# Non-religiously-justified moral premises (philosophy). **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485 "2010-09-21T00:22:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/41 "2010-09-21T22:28:49Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/42 "2010-09-21T22:33:51Z")
I’ve already explained it multiple times in multiple threads. Morality is brain chemistry. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/43 "2010-09-21T22:45:41Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Doxy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@Doxy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doxy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/44 "2010-09-21T22:52:28Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/45 "2010-09-21T22:59:51Z")
**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? ---
**Author:** ![Doxy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@Doxy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doxy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/46 "2010-09-21T23:14:14Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/47 "2010-09-21T23:54:43Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/48 "2010-09-21T23:56:01Z")
> [@Doxy](#): > > > [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/49 "2010-09-21T23:57:05Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/50 "2010-09-22T00:12:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/51 "2010-09-22T00:13:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/52 "2010-09-22T01:19:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Doxy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@Doxy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doxy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/53 "2010-09-22T01:39:25Z")
> [@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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/54 "2010-09-22T01:46:19Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/55 "2010-09-22T01:48:55Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/56 "2010-09-22T01:50:54Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Doxy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@Doxy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doxy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/57 "2010-09-22T01:51:02Z")
> [@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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/58 "2010-09-22T01:52:30Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Doxy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@Doxy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doxy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/59 "2010-09-22T02:04:26Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > [@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? > > \ 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? > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > \ > > \ > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/60 "2010-09-22T02:07:45Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > [@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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485.md?page=4)