Question about secular morality

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, the problem with this is that this isn't a "hard" quantifiable thing that can just be solved with maths or consulting the fossil record or computating the gigajoules of some submesonic spectral release of Dutch-Blaine-Hawkings-Ramirez radiation. Morality and ethics aren't really in the purview of the traditional sciences wherein arguments are resolved with quantificatory evidence backups being provided to induce QEDs and concession-acceptions from douchenozzle palm-donkey fucker-hats with a shortage of screencapped packing crate asteroid trigger guards or whatever.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

DAMN IT NIETZCHE TELL US THE ANSWER ALREADY

okay okay

bill and ted got it right

- thus spoke zarathustra

[Channel72]

I've always found systems of secular morality to be difficult, and often unsatisfactory, on an intellectual level. Yes, religious systems of morality are deeply flawed as well (Euthyphro dilemma, etc.), but anecdotally at least, I find that most people have an easier time accepting the legitimacy of religious systems of morality.

Scanning over this thread, most posters here have basically reinforced the idea that humans exhibit moral behavior because they are just hard-wired, via eons of biological evolution, to feel empathy towards others. That's true, of course, but that fact merely answers the anthropological question "why do humans behave altruistically?" It doesn't answer the ethical question, "why should humans behave altruistically?", other than to say "because they feel like it".

The problem is that ethical and moral systems are about oughts; and oughts only have meaning within the context of a goal. The reason religious systems of morality tend to appear more legitimate to most people is because the ought is usually prescribed by the same divine Being that created humanity. This belief framework creates a clear goal: everyone should fall in line with the Creator's will because this will maximize everyone's happiness on both an individual level (rewards in the afterlife), and on a societal level.

Secular systems of morality can attempt something similar by arguing that everyone should behave altruistically, because widespread altruism tends to maximize everyone's individual happiness. The problem is that everyone is aware that localized acts of individual immorality aren't sufficient to plunge society into chaos, especially in a modern society comprised of millions of people. So on a day to day basis, especially when resources are limited, sometimes you need to fuck over the other guy to get ahead. Or, taken to a theoretical extreme, if an individual could be Bernie Madoff and get away with it, what's the compelling argument to do otherwise that doesn't fall back on threats of imprisonment or feelings of guilt/remorse?

We really have to acknowledge that a completely secular system of morality is a tough sell to a civilization that's used to just anchoring their absolute rights and wrongs in the will of a divine Mind.

[Zablorg]

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

For the record I actually maintain that if I am allowed to stroke the elephant tenderly all over its body with as much time as I need, I could get a pretty good idea of what an elephant is instead of coming up with some Lovecraftian monstrosity.

[Sarevok]

@Channel72

Thank you for summarizing for my point more eloquently than I ever could.

[Shroom Man 777]

Buddhism doesn't rely on a divine creator figure or a singular godly giver of right or wrongness to create a working or "legitimate" moral system.

If you can believe that your god who has magic powers and who throws non-believers and wicked folks to hell can exist forever and ever, before the beginning and after the end, then other people can believe that "being good to other people" is simply a universal truth?

The fact that secular or non-divine or non-theistic moralities are harder to accept for some people is probably not due to any inherent fault of these secular systems, but due to these peoples' own preconceptions and how the theistic morality and belief system has been so ingrained into them. Part of the traditional religious indoctrination includes an aversion, or dismissal, of different belief systems as being misguided or mistaken at best, or malicious and worthy of damnation hellfire at worse. My childhood was in a highly religious Christian environment, and let me tell you, that realizing other people believed in different things - which the Christian belief said was a straight way of going into HELL-LA-LA-LA!!! - was a great shock to me.

So for a person trained to believe in "for God so loved the world that if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to get toastered after you die, because we care" or any other Judeochristianoid or Muslimic equivalent, yeah, all the protozoan Nieztches, the Buck Ustras, the Simeon Jestaters, and so on in this thread giving paragraphs of secular moralizations will totally not be convincing. Because... God.

Similarly, if someone was raised in a secular moral system environment, and if s/he encountered a religious person or was introduced to a religious moral system, he would probably raise an eyebrow and go "why do you need a metaphysical corporal punisher God to know what's right and wrong?"



"If you don't believe in God, how can you be moral? How can you do good without God or religion?"

I think that the idea of there being no God, and there being no afterlife or anything after death, of this being the only existence and only life and only time with each other on this Earth we will ever ever have, should be a reason for us to be even more excellent and good and nice and decent to each other and to not-wrong each other in the course of our one and only lives here.

[Channel72]

Buddhism doesn't rely on a divine creator figure or a singular godly giver of right or wrongness to create a working or "legitimate" moral system.

If you can believe that your god who has magic powers and who throws non-believers and wicked folks to hell can exist forever and ever, before the beginning and after the end, then other people can believe that "being good to other people" is simply a universal truth?

The Eastern mystical religions aren't exactly secular systems of morality either. They don't have a God that hands out rewards in the after-life for good behavior, but they teach that the Universe is hard-wired with a karmic system which causes negative consequences for bad behavior, and good consequences for good behavior, either in this current life or in a future life. So there's still a mechanism which cosmically polices and rewards individual behavior, which is lacking in any secular system of morality.

[Channel72]

I believe that doing the right thing is its own reward.

There's also a secondary thing, that consistently doing the right thing pays off since you make fewer enemies, have stuff for later, and other shit like that, but that's a bonus for being good - not the actual cause.

That is, even if doing the right thing makes enemies, being good is still a good thing, all by itself. You can be happy with yourself for that reason alone.

Helping other people out usually results in positive feelings, yes. But the degree to which this feeling of satisfaction might override potential gains from an immoral course of action is highly situational and varies wildly from person to person. So can you rationally convince other people, using compelling arguments, that "doing the right thing is its own reward"?

Also, the human instinct of altruism and reciprocity evolved in an environment where reciprocity was linked to survival, because the guy you helped out was someone you were likely to see again. Humans were organized in small tribes or villages, and so reciprocity was a crucial element for survival and well-being. But I spend most of my working day in New York City, and 99% of the people I pass on the street are people I'll literally never see again in my life. On the Internet, it's even worse. Anonymity has a way of counteracting the evolutionary instinct of reciprocity.

A comprehensive system of ethics should ideally include compelling arguments for individual acts of altruism, that stand on their own without falling back on "good feelings". I'm not convinced any secular system of ethics has successfully done this, because A) in a large-scale society composed of millions of people, the evolutionary drive behind reciprocity is less effective, and B) individual acts of immorality are too localized to significantly disrupt the continued functioning of society, so there is little rational reason for an individual to refrain from acting immorally if there is serious potential gain at stake.

Religious ethical systems tend to handle these problems much better by inventing a mythological policing mechanism. Secular ethical systems don't have that luxury.

[Ziggy Stardust]

A comprehensive system of ethics should ideally include compelling arguments for individual acts of altruism, that stand on their own without falling back on "good feelings". <snip>

Religious ethical systems tend to handle these problems much better by inventing a mythological policing mechanism. Secular ethical systems don't have that luxury.

Is fear of punishment really a compelling argument for acts of altruism, though? That is, are you really a moral person if you only are performing a "good" act out of fear of personal reprisal? How is that any better than performing a "good" act because it makes you feel "good"?

(I put "good" in quotes because I think the last thing this thread needs is a lengthy debate over what constitutes good and bad in various ethical constructs.)

[Soontir C'boath]

We already have a system of punishment. It's called not going to prison/fined/etc. Before worrying about whether you're going to hell, you have those to consider.

[Sarevok]

We already have a system of punishment. It's called not going to prison/fined/etc. Before worrying about whether you're going to hell, you have those to consider.

The legal system is not perfect. It is very easy to abuse.

[Shroom Man 777]

The Eastern mystical religions aren't exactly secular systems of morality either. They don't have a God that hands out rewards in the after-life for good behavior, but they teach that the Universe is hard-wired with a karmic system which causes negative consequences for bad behavior, and good consequences for good behavior, either in this current life or in a future life. So there's still a mechanism which cosmically polices and rewards individual behavior, which is lacking in any secular system of morality.

Negative consequences could be "you are an unempathic asshole and will cause suffering on other human beings and your narrow selfishness will end up also causing your own suffering."

Positive consequences could be "your empathic ways helps enhappy other people, making life for others and yourself a better experience, which is a great thing to aspire for."

Which is pretty much workable with secular morality. Moreso than great cosmic punishers from beyond death.

The legal system is not perfect. It is very easy to abuse.

So are religious systems, as we all know. The systems are only as functional as the people who practice them.

[Lusankya]

The legal system is not perfect. It is very easy to abuse.

I'm not at all sure how this makes it inferior to a system where justice is meted out after death, in a way which can never be verified by the living, and at a time so far distant from the original crime that it would be impossible for any normal human to connect the crime and punishment in any meaningful way.

[Sarevok]

I'm not at all sure how this makes it inferior to a system where justice is meted out after death, in a way which can never be verified by the living, and at a time so far distant from the original crime that it would be impossible for any normal human to connect the crime and punishment in any meaningful way.

Well for people who believe in God morality derived from religion is a practical thing and not just a matter of faith feel happy. It's basically 1) God exists 2 ) He is all powerful and all knowing 3 ) I have zero power and zero knowledge other than what God allows me to have 4 ) God knows better and is more powerful therefore follow all of his commands even if they don't make sense to me. After all human logic would not make sense to an ant and we are even less to God. It all comes down to whether you believe in God or not.

Edit :

To approach the question from a purely secular point of view I think the answer is there is no such thing as morality,good or evil. We are all inert matter indifferent from rocks. The matter than constitute me existed for billions of years and will continue to do so billions afterwards. It does not matter if I get sick or fat or murdered. No difference compared to breaking a rock in half. I am just matter and so is everybody and everything else. So any arbitrary goal and the means to reach it is rational as it is successful.

Extremely sorry if the previous paragraph sounded confusing or utterly crazy. But it seems to me that in a universe where God does not exist it would be ok to act whatever way benefits us most, if being nice and charitable gets you ahead to do it, but if you can steal occasionally without getting caught also do it!

[Shroom Man 777]

If without a god, or in an otherwise godless or areligious scenario your thinking immediately defaults to that, like I said, it's not only with the moral system, but it's with the people. And in this case, the person is being particularly thick. Or otherwise developmentally regressed if we go by Piaget and Kohlberg.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

but if you can steal occasionally without getting caught also do it!

Like Pacman? Oh wait, you got caught trying to steal that, didn't you?

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, if Sarevok was an atheist and the whole Pacquiao Droid thing and getting caught for it made him reassess his godless secular morals and made him repent and go back to religion, that might be an interesting topic of discussion.

[Spoonist]

Well for people who believe in God morality derived from religion is a practical thing and not just a matter of faith feel happy. It's basically 1) God exists 2 ) He is all powerful and all knowing 3 ) I have zero power and zero knowledge other than what God allows me to have 4 ) God knows better and is more powerful therefore follow all of his commands even if they don't make sense to me. After all human logic would not make sense to an ant and we are even less to God. It all comes down to whether you believe in God or not.

For god's sake (pun intended) this question is oooooooooold. Its a classical argument of antiquity and thus have been answered so many times its predictable.
So how come you don't read up on it instead, you know do some real work?
Maybe starting with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle?
If you are flawed with a christian bend then why not start with Boethius, Aquinas, Ockham?


If you want another approach why not try out some Confucious or the Noble Eightfold Path?

If you are too lazy for books then welcome to the internet age of youtube.

This is the atheistic take on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEP4OIj2NA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wZNwhs28QM


Here are some related Harvard lectures

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

Two specific points to what I quoted above:

1) Those ants that you claim don't understand human logic also behave morally. As do plenty of other insects and animals. (While others behave really amorally by our/your standards). Unless you claim the old "god in everything" argument? Then that was considered a heresy even by the proto-christians under Paul. If you believe in dualism then you should check out the Nicene Council etc. It's all been covered ages ago - christian morality isn't. Just like religious moraltiy in general isn't. Only a continously changing evolving morality could be.
This moral and amoral behavior of nature was what led up to the theory of evolution for god's sake (pun intended again) by a christian. Because a moral god could not be responsible for the behavior we see in nature.
2) Those with a christian religious morality behave less morally than atheists. The prisons etc are filled with them, do you know how many "the devil made me do it" stupidity you hear every day in there? So your 1-4 attempt makes no sense (unless you again refer to dualism for which I'd again have to defer to the Nicene Council).
Why? Because morality and sin are not equal and are not regarded equally by any christian sect.
So the "knowledge" that god is all powerful and all knowing leads to less moral behavior (probably because then it's followers believes themselves less responsible - not more).

[Shroom Man 777]

If some people derive their authority from God, religion, and the higher divine authority thereof, the concept of God and religion - as implemented in most societies - is not one that suddenly arises in a vacuum, just solely through a person's natural human development and growing of awareness. The concept of God, religion and divine authority is actually taught to people by other humans, very human humans, who have appointed themselves as supposed mediums to connect man with the divine. And, people's concepts of God and religion and the divine are also very dependent on the interpretations of these supposed spiritual leaders. Which means, if God and religion were the end all be all of these people's moralities, then their moralities can be as malleable as the interpretations of the appointed spiritual leaders whose counsel on God-matters these people heed.

[khursed]

I really like what GrandMasterTerwynn said as a whole, very good way of putting it.

The way I think is derived from the golden rule, which many religion have tried to claim as their own, however it's true origin seems to be lost to history.

I know it's been around for a very long time and still applies exactly the same now as it did probably in the first cave someone thought about it.

Now as to why should someone follow morality if there is no god, my ideas on the subject have been explained in far greater eloquence then I can muster by someone I admire a lot. Richard Dawkins. That man has really hit the spot with me.

Basically, it comes down to this as far as I see it. All things being equal, yes in a society with no repercussion we could expect people to get away with murder. This is the extreme, for few people can imagine a worse crime then killing. Beside maybe mass killing.

But I do not want to get lost in semantic, it comes down to this like I said, if we were free of consequence to do whatever we want, then our societi as a whole might have never existed. Yes people will piss us off, yes they will annoy us, make us angry, make us see red and want to do violent things to them

We can even claim that evolution presents a perfect reason as to why we shouldn't kill one another. Yet for me it comes down to this, You know when in sport they say there is no "I" in team, well killing one another would mean there is no team.

Then life would come down to a brutally short life for our specie where we all kill one another. Who would want to reproduce when they are busy dying or killing everyone?

The very survival of our race hinges on being able to be nice to one another.

A simple example, try living with someone you don't like.

Even if there were no law to prevent us from killing whomever displeased us, then we'd face vendetta, retribution, or simply the same fate from anyone we looked at cross eyed. Would that really be a "healthy" and productive way of living? Maybe, but I think not.

So in essence, the real social contract, the binding of any community is this, you treat me decently and I'll do the same.

So in this simple view, the basis of any society should be that we are nice to one another. Otherwise how can any society thrive if we're continuously murdering one another?

Look throughout history, there have been countless bloody empire, and lawless kingdom, where are they now? It doesn't mean it's a solved issue, to this day human will kill one another on horrible scale, just look at the recent wars, genocides etc... The thing to get away from that is, did those thing make them happier? More succesful? Or did they end up being miserable?

We could try the kill anyone you please type of society, something tells me not many would like it... well or wouldn't last long.

[Eulogy]

People work with one another because people need each other to survive. Lots of animals have no trouble making it on their own, but one person can only do and learn so much in any given time especially considering that hunger, thirst, predators, disease and simple exposure do not care if you want to take up cabinetry or tennis.

Being moral means there is less incentive for people to simply kill or shun you, because they know that they stand a great likelihood of not regretting doing business, socializing, or making friends with you. If you were literally the only living thing on the planet, and you couldn't die, you would have no need for morality, as there is nobody else who would suffer from what you do. But it'd be a dreary, lonely existence, and even with all the time in the world there's only so much one person can do by himself.

If our hypothetical lone immortal were to find some way of making others like himself, well, that'd be a good thing in his eyes. Finally, someone else to talk to and to help out in making great things! But then that'd mean the immortal would have to be able to live with other people without making his eternal life a living hell. And if he is tyrannical, then it's only a matter of time before the other guys put him down in some way or he puts them down; then he'd be alone again.

TL;DR If you want the best out of life you need to deal with other people in a way that won't fuck you in the ass later. Being moral is one of the best ways of doing that.

[Sarevok]

TL;DR If you want the best out of life you need to deal with other people in a way that won't fuck you in the ass later. Being moral is one of the best ways of doing that.

What's wrong with being evil as long as you don't get caught or you can convince others ?

[Mayabird]

TL;DR If you want the best out of life you need to deal with other people in a way that won't fuck you in the ass later. Being moral is one of the best ways of doing that.

What's wrong with being evil as long as you don't get caught or you can convince others ?

Are you really asking "what's wrong with harming other people so long as you don't get in trouble"? Do you really need to ask that? Are you just trying to be cool by being contrarian for some reason, or are you really so devoid of simple decency that you genuinely see nothing wrong with me going over and busting your kneecaps for my own shits and giggles?

[Shroom Man 777]

Question: What's wrong with being evil as long as you don't get caught or you can convince others ?

Answer: Because Nintendo will fuck you up.


Maybe Sarevokerritch will respond better to a secular moral system if it was a Strak-based one wherein negative behaviors are discouraged by the application of "you fatty-fucking-nerd" and where positive behaviors, upon asking if "am i rite" are responded to with affirmations such as "rite!" or "who knew!". A Pavlovian-Strakist classical smarmditioning system. We shall put Sarevok in a kennel, in the Australian desert, isolated from all civilization with only his smarmy Strayan trainer indoctrinating him on this moral system.

Then when the time comes, we will have an ultimate test and put Sarevokerritch in front of a computer loaded with none other than PAC DROID and we will see if he succumbs to his previous moral failings and weaknesses, or prevail and become a new man - a better man - a Strak Man!

Man will overcome his own nature.

Men cry not for themselves, but for their comrades

[PKRudeBoy]

As has been said earlier, all the defenses of secular morality in this thread has been a constant abuse of the naturalistic fallacy, with a large heaping of ad hominem attacks on those who question this point of view. Destructionator seems to be one of the only people on the side putting forth affirmative answers that admits that morality does ultimately come from arbitrary assumptions. Everyone else is either making ad hominem attacks about a lack of empathy, or arguing that since this is how we evolved this is how it should be, but an ought cannot be derived from an is.

Now this is in no way an endorsement of religious morals, as they try to derive their system from an absolutely ridiculous premise that has no support whatsoever, and is based on what people believed thousands of years ago. However, while systems such as Utilitarianism quite obiviously advance the human condition better then things such as the Judeo-Christian system of morality, the decision to work for the advancement of humanity is ultimately an arbitrary decision.

Furthermore, for those who say that it would be better for everyone to live in a moral society, while this may be true, this does not go on to show how it is better for each individual to be moral within that society. This presents a free rider problem on society as a whole, as it would be in the interest of each individual to be immoral as long as they could get away with it, as long as society as a whole continued to be moral.