# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**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, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/61 "2010-09-22T02:10:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > > 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 ---
**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, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/62 "2010-09-22T02:12:34Z")
> [@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. ---
**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, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/63 "2010-09-22T02:22:18Z")
> [@Doxy](#): > > > [@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. 😃 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.” ---
**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, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/64 "2010-09-22T02:23:15Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@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. 😉 ---
**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, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/65 "2010-09-22T02:28:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@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. 😃 > > 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. ---
**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, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/66 "2010-09-22T02:32:21Z")
> [@Doxy](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dioptre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/278dde/32.png) [@Dioptre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dioptre)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/67 "2010-09-22T10:04:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/68 "2010-09-22T11:29:22Z")
> [@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? 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 ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/69 "2010-09-25T01:37:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485/70 "2010-09-27T11:15:56Z")
> [@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 > [QUOTE=monavis] > Morality is for the good of the species,not anything to do with a religion, but a biological way to help the species survive. or [QUOTE=Der Trihs] morality makes life safer, easier and more pleasant for everyone [/QUOTE] , 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. [/QUOTE] 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! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-religiously-justified-moral-premises-philosophy/554485.md?page=3)