Non-religiously-justified moral premises (philosophy).

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Let's get my position straight right off the bat: I've been an atheist all of my life, with some interest (and occasional grudging respect) for religion as a social / historical / cultural influence, but as far as I know myself, I'm probably just not cut out for the spiritual world-view.

I think I'm posting this because yesterday I watched Collision (http://www.collisionmovie.com/videos/), which is a registration of a series of debates between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson on the question of the merit of religion (and I recommend the film to anyone, religious or not, because - even if it's a few hours too short to really do justice to the questions involved - it sets up a bunch of very interesting points and both sides of the argument are represented by intelligent, thoughtful people who can also be very entertaining).

My question has to do with what appears to be one of Wilson's main arguments (and I'm heavily paraphrasing and contracting so I won't use quotation marks): how do you justify a moral framework if it's not based on a set of God-given injunctions?

The obvious objection in a debate would be "why would a God-given injunction be moral". But really, that's avoiding the question from both sides (and I think that Hitchens and Wilson have given more or less that - Hitchens claims that the Christian God is a capricious character with no moral authority and Wilson claims that whatever God declaims is good). What I'm interested in is more or less: given that we are social creatures, with all of the societal pressures that that involves, is morality any more than a convenience?

To put it another way, Hitchens puts forward a scenario where you see a pregnant woman being stricken and kicked while she's lying down in the street. Now I would think that most of us would at least be repulsed, if not compelled to do something about it. I know I would.

My question is: has any good argument - at all - been made against this scenario that does not involve a supernatural law-giver or our evolutionary mind-set as a social animal?

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right forum [there's at least 3 to choose from], so mods feel free to move this thread.

[RadicalPi]

My question is: has any good argument - at all - been made against this scenario that does not involve a supernatural law-giver or our evolutionary mind-set as a social animal?

I don’t have a lot of time, so this answer will be even more disjointed than normal. Anyway, that said, to answer your question, I would have to say . . .

Not really. Being a social animal with oft conflicting tendencies to help the self and to help others is pretty much why morality exists in the first place. It’s helpful to have some guidelines marking the limits to how much we can pursue or self-interest as well as the limiting how much others can expect us to help their own and that of society as a whole.

The trick to morality, really, is justifying coercion. You must do this, you must not do that, and so on. The actual acts that these rules refer to are kind of a separate issue and are highly dependent on social mores, the actual conditions of life, the state of technology, one’s place in the social hierarchy and a few other things. And there are and always will be mass debates over what these things entail based on a variety of principles.

The justification for coercion is a bit different, and there are pretty much only two common ways to do so. The first is contractualism. The second is consequentialism. In contractualism, the idea is that of a social contract, where you agree to help society or other people in order to receive some advantage, such as protection, education, property and myriad other things. Then, because you’ve agreed to a contract, if only implicitly, you’ve agreed to coercion in the case of noncompliance. The flaw with this idea is that there obviously is no social contract, you can’t opt out and go it alone, society often doesn’t help people very much and so on. In consequentialism, the goal is to maximize the value of human actions, and if some actions harm more than they help, then this justifies coercion against those who perform these actions since this will maximize value. The problem here is that there is no real way to compare certain values, no way to decide which values are the ones we want and so on.

Oh, now I see that you don’t care about the coercion part. It’s the existence of moral principles themselves. I’ve only addressed that obliquely. I will have to come back to that later. I was just assuming that you were looking for a replacement to the threat of divine punishment to explain the moral force of religion, but I don’t think you did. I will post this anyway, in case someone wants to read it.

[Sage Rat]

Besides pack instinct, there's the "pay it forward" and "golden rule" sets of thought. Our own lives are better for having had others in our history work in our favor. Our lives now are more enjoyable for other people being nice to us. Certainly, to some extent we are all in competition on a daily basis, but if one follows some basic rules of non-jerkish behavior, then everyone has a better time while we're all here scrambling about on the surface of our planet.

If you strapped those into game theory, you'd see a generally positive effect.

[Peremensoe]

People have been talking about natural rights and natural law since classical Greece. Do you want to go back that far, or start with a reading list somewhere around Locke, or what?

[Dioptre]

A couple of starting points that have been used to build morality from (I'm not going to supply a complete reading list or exposition, just give the basic idea):

1) Absolute harms - basically a set of premises without further justification. Typically religious, but not always. An arbitrary set without religious justification is just as valid. Some claim they are "intuitive" or "indisputable harms".

2) Pain is bad. (Sometimes restricted to intelligent minds, or evaluated in proportion to intelligent minds).

3) Self interest (this is where the social based arguments come from).

4) Fairness/balance. "Anything that I would consider harmful to me, shouldn't be caused to others by my actions or inactions".

You can use pretty much any of those to build up either a utilitarian (greatest good) or deontological (set of fixed rules) systems, and they've all been used to do so.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

People have been talking about natural rights and natural law since classical Greece. Do you want to go back that far, or start with a reading list somewhere around Locke, or what?

Yes, but I'm not very impressed with Greek "natural law" so far. I'd appreciate some pointers to interesting ideas though.

Oh, now I see that you don’t care about the coercion part. It’s the existence of moral principles themselves.

It was interesting anyway, but yes, what I'm trying to find out is assuming a moral system is based on principles, how were/are the principles justified? The consequences can wait for later :D PS: Any system that explicitly NOT justify its premises beyond "these are the premises" would be interesting too.

[Darth Panda]

I think most people feel good when they help people - I do. It's probably chemical / hormonal, and likely a result of evolution.

A quick google basically confirms what seems intuitive:

New research suggests there may be a biochemical explanation for the positive emotions associated with doing good. In a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, participants’ brains were monitored by MRI scans while they made decisions about donating part of their research payment to charitable organizations. When participants chose to donate money, the brain’s mesolimbic system was activated, the same part of the brain that’s activated in response to monetary rewards, sex, and other positive stimuli. Choosing to donate also activated the brain’s subgenual area, the part of the brain that produces feel-good chemicals, like oxytocin, that promote social bonding.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/depression/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100167285

Also, MIT appears to have found morality, literally: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=114715

[panache45]

. . . how do you justify a moral framework if it's not based on a set of God-given injunctions?

Morality is always volitional. Unless you're a young child or mentally deficient, you are always free to challenge and, if necessary, change your beliefs. To accept whatever your God demands of you is merely pushing the question back one step. You still must have chosen to believe in that God, and chosen to agree with him . . . or at least chosen to continue your belief in him, and chosen to continue your agreement with him.

[monavis]

I think most people feel good when they help people - I do. It's probably chemical / hormonal, and likely a result of evolution.

A quick google basically confirms what seems intuitive:

New research suggests there may be a biochemical explanation for the positive emotions associated with doing good. In a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, participants’ brains were monitored by MRI scans while they made decisions about donating part of their research payment to charitable organizations. When participants chose to donate money, the brain’s mesolimbic system was activated, the same part of the brain that’s activated in response to monetary rewards, sex, and other positive stimuli. Choosing to donate also activated the brain’s subgenual area, the part of the brain that produces feel-good chemicals, like oxytocin, that promote social bonding.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/depression/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100167285

Also, MIT appears to have found morality, literally: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=114715


As I see it, Morality is for the good of the species,not anything to do with a religion, but a biological way to help the species survive. Helping others is helping ourselves. It could be that ancient man noticed the animals that helped each other by defending the helpless and working together to obtain food etc, seemed to preserve the animal's survival. And used that for the survival of humans.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

My question has to do with what appears to be one of Wilson's main arguments (and I'm heavily paraphrasing and contracting so I won't use quotation marks): how do you justify a moral framework if it's not based on a set of God-given injunctions?

The obvious objection in a debate would be "why would a God-given injunction be moral". But really, that's avoiding the question from both sides

I don't think it is. If one side says you can justify a moral framework by basing it on a set of God-given injunctions, it's not really an objection for the other side to ask for their full reasoning on that matter; it seems more like a starting point for a discussion, in hopes of possibly finding common ground by reasoning analogously. (I mean, sure, it could turn out to be an objection, if the other side fails to come up with anything -- but why assume that?)

That said,

To put it another way, Hitchens puts forward a scenario where you see a pregnant woman being stricken and kicked while she's lying down in the street. Now I would think that most of us would at least be repulsed, if not compelled to do something about it. I know I would.

My question is: has any good argument - at all - been made against this scenario that does not involve a supernatural law-giver or our evolutionary mind-set as a social animal?

If you and I already feel that way, then we don't really need a good argument to do something about it; we'd need a good argument to stand by and do nothing. I'm not aware of any such argument, and so if her plight touches my sympathies I figure I could get involved with a clean conscience; it doesn't seem to involve any hypocritical inconsistency on my part sure as it doesn't run afoul of any other such concerns AFAIK.

[dzero]

First, why does a moral framework require justification? If we're honest with ourselves, we all know what is right and wrong in any given situation with the possible exception of those so highly contrived as to be meaningless anyway. That innate knowledge is your "moral authority".

The only effective response to this that I can see is to say that what is right and wrong is at least partially cultural. True. But that just means you have to dig a level deeper. Native Americans believed it was "wrong" to take the flesh of an animal without giving proper thanks and respect. But this came from a perception of animals as either sentient in some sense or ruled by a sentient deity. In other words, either the animals or their god was on a par with themselves. They recognized the injustice of taking a rabbit in order to eat and therefore sought to make compensation.

So even in such a strange mindset (strange to us), basic, unquantified principles of good and bad were employed to shape the laws and customs which developed.

We are very pure creatures until our overdeveloped minds get involved and pervert the truths we know to be self-evident.

If that's still too amorphous, then consider the need for laws in society. What justification is required for them? How are they arrived at? When are they changed? Who gets to decide? From a philosophical point of view, I see no meaningful distinction between a moral and legal framework. A moral framework gets to concepts of justice whereas that can be difficult for a purely framework, but I think these are quantitative not qualitative differences. Of course this assumes that in the legal context that the laws and legal process are generally regarded as fair. If not, then there is most definitely a qualitative difference.

Second, what is wrong with an evolutionary mindset. I'm happy to invoke 'natural law' which I see as being just another way of stating my first point.

How do we decide if an entity is homo sapiens? We look at a random sample, find the characteristics common to all and then ask if the new entity has those characteristics. How do you decide what natural law is? Look at every culture that has any kind of morality and ask which characteristics make them comparable. In both cases you need to be willing to do some dissection so that you can see the moral rationale behind behaviors, but both are empirical pursuits.

Third, philosophy is of limited usefulness in dealing with people and their emotions. There are times when emotions will trump any morality - divine or otherwise. The successful transition from moral foundation to moral framework depend entirely on the extent to which it is physiologically possible for intellect to override emotion.

[shiftless]

Certainly a moral framework exists completely independently of religion, otherwise atheists would be constantly doing things that the rest of society considers terribly immoral. Not just minor things either. Without any moral framework these actions would seem random and evil to the "moral" people. That just isn't the case. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that children will develop a moral framework without any exposure to religion at all. So I think it's safe to say that morals do not spring forth for some supernatural beings command. In fact, it makes little sense that an action is moral or immoral based only upon the word of this being, as if man cannot make any choices about his interactions without supervision.

So, wherever moral frameworks come from, they are the works of man or are some innate tendencies of man, or a combination of both. Any debate about religion and morals must first ask the question: What does religion have to morals other than the cases where religions have adapted previously written moral codes as part of their beliefs?

I would say that the religious folks have confused two unrelated things. Religions adapt moral codes but that doesn't mean that the religion existed first nor that it created the code.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

First, why does a moral framework require justification? If we're honest with ourselves, we all know what is right and wrong in any given situation with the possible exception of those so highly contrived as to be meaningless anyway. That innate knowledge is your "moral authority".
I think it requires some justification. I'm fairly OK with the justification being "this system is based on these premises, which we see as evidently right/moral", but I was just wondering if I'd missed any other possible justifications. To be perfectly honest, it would make me feel better if I there was an objective justification that was convincing.

How do we decide if an entity is homo sapiens? We look at a random sample, find the characteristics common to all and then ask if the new entity has those characteristics. How do you decide what natural law is? Look at every culture that has any kind of morality and ask which characteristics make them comparable. In both cases you need to be willing to do some dissection so that you can see the moral rationale behind behaviors, but both are empirical pursuits.
Sure, but you do tend to get some very interesting variations. I don't know that human "emotional" morality is that reliable, especially not when dealing with "other groups" - slavery, caste systems & wars all occur far to frequently and have all been justified with "natural law" arguments.

Third, philosophy is of limited usefulness in dealing with people and their emotions. There are times when emotions will trump any morality - divine or otherwise. The successful transition from moral foundation to moral framework depend entirely on the extent to which it is physiologically possible for intellect to override emotion.
And the extend to which the moral system matches with emotion, of course.

Anyway, lots to think about. Thanks for taking the time.

[dzero]

So, wherever moral frameworks come from, they are the works of man or are some innate tendencies of man, or a combination of both. Any debate about religion and morals must first ask the question: What does religion have to morals other than the cases where religions have adapted previously written moral codes as part of their beliefs?

I would say that the religious folks have confused two unrelated things. Religions adapt moral codes but that doesn't mean that the religion existed first nor that it created the code.
I think I agree with most of that. Just sayin'. :)


I think it requires some justification. I'm fairly OK with the justification being "this system is based on these premises, which we see as evidently right/moral", but I was just wondering if I'd missed any other possible justifications. To be perfectly honest, it would make me feel better if I there was an objective justification that was convincing.
Well, first you need to analyze your own predilections. Bias is too harsh a word with the wrong connotation but we're in basically conceptually adjacent territory. Why is that important to you? Does it serve some structural purpose essential to supporting the eventual framework or is it something else. Also, what do the terms "objective" and "convincing" mean in this context? I think objective validation can come from introspection of an unclouded mind by itself. I would consider that objective and convincing. I suspect you would disagree.

Sure, but you do tend to get some very interesting variations. I don't know that human "emotional" morality is that reliable, especially not when dealing with "other groups" - slavery, caste systems & wars all occur far to frequently and have all been justified with "natural law" arguments.This is where one's analytical skills become important but only along side a profound grasp of the human psyche. For example why are people enslaved? Is it the lesser of the various evils and therefore, though intuitively perverse, a moral choice? Or is it to serve the baser instincts of those with more power? You have to peel back as many layers of the onion as it takes to get to the true purpose behind the actions - not simply the justifications given for the actions.

Every behavior will ultimately serve a purpose which is either good or bad - on balance. Getting beneath the cultural layers that hide the true motivations is the hard part.

And the extend to which the moral system matches with emotion, of course.

Anyway, lots to think about. Thanks for taking the time.
I don't think emotions have anything to do with what is right or wrong. They can help explain behaviors. The dominance of certain emotions in certain common situations can help explain various levels of good and various levels of what is bad. But ultimately, emotions have nothing to do with what is objectively good or bad. They can only provide context and explain levels of culpability.

[Colibri]

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right forum [there's at least 3 to choose from], so mods feel free to move this thread.

Since this is basically about religion, it's better suited for GD than GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Shodan]

The short answer is No. All systems of morality - yours, Fred Phelps', Hitchens, Mother Teresa's - all, without any exception, are faith-based. One simply has to accept them without question, because meta-questions about their validity are unanswerable.

If you need to argue that helping a beaten pregnant woman is moral because it makes you feel good, then someone else raping a different woman is also moral because it makes that person feel good. If you want to appeal to the survival of the species, then you have to justify choosing survival vs. non-survival as being better.

"God hates fags" is just as valid (or invalid) a moral statement as "we should tax the rich at higher rates than the poor". Both are based on unprovable axioms.

Regards,
Shodan

[dzero]

The short answer is No. All systems of morality - yours, Fred Phelps', Hitchens, Mother Teresa's - all, without any exception, are faith-based. One simply has to accept them without question, because meta-questions about their validity are unanswerable.
How can you make those kinds of sweeping pronouncements and really think they are going to fly? I mean shit, dude, even the pope can't issue an encyclical without having a little more meat than what you're offering.

I have struggled with religion my whole life and ultimately realized I will never be more than the agnostic I am now. So what is the genesis of my morality? Or is it your position that I therefore must be either immoral or amoral?

[Shodan]

I have struggled with religion my whole life and ultimately realized I will never be more than the agnostic I am now. So what is the genesis of my morality? It's faith-based. I already said that. Or is it your position that I therefore must be either immoral or amoral?My position is that your moral system is faith-based, and the axioms on which it is founded cannot be established - they have to be taken as granted.

My position is, further, that in this you are no different from any other moral thinker - like I said, all moral assertions are equally valid (or invalid).

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, they're not faith based. They're emotional reactions. Saying that being emotionally repulsed by seeing a pregnant woman being brutalized is based on "faith" is nonsensical. It's not a belief that I am emotionally repulsed, it's a fact. Those emotional responses are the basis of all morality.

There is no such thing as a "God-given morality" anyway, incidentally -- or at least if there is, we don't have any access to it or knowledge of it so it's the functional equivalent of non-existent. One of the flawed premises of this kind of argument is the assumption that religious morality is supernaturally derived. It is not. Humans made it up. Religious morality IS atheistic morality.

[dzero]

I have struggled with religion my whole life and ultimately realized I will never be more than the agnostic I am now. So what is the genesis of my morality? It's faith-based. I already said that. Or is it your position that I therefore must be either immoral or amoral?My position is that your moral system is faith-based, and the axioms on which it is founded cannot be established - they have to be taken as granted.

My position is, further, that in this you are no different from any other moral thinker - like I said, all moral assertions are equally valid (or invalid).

Regards,
Shodan
I'm really sorry to be rude here, but are you under the impression that any of that actually meant something? All I heard were more baseless assertions - no reason, logic - zilch.

You say my morality is faith based.

Know what I say?

Bull-fucking-shit - prove it.

And don't think you know jack about my background based on anything I've said here. But since you think that's important - here's my sampler pack. I've been follower and practitioner of the black arts, a fundamentalist christian, a Zen buddhist and host of other things so long it bores even me. What do you get when you staple all those body parts together?

[Peremensoe]

First, why does a moral framework require justification? If we're honest with ourselves, we all know what is right and wrong in any given situation with the possible exception of those so highly contrived as to be meaningless anyway. That innate knowledge is your "moral authority".

A moral framework--a code under which certain action could be termed right or wrong--certainly requires some justification. Otherwise you're just talking about your personal opinions of things you like or dislike; there's no weight to the ideas. Innate knowledge is moral authority and justification if it can be shown that there are commonalities in such knowledge for most people.

Certainly a moral framework exists completely independently of religion, otherwise atheists would be constantly doing things that the rest of society considers terribly immoral. Not just minor things either. Without any moral framework these actions would seem random and evil to the "moral" people. That just isn't the case. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that children will develop a moral framework without any exposure to religion at all. So I think it's safe to say that morals do not spring forth for some supernatural beings command. In fact, it makes little sense that an action is moral or immoral based only upon the word of this being, as if man cannot make any choices about his interactions without supervision.

So, wherever moral frameworks come from, they are the works of man or are some innate tendencies of man, or a combination of both.

Right. I believe in natural rights, and in the possibility for finding such innate truths within ourselves.

What I don't understand are atheists who deny natural morality and yet still make assertions about right and wrong.

Those emotional responses are the basis of all morality.

What is the basis for those emotions? Why do most people have similar emotional reactions to certain kinds of scenarios? It almost seems like there's something innate, something natural, at work, doesn't it?

[Doxy]

As I see it, Morality is for the good of the species,not anything to do with a religion, but a biological way to help the species survive. Helping others is helping ourselves. It could be that ancient man noticed the animals that helped each other by defending the helpless and working together to obtain food etc, seemed to preserve the animal's survival. And used that for the survival of humans.


You've pretty much given the argument I was about to post before I read yours.
Very concise. I like that.

[Blut Aus Nord]

What I don't understand are atheists who deny natural morality and yet still make assertions about right and wrong.



What do you mean by natural morality? _Objective_ Morality? Because morality is both subjective and "natural."

[Doxy]

What I don't understand are atheists who deny natural morality and yet still make assertions about right and wrong.



What do you mean by natural morality? _Objective_ Morality? Because morality is both subjective and "natural."

I would think that if there is a "natural morality" it would be defined by Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.

[Peremensoe]

What do you mean by natural morality? _Objective_ Morality? Because morality is both subjective and "natural."

I would think that if there is a "natural morality" it would be defined by Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.

No, Darwinism is amoral (not immoral, just not relevant to the same discussion).

Natural morality is behavior which respects natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) and upholds natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law). "Natural law" in this usage is not at all the same thing as "the law of the jungle."

[Shodan]

You say my morality is faith based.

Know what I say?

Bull-fucking-shit - prove it.OK, if you like.

State the principles on which your morality is based. Then give the objective reasons why those principles are better or more valid than any other, if possible. If you think that survival of the species is what is important, then show why it is objectively better than humans survive for a thousand years, or two thousand, or that it will matter in the long run if humans survive rather than, say, cockroaches. If you want to say that avoiding suffering is important, then demonstrate that electrical activity in one area of the brain is important but electrical activity in a different area is not.

Note that this is inductive reasoning, not deductive.

For instance -
If we're honest with ourselves, we all know what is right and wrong in any given situation with the possible exception of those so highly contrived as to be meaningless anyway. That innate knowledge is your "moral authority".I think the notion is pretty silly, but let's assume that this is true.

Why should I pay any attention to this alleged inner voice? What gives it any authority to establish morality?

Regards,
Shodan

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I would think that if there is a "natural morality" it would be defined by Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest is not a concept that can be called moral. Survival of the fittest is a tautology: if you survive and reproduce better than others, you're by definition fitter than the others, no matter how you do it. If that is natural morality, it's quite useless to any human concept of morality (ok, well, the Spartans and Nazis might find it an acceptable moral idea, but I certainly don't).

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I don't think emotions have anything to do with what is right or wrong. They can help explain behaviors. The dominance of certain emotions in certain common situations can help explain various levels of good and various levels of what is bad. But ultimately, emotions have nothing to do with what is objectively good or bad. They can only provide context and explain levels of culpability.

I think you misunderstood me there, what I was trying to say is that moral systems, in practice, need some alignment with human emotions and "instincts" or they just won't last.

[Blaster Master]

This is actually something that I've put a great deal of thought into in recent months, it's not completely coherent at this point, but I'll give it a shot.

In short, I am a theist, but I don't see the morality passed down by God as being anything more than sort of a set of basic guidelines that, generally, will lead us toward the goal. Of course, different people have different ideas of what that ultimate goal is but, given that goal, and the level of understanding/enlightenment of man at a particular time, that one could ultimately derive a set of morals remarkably similar.

I think this idea is best illustrated with an analogy. The game of chess is, given a sufficiently powerful computer, ultimately computable. As such, given a sufficiently powerful computer one could, at any given state, determine the ideal move toward a particular goal (usually winning). As humans, we're not able to maintain such a massive statespace in our heads, and even the greatest masters can only look so many moves ahead. As such, we cannot rely on a definite result for a given state and, instead, have to look ahead at expected outcomes and generate a set of guidelines that we can generalize to some set of states and then know what are likely a good set of moves as a result. As a player becomes more skilled and experience, he learns a larger set of rules that have a finer resolution over the set of states.

To my knowledge, as best as we can tell, the universe is quantized, and thus is also computable. As such, in this analogy, the nature of God would be equivalent to such a powerful computer that is able to determine the ideal move in a given state toward a particular goal. Thus, the morals passed down by God are much like the set of guidelines in the game of chess, where God is providing a set of morals at a level roughly equal to how progressed humanity is. And the interesting thing is, much like how the guidelines for chess were slowly built up over time, even in the absence of God, given the same goal, humanity is able to test out various guidelines at our level of enlightenment and determine how effectively they further that goal.

The problem is, each approach has some drawbacks. From a top down approach, the guidelines are only approximations based on our ability to understand, so even if they are divinely provided, they can lead to sub-optimal decisions. The bigger problem, though, is that they have to be re-evaluated constantly, which is something that many do not do. As an example, if we take the Bible as such a revelation, we have to realize that those guidelines are based upon the culture and progress of those people, thousands of years ago. As such, that they show issues today is not necessarily a sign that they were bad then, but simply that we have changed, and that with our higher degree of understanding and development, we can uncover how they apply today or even how they are being revealed to us today, and unlikely to be in such a manner.

With a bottom up approach, you have the exact opposite problem. Things seem to be furthering a goal, but we could go quite far down a particular decision branch before we realize that the whole thing is a dead end. This can easily result in a lot of spiralling immorality (at least as it appears to us now) that could be very difficult to recover from. Worse, unlike the other approach, we can never really be that sure how far back we screwed up.

Or to summarize with another analogy. Imagine morality is some arbitarily large dimensional curve that we're trying to model with an n-polynomial curve such that n is our level of progress and enlightenment. The top-down approach would be if someone took the exact curve as it exists, could take an arbitrarily large set of samples, and did an n-polynomial fit to those data. When we see that polynomial, we know it's the best that is achievable for that degree, and it's probably pretty close over most of the curve, and it's better than anything we could achieve for that degree, but it's still not exactly on. As we're able to understand higher and higher degrees and are better able to measure the distances between the model and the actual, the error may become more apparent we compared to other methods for fitting the data we have. With the bottom-up approach, we have a methodology for fitting the nth degree polynomial, but we're only able to get so many samples and we really have no idea how representative various samples are, only how much error they produce with the fitted polynomial. As such, when we get a larger set of data or an ability to fit a higher degree, we can become more aware of a better model.

As such, I really see the best approach, to mean the fastest convergence, as a sort of hybrid of these two, where we can have definite points of reference for good approximations, and we use that context and our growth since as a basis for working up to where we are. And this, I think, is where a lot of theists go astray, an unwillingness to deviate from a divinely provided set of rules, and where many atheists fail too, sometimes venturing wildly down the wrong path OR backing up much too far, either due to oddities in the available data and a lack of a definitive point of reference.

Now, of course, this all begs the question of what that "goal" is, and while I believe it is somewhere around freedom and growth for reasons that are probably out of the scope of this discussion, I'm unsure exactly how much it matters because, in my own thought experiments, there's very little difference in the resultant set of morals when applying a multitude of different "goals". I think this is due, though, to the relative infancy of humanity such that pretty much any general movement in the direction of growth will further these multitudes to some degree.

So, in short, even as a theist who believes that God can, and likely has, provided us with a set of divinely inspired moral rules, to say that it "necessitates" him for justification isn't really a fair assessment. You see, we WILL be trying to refine these rules ourselves regardless of whether or not he exists and whether or not he provides a set of rules. Even if our goals don't exactly match, as it seems ours over time has generally be in a direction of growth, we're headed in the same direction. The fundamental difference, as I see it, is just that God is able to provide us that model that is roughly at our degree of understanding which, if we make good use of it, can help us converge, and thus grow, faster than we could without it.

[Der Trihs]

I think that morality is easy enough to justify; morality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone. Those are better justifications for morality than the commands of a god even if there were such things as gods.

I would think that if there is a "natural morality" it would be defined by Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest is not a concept that can be called moral. Survival of the fittest is a tautology: if you survive and reproduce better than others, you're by definition fitter than the others, no matter how you do it. If that is natural morality, it's quite useless to any human concept of morality (ok, well, the Spartans and Nazis might find it an acceptable moral idea, but I certainly don't).Actually, I don't think they would; they are after all both gone. As Darwinian losers I expect they'd find some excuse to not approve of natural selection in their case.

At any rate, you are right; "survival of the fittest" isn't a moral principle, it's a description of how the world works. Besides being amoral, it also fails at being a moral standard by being inviolable; you can't get around Darwinian selection any more than you can get around gravity, it is simply how the world is. And no, human intervention like medicine and selective breeding isn't getting around evolution any more than flying a plane invalidates gravity. You are just changing one selector for another, from natural selection to human selection. If you can survive on the kindness of others or with a prosthesis, that's just as valid in Darwinian terms as any other survival strategy.

[Doxy]

I think that morality is easy enough to justify; morality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone. Those are better justifications for morality than the commands of a god even if there were such things as gods.



Survival of the fittest is not a concept that can be called moral. Survival of the fittest is a tautology: if you survive and reproduce better than others, you're by definition fitter than the others, no matter how you do it. If that is natural morality, it's quite useless to any human concept of morality (ok, well, the Spartans and Nazis might find it an acceptable moral idea, but I certainly don't).Actually, I don't think they would; they are after all both gone. As Darwinian losers I expect they'd find some excuse to not approve of natural selection in their case.

At any rate, you are right; "survival of the fittest" isn't a moral principle, it's a description of how the world works. Besides being amoral, it also fails at being a moral standard by being inviolable; you can't get around Darwinian selection any more than you can get around gravity, it is simply how the world is. And no, human intervention like medicine and selective breeding isn't getting around evolution any more than flying a plane invalidates gravity. You are just changing one selector for another, from natural selection to human selection. If you can survive on the kindness of others or with a prosthesis, that's just as valid in Darwinian terms as any other survival strategy.

Oh, yeah. The more I read of your postings the more I want to marry you and bear you children.... and I will listen as you tell them of the world.... of course... I'll need to find a way to reverse this whole menopause thang I have going on! And ... I'll have to find a way to break the news to my husband... He'll be heart-sick. Not to mention the kids...

Oh, well. What must be, must be.

[Thudlow Boink]

You say my morality is faith based.

Know what I say?

Bull-fucking-shit - prove it.I wonder if you and Shodan are assigning completely different meanings to the words "faith based."

As I understand him, Shodan is not saying that your morality is rooted in some religion. Rather, he is saying that the moral principles you live by are, ultimately, based on something you have to "take on faith," rather than something you can objectively justify.

[Peremensoe]

I think that morality is easy enough to justify; morality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone.

That's only true if "everyone," collectively, is your reference point. If you look at things from individual perspectives, there are lots of times when actions in contravention of prevailing morality make life better for that individual.

[Doxy]

Just googling around and found this:

" Moral Relativism: The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Relativistic+ethics

Interesting, no?

And this: "Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of 'cultural taste.' Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of 'ethical relativism.'" http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html

[Thudlow Boink]

I think (at least right now—if I did some deep thinking about it I might change my mind or at least reformulate it) that moral principles are based on values. It is what we value that justifies the moral principles we live by.

If you say things like Morality is for the good of the species,not anything to do with a religion, but a biological way to help the species survive.ormorality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone, you're saying that morality is a means to an end, whether that end is the survival of the species or a more pleasant life for everyone or whatever. This means that you're saying such things are valuable.

If you can show that the moral principles you espouse really do promote those values, you've justified the moral principles—but you've just pushed the problem one level back. You'd still have to justify, or take as given, those values.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

State the principles on which your morality is based.
It's not based on any principles at all. Morality just describes evolved human emotinal responses. These emotional responses are codified by cultures into agreed upon rules, but there's no "principle" involved. It starts with the emotional responses. It's all just brain chemistry.

[Der Trihs]

I think that morality is easy enough to justify; morality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone.

That's only true if "everyone," collectively, is your reference point. If you look at things from individual perspectives, there are lots of times when actions in contravention of prevailing morality make life better for that individual.That is also known as "short sightedness". Yeah, stealing or killing might benefit me more, right now; but if everyone runs around stealing, everyone including me is worse off. We need laws forbidding such things because that kind of short sightedness is endemic among humans; that doesn't make moral behavior any less desirable for people, even if people sometimes need to be coerced into not destroying the society they live in.

If you say things like Morality is for the good of the species,not anything to do with a religion, but a biological way to help the species survive.ormorality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone, you're saying that morality is a means to an end, whether that end is the survival of the species or a more pleasant life for everyone or whatever. This means that you're saying such things are valuable.

If you can show that the moral principles you espouse really do promote those values, you've justified the moral principles—but you've just pushed the problem one level back. You'd still have to justify, or take as given, those values.
No, we don't actually. We are what we are. Morality is for us, and is therefore defined by our nature. Pain and oppression and deprivation are defined as bad by our nature; we don't like it when those things happen to us, because that is how we are constructed. That's why murdering someone is wrong but breaking a rock isn't; rocks don't care if they are destroyed, people do.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Now, of course, this all begs the question of what that "goal" is, and while I believe it is somewhere around freedom and growth for reasons that are probably out of the scope of this discussion, I'm unsure exactly how much it matters because, in my own thought experiments, there's very little difference in the resultant set of morals when applying a multitude of different "goals".

Two things about your whole post:

1. Yes, this is begging the question of what the goal is. As far as I can see, you've skipped over the part where you identify that there is a goal at all.

2. A goal, if you find/pick/agree with/feel one is very important. For example, if the goal is "the Dutch should rule the world, as soon as possible", the resulting moral system will be very different than when you start with "everybody should have a life that's as peaceful as possible" or "scripture is true [if not literal everywhere] and we should do whatever god asks of us". Compare the Spartan culture with Buddhist moral code, or Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son as rough approximations of the outcomes.

The "goal" can be more or less the collection of premises I was asking about in the original post, but I've not seen a real reason to assume there is such a thing, objectively. Aside from our own built-in revulsions and likes.

[panache45]

The short answer is No. All systems of morality - yours, Fred Phelps', Hitchens, Mother Teresa's - all, without any exception, are faith-based. One simply has to accept them without question, because meta-questions about their validity are unanswerable.

If you need to argue that helping a beaten pregnant woman is moral because it makes you feel good, then someone else raping a different woman is also moral because it makes that person feel good. If you want to appeal to the survival of the species, then you have to justify choosing survival vs. non-survival as being better.

"God hates fags" is just as valid (or invalid) a moral statement as "we should tax the rich at higher rates than the poor". Both are based on unprovable axioms.

Regards,
Shodan
But is the theory that all systems of morality are faith-based . . . itself, faith-based? And thus is it no better or worse than theories that NO or SOME systems of morality are faith-based?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Just googling around and found this:
I am aware of moral relativism, but it can lead to things that I personally do not find acceptable. It's a useful concept, in that it describes the width of opinion and practice, but it's dangerous in that it can lead you to uncritically accept practices in others that you wouldn't accept yourself.

For instance, there used to be island civilizations that practiced infanticide to keep population levels under control. Having limited resources and no method of birth control (and possibly no working knowledge of how pregnancy worked at all), one could justify the practice as the alternative would likely be a state of permanent (near) starvation for the whole community.

Now, I would say that on the whole, if we found such a civilization today, introducing birth control measures and some education on how all this stuff works would be much more preferable than just accepting it as "well, that's part of their moral code". Even if it doesn't directly affect me or my community.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

But is the theory that all systems of morality are faith-based . . . itself, faith-based? And thus is it no better or worse than theories that NO or SOME systems of morality are faith-based?

I'm going to step up for Shodan here (I think that's a first :D). As I understand his argument, he's not arguing that morals are based in religion, he's arguing that the premises of all moral systems are things that are to be accepted without further evidence and have no discernable "underlying objective morality".

So far, I've not seen anyone posit a system for which that doesn't hold - with the possible exception of dzero who seems to be going for a morality based on the intersection of all other moral systems. Which I'm not sure exists or would be any more objective than any of the others.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I've already explained it multiple times in multiple threads. Morality is brain chemistry.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I've already explained it multiple times in multiple threads. Morality is brain chemistry.

Yeah, but so is every thought and emotion. Just because we like it does not mean it's moral. If you agree or not, that's a premise you have to take on faith.

[Doxy]

I've already explained it multiple times in multiple threads. Morality is brain chemistry.


Everything is brain chemistry.
That doesn't explain anything.
It just gives it a label.

[Peremensoe]

Dio, why do you spend so much time here talking about right and wrong if you don't believe in a morality apart from whatever people imagine it to be?

[Doxy]

Just googling around and found this:
I am aware of moral relativism, but it can lead to things that I personally do not find acceptable. It's a useful concept, in that it describes the width of opinion and practice, but it's dangerous in that it can lead you to uncritically accept practices in others that you wouldn't accept yourself.

For instance, there used to be island civilizations that practiced infanticide to keep population levels under control. Having limited resources and no method of birth control (and possibly no working knowledge of how pregnancy worked at all), one could justify the practice as the alternative would likely be a state of permanent (near) starvation for the whole community.

Now, I would say that on the whole, if we found such a civilization today, introducing birth control measures and some education on how all this stuff works would be much more preferable than just accepting it as "well, that's part of their moral code". Even if it doesn't directly affect me or my community.

You make good points.

My morals are based on what I have observed, experienced and reasoned out throughout my life. Therefore, they sometimes change. When new information comes to light I have to adjust my thinking and moral reasoning while integrating the new information. I have concrete reasons for why I believe this, that or the other thing is moral or immoral. In other words, my morals are not based on somebody else telling me what my morals SHOULD be.

For example, I find it morally repugnant to keep alive a terminally ill person or a person with chronic pain if they wish to die. We euthanize our pets out of a sense of moral obligation to ease their suffering, yet we refuse that same compassion to our loved ones. That sickens me on a very basic level.

I find it morally repugnant to have baby after baby when you are incapable of supporting yourself, let alone a child.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I've already explained it multiple times in multiple threads. Morality is brain chemistry.

Yeah, but so is every thought and emotion. Just because we like it does not mean it's moral. If you agree or not, that's a premise you have to take on faith.
There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Morality is an aesthetic like taste in beer. The word is a descriptor for emotional responses and nothing more. It has no objective existence at all. It's purely subjective.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I've already explained it multiple times in multiple threads. Morality is brain chemistry.


Everything is brain chemistry.
That doesn't explain anything.
It just gives it a label.
What does it fail to explain?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Dio, why do you spend so much time here talking about right and wrong if you don't believe in a morality apart from whatever people imagine it to be?
I don't understand this question. I believe in morality. I am a moral absolutist.

[Der Trihs]

Morality is an aesthetic like taste in beer.
An exaggeration. It's more like a preference for beer, PCP, or poison; there's no law-of-physics style "objective" reason why one is to be preferred to the other; but ingesting PCP or poison is going to have a much different result than drinking a beer.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Morality is an aesthetic like taste in beer. The word is a descriptor for emotional responses and nothing more. It has no objective existence at all. It's purely subjective.

Ok, I can see this stance. But regardless of the proverb (at least, there is one in Dutch), one can agree and disagree on taste. It doesn't make morality objective, it makes it purely subjective. Or were you not replying to my post #41 in your post #42?

I don't understand this question. I believe in morality. I am a moral absolutist.

Do I understand you correctly in that you claim your personal morality is the "correct" one for everyone else? Or is there some kind of appeal to other people's emotions ("brain chemistry") involved? Since you're not exactly known for ignoring other people who have objectively nothing to do with you personally when making moral judgments.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The only morality I operate by is my own. The same goes for everybody else. If my moral intuition conflicts with someone else's, then mine is the correct one. I operate as if I am the sole arbitrator of right and wrong. The only moral authority I really have is my own conscience. If I can't depend on that, then I can't depend on anything.

Everybody else does the same thing,whether they think of it that way or not. All morality is ultimately autonomous. Even if you choose to follow an externally derived moral code, you still have to first make an autonomous moral decision that doing so is the "right" thing to do.

[Doxy]

The only morality I operate by is my own. The same goes for everybody else. If my moral intuition conflicts with someone else's, then mine is the correct one. I operate as if I am the sole arbitrator of right and wrong. The only moral authority I really have is my own conscience. If I can't depend on that, then I can't depend on anything.

Everybody else does the same thing,whether they think of it that way or not. All morality is ultimately autonomous. Even if you choose to follow an externally derived moral code, you still have to first make an autonomous moral decision that doing so is the "right" thing to do.

100% agreement from me on this.
No reservations whatsoever.

On edit: So where do you stand on the Altruism Debate?
Does it exist? Or is it a very nicely packaged self delusion?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think altruism is an evolved instinct which serves to support the survival of social animals. Humans are a social animal. We are evolved to survive in groups, not as individuals. Group bonding faciitates this.

[Thudlow Boink]

The only morality I operate by is my own. The same goes for everybody else. If my moral intuition conflicts with someone else's, then mine is the correct one. I operate as if I am the sole arbitrator of right and wrong.Would it be possible you to become convinced that you were mistaken in some point of your morality? Could I persuade you that something you thought was all right was actually wrong, or vice versa?

Actually, I suppose this could happen in two different ways: I could persuade you that something about your understanding of the facts or circumstances was amiss, so that, even though your fundamental moral principles hadn't changed, you learned better how they applied to that particular circumstance. Or I could persuade you that your principles themselves were somehow lacking, that there's some higher authority or reality to which they didn't perfectly conform. Your view of things seems to rule out the second, at least—right?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

The only morality I operate by is my own. The same goes for everybody else. If my moral intuition conflicts with someone else's, then mine is the correct one. I operate as if I am the sole arbitrator of right and wrong. The only moral authority I really have is my own conscience. If I can't depend on that, then I can't depend on anything.

Everybody else does the same thing,whether they think of it that way or not. All morality is ultimately autonomous. Even if you choose to follow an externally derived moral code, you still have to first make an autonomous moral decision that doing so is the "right" thing to do.

Well, I can at least say that your definitions are consistent. I don't really know if there's any other conclusion to be made, but I'm unclear about what exactly your objection is to Shodan. Are you saying all moral decisions are based on intuition/emotion alone? Because he appears to be arguing that morality is based on some set of premises that you just take for granted (and you can do that based on emotion).

Looks to me that you may be arguing that reason doesn't enter into moral questions at all, but I find that hard to believe.

ETA: Thudlow Boink seems to be prodding at the same issue here.

[Doxy]

I think altruism is an evolved instinct which serves to support the survival of social animals. Humans are a social animal. We are evolved to survive in groups, not as individuals. Group bonding faciitates this.

Lovely answer!! :)

But, if it is an evolved instinct which serves to support an individual's survival and the survival of that individual's social unit.... is it truly Altruism??

Has it not become merely one more act of self-preservation?
And therefore, not altruism at all?

I eagerly await your reply. :D

[Der Trihs]

Or I could persuade you that your principles themselves were somehow lacking, that there's some higher authority or reality to which they didn't perfectly conform. Your view of things seems to rule out the second, at least—right?
As Diogenes pointed out upthread, even if such things exist they are unknowable, which renders them morally irrelevant. And as I've said elsewhere I don't care if they exist or not; I'm not going to start torturing or enslaving people just because some supposed "higher authority or reality" says I should.

[Doxy]

The only morality I operate by is my own. The same goes for everybody else. If my moral intuition conflicts with someone else's, then mine is the correct one. I operate as if I am the sole arbitrator of right and wrong.

Would it be possible you to become convinced that you were mistaken in some point of your morality? Could I persuade you that something you thought was all right was actually wrong, or vice versa?

<snip>

It is certainly possible in my case. Any true morality is fluid and ever-changing based on new information and reason. If it's not, then it is no longer morality and has become mere dogma.

As a matter of fact, I welcome discourse and differing opinions. How can I grow as a person if all I hear are my own thoughts?

<Large Snip of Dio's post because it's already quoted above>

<snip>

Looks to me that you may be arguing that reason doesn't enter into moral questions at all, but I find that hard to believe.

ETA: Thudlow Boink seems to be prodding at the same issue here.

I don't see how anything thought of as morality can be derived from a source other than Reason. One's ability to reason is the bedrock of what becomes a person's moral code.

I think many people want to use emotion rather than intellect when discussing morality and therefore the terms are never really clearly defined for anyone in the debate.

One must agree on a definition of what something IS before one can discuss it's various merits and/or faults.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The only morality I operate by is my own. The same goes for everybody else. If my moral intuition conflicts with someone else's, then mine is the correct one. I operate as if I am the sole arbitrator of right and wrong.Would it be possible you to become convinced that you were mistaken in some point of your morality? Could I persuade you that something you thought was all right was actually wrong, or vice versa?

Actually, I suppose this could happen in two different ways: I could persuade you that something about your understanding of the facts or circumstances was amiss, so that, even though your fundamental moral principles hadn't changed, you learned better how they applied to that particular circumstance. Or I could persuade you that your principles themselves were somehow lacking, that there's some higher authority or reality to which they didn't perfectly conform. Your view of things seems to rule out the second, at least—right?
The second would not be possible for me, but the first one certainly is and has happened often in my life. Yes, I can have my perceptions (emotional responses) changed by new information or insights. I can also be persuaded that I am making irrational judgements based on false assumptions. My wife has been successful at changing my moral outlook many times.

[Doxy]

Would it be possible you to become convinced that you were mistaken in some point of your morality? Could I persuade you that something you thought was all right was actually wrong, or vice versa?

Actually, I suppose this could happen in two different ways: I could persuade you that something about your understanding of the facts or circumstances was amiss, so that, even though your fundamental moral principles hadn't changed, you learned better how they applied to that particular circumstance. Or I could persuade you that your principles themselves were somehow lacking, that there's some higher authority or reality to which they didn't perfectly conform. Your view of things seems to rule out the second, at least—right?
The second would not be possible for me, but the first one certainly is and has happened often in my life. Yes, I can have my perceptions (emotional responses) changed by new information or insights. I can also be persuaded that I am making irrational judgements based on false assumptions. My wife has been successful at changing my moral outlook many times.

Oh, yeah... I spend waaaaaaaaaaay too much time on Facebook!
I was looking for the "Like" button again! LOL

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I don't see how anything thought of as morality can be derived from a source other than Reason. One's ability to reason is the bedrock of what becomes a person's moral code.

I think many people want to use emotion rather than intellect when discussing morality and therefore the terms are never really clearly defined for anyone in the debate.

One must agree on a definition of what something IS before one can discuss it's various merits and/or faults.

I think you may have missed the point of this thread. Reason alone has not been demonstrated as being fundamental to morality. One can - possibly - argue from simple moral premises (or preferences) to conclusions in more complicated cases - I think that that is probably the case. But no one here has shown any way to derive moral principles from reason alone. If you can, please do so. So far, we've seen anthropological, aesthetic, emotional and "relativistic" principles (and a few others), but nothing based on reason alone.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think altruism is an evolved instinct which serves to support the survival of social animals. Humans are a social animal. We are evolved to survive in groups, not as individuals. Group bonding faciitates this.

Lovely answer!! :)

But, if it is an evolved instinct which serves to support an individual's survival and the survival of that individual's social unit.... is it truly Altruism??

Has it not become merely one more act of self-preservation?
And therefore, not altruism at all?

I eagerly await your reply. :D
It's an emotional prioritization of the group over one's self. We know that people who fight together for mutual survival will bond and that the lines between self and group become blurred Guys who have been in combat together frequently say this this is a bond like no other -- a bond at least as emotionally compelling as with a spouse and children and maybe even stronger. I think this bond is real, is caused by specific conditions of brain chemistry (highly excited states of fear and adrenaline combined with literal life and death mutual dependency) and that it leads to a suffusion of the individual ego into the group. The guy who instinctively jumps on a grenade to protect the others in his company is not thinking about self-preservation but is acting on a very strong emotional and I believe neurologically evolved) impulse to protect the group first.

We have similar impulses when it comes to those very close to us -- our children in particular. A lot of animals will be self-sacrificing or "altrusitic" in protecting their young. It is, again, an evolved emotional impulse. Biologically hardwired or not, it is a genuine prioritization of others over self, so I think that meets any reasonable definition of "altruism."

[Doxy]

I don't see how anything thought of as morality can be derived from a source other than Reason. One's ability to reason is the bedrock of what becomes a person's moral code.

I think many people want to use emotion rather than intellect when discussing morality and therefore the terms are never really clearly defined for anyone in the debate.

One must agree on a definition of what something IS before one can discuss it's various merits and/or faults.

I think you may have missed the point of this thread. Reason alone has not been demonstrated as being fundamental to morality. One can - possibly - argue from simple moral premises (or preferences) to conclusions in more complicated cases - I think that that is probably the case. But no one here has shown any way to derive moral principles from reason alone. If you can, please do so. So far, we've seen anthropological, aesthetic, emotional and "relativistic" principles (and a few others), but nothing based on reason alone.

Hmm.... That's a good bit you gave me to chew on!
Let me get back to it...

But for starters... I didn't say that morality was based on reason alone... I said it was the bedrock on which morality is based.... with the implication that there were other components involved.

This is a seriously good point you're making so I will need to think about it a bit... this being new information, and all. ;)

[Doxy]

Lovely answer!! :)

But, if it is an evolved instinct which serves to support an individual's survival and the survival of that individual's social unit.... is it truly Altruism??

Has it not become merely one more act of self-preservation?
And therefore, not altruism at all?

I eagerly await your reply. :D
It's an emotional prioritization of the group over one's self. We know that people who fight together for mutual survival will bond and that the lines between self and group become blurred Guys who have been in combat together frequently say this this is a bond like no other -- a bond at least as emotionally compelling as with a spouse and children and maybe even stronger. I think this bond is real, is caused by specific conditions of brain chemistry (highly excited states of fear and adrenaline combined with literal life and death mutual dependency) and that it leads to a suffusion of the individual ego into the group. The guy who instinctively jumps on a grenade to protect the others in his company is not thinking about self-preservation but is acting on a very strong emotional and I believe neurologically evolved) impulse to protect the group first.

We have similar impulses when it comes to those very close to us -- our children in particular. A lot of animals will be self-sacrificing or "altrusitic" in protecting their young. It is, again, an evolved emotional impulse. Biologically hardwired or not, it is a genuine prioritization of others over self, so I think that meets any reasonable definition of "altruism."

You sound like my Physiological Psychology professor! :)
And I like your explanation.
Thank-you!
Yet another item for me to think on.
I'm glad I found this place.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

This is a seriously good point you're making so I will need to think about it a bit... this being new information, and all. ;)

Good luck. I actually started this thread because I was quite disturbed by the implications. - I feel slightly better now :) - I'm certainly not nearly done with this problem, though, so any input is welcome.

[Dioptre]

Shodan's idea that all moral systems are, to use a more neutral term than "faith", ungrounded in any objective logical source is almost true, but an oversimplification.

You can't objectively justify values - they just are. If I say my self interest is a suitable source for my morals, you can disagree, but you can't prove (or even find evidence) that I am wrong.

However, there is such as thing as dissonance - a moral system may be not internally consistent, or may be insufficient for determining the right course of action in a particular situation. Hence, whilst there is no objective grounds for saying that a moral system is _right_, there are plenty of reasons why a moral system can be wrong.

As a thought experiment, try applying "do unto others" AND trust and faith in God AND the "divinely inspired" rule-set of judeo-Christian faiths without your head exploding.

[Shodan]

But is the theory that all systems of morality are faith-based . . . itself, faith-based? And thus is it no better or worse than theories that NO or SOME systems of morality are faith-based?It's inductive reasoning, as I mentioned. All the moral statements made so far are founded in faith-based sets of axioms. Therefore, we conclude that all other morality is based on the same kinds of axioms.

Certainly the notion can be disproved by demonstrating the objective nature of some morality. One counter-example would be enough.

If you prefer, feel free to think of this as a theory, in the sense that evolution is a theory.

Regards,
Shodan

[Revenant Threshold]

That all systems of morality are necessarily faith-based doesn't mean they are necessarily using faith to the same extent, or at the same stages of an argument. Of course given the infinite nature of potential faith possibilities, that doesn't matter unless faith is already given some credence if personal moralities are accepted.

[monavis]

I think (at least right now—if I did some deep thinking about it I might change my mind or at least reformulate it) that moral principles are based on values. It is what we value that justifies the moral principles we live by.

If you say things like Morality is for the good of the species,not anything to do with a religion, but a biological way to help the species survive.ormorality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone, you're saying that morality is a means to an end, whether that end is the survival of the species or a more pleasant life for everyone or whatever. This means that you're saying such things are valuable.

If you can show that the moral principles you espouse really do promote those values, you've justified the moral principles—but you've just pushed the problem one level back. You'd still have to justify, or take as given, those values.

Morality itself is a human term,and what could be considered moral to some could be immoral to others,as an example: Polygamy, wars etc. much is a matter of belief!