlers and other young kids do the right thing and not-do the wrong thing because they fear punishment from adults.

Shroom, I disagree with you here. I feel that toddlers do "the right thing" mostly because they feel an instinctive need to fit in and be accepted.

This reminds me of an experiment I once saw in a documentary, proving that small children can't lie. They were given a brownie that they were not supposed to touch. Then the experimenters waited untill the inevitable happened and asked the child whether or not it had touched the brownie. Even when the children were explicitely informed of the fact that they could get away with claiming they didn't, they simply couldn't understand that concept.

Korto: H'okay, maybe not toddlers per se, but children. I was just going with Kohlberg's stages of moral development:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation

(How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation

(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

(Social norms)
(The good boy/good girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

(Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles

(Principled conscience)

According to these, a theistic fear of divine punishment morality fits in the pre-conventional stage.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Speaking for myself, I often feel good or cease to feel bad when I do good and other-helping things... but I can't answer this question, because if I had no feeling of pleasure or happiness at helping others, I'm not sure I'd be me in any definable sense.

Removing that part of my personality would leave me a very different person I'm not sure I'm qualified to speak for.

No need to excise empathy - I'm sure that there have been times in your life when you've felt good doing something for yourself when you might have theoretically helped others, and even times when you've done something for yourself that was an inconvenience for others. Am I wrong?

However, generally-speaking, since a human being has to exist within a social context, the more moral option is the one which better-advances the collective well-being.

This is a non sequitur. Could you explain this?

The selfish motivation here is that if the collective whole is doing better, then it will generally boost the individual's well-being and status as well. This does, sometimes, require the mental stretch of expanding one's group identity beyond their immediate social circles.

So then is a violent psychopath who has no compunctions about the whole just as moral as an upstanding philanthropist who does? This leaves out the fact that, within your system, the best option for boosting one's well-being and status, knowing that most people will buy into the group because of bio-social factors, is to cheat.

[madd0ct0r]

cheating has limited returns - as more people do it, it becomes less profitable.

and people do cheat - that's we have laws and empower people to enforce them.

[Simon_Jester]

Speaking for myself, I often feel good or cease to feel bad when I do good and other-helping things... but I can't answer this question, because if I had no feeling of pleasure or happiness at helping others, I'm not sure I'd be me in any definable sense.

Removing that part of my personality would leave me a very different person I'm not sure I'm qualified to speak for.

No need to excise empathy - I'm sure that there have been times in your life when you've felt good doing something for yourself when you might have theoretically helped others, and even times when you've done something for yourself that was an inconvenience for others. Am I wrong?

Yes- but within limits. I have also done (in relative terms) deeply inconvenient things for other people, when I neither knew nor cared whether they would ever be in a position to repay me.

What I'm trying to get at here is that if I weren't the sort of person who considers it a good, a pleasurable obligation, a thing worthwhile in its own right, to do people favors and refrain from evil acts... I wouldn't be me.

[Zablorg]

DAMN IT NIETZCHE TELL US THE ANSWER ALREADY

[Korto]

So then is a violent psychopath who has no compunctions about the whole just as moral as an upstanding philanthropist who does? This leaves out the fact that, within your system, the best option for boosting one's well-being and status, knowing that most people will buy into the group because of bio-social factors, is to cheat.

Hell, poultry cheat. I remember hearing once about how, when a flock of hens are feeding, the roosters will stand guard to warn of danger. It's a dangerous job, since it means you've got to stand out in the open (for a good view), but the rooster that gives warnings is "favoured" by the hens, so to speak. It occurs to some roosters, however, that if they give false alarms, they're not running the same kind of risk, and they still get the credit. This works well, until the hens catch on and the rooster is frozen out.
There's good gain short term in cheating, long term playing it straight is more profitable.

And don't conflate personal morality with society morality. They influence each other, but they're not the same thing.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Hell, poultry cheat. I remember hearing once about how, when a flock of hens are feeding, the roosters will stand guard to warn of danger. It's a dangerous job, since it means you've got to stand out in the open (for a good view), but the rooster that gives warnings is "favoured" by the hens, so to speak. It occurs to some roosters, however, that if they give false alarms, they're not running the same kind of risk, and they still get the credit. This works well, until the hens catch on and the rooster is frozen out.
There's good gain short term in cheating, long term playing it straight is more profitable.

Yes, immoral or duplicitous people never obtain positions of power. I suppose I was wrong.

And don't conflate personal morality with society morality. They influence each other, but they're not the same thing.

Oh? Because I haven't seen any of that dichotomy in this thread. I've seen 'I do what I feel like (and I feel like being nice)' and a heaping dose of the naturalistic fallacy.

[Count Chocula]

Aside from Shroom Man's posts, this topic is a dog's breakfast of the "RIP Hitchens" and "Consequentialism" threads. The impression I'm getting is...

Aleister Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Roosters and cheating? Really?

At least Shroom's example of the cycle of morality provides a basis for adult behavior.

PS ShroomJoker is the only person ITT who has provided a reference. In SLAM. For shame, myself included 'cause I'm bloviating.

You are all blind. Here is an elephant. What do you conclude from the evidence of your senses?