Does feeling good or bad about a moral decision demonstrate a kind of faith?

[Leaf473]

If we are nothing more than a collection of atoms the individual movements of which are deterministic or random, does it make sense to feel good or bad about a moral decision?

If we then feel bad about robbing an old lady, are we either being irrational or demonstrating some form of faith?

And if we feel good about helping that same lady carry her groceries, is it the same story?

This idea has been rattling around in my head for quite a while, I'm not sure if I expressed it well. Please let me know

(Having read the statement of purpose for this forum, I think this is the right place to post this. But if there's a better place to put this, that's cool.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

No. We evolved as a cooperative species. All members of a social species (barring the statistically outlying psychopaths and sociopaths) feel good when they do good and bad when they do bad. It's just how it works.

 

[Tinker Grey]

(Having read the statement of purpose for this forum, I think this is the right place to post this. But if there's a better place to put this, that's cool.)

Based on how rarely anyone does this, I commend you.

 

[Dave L]

If we are nothing more than a collection of atoms the individual movements of which are deterministic or random, does it make sense to feel good or bad about a moral decision?

If we then feel bad about robbing an old lady, are we either being irrational or demonstrating some form of faith?

And if we feel good about helping that same lady carry her groceries, is it the same story?

This idea has been rattling around in my head for quite a while, I'm not sure if I expressed it well. Please let me know

(Having read the statement of purpose for this forum, I think this is the right place to post this. But if there's a better place to put this, that's cool.)

As I understand, we all know how we would like for others to treat us. So it bothers our conscience when we don't do the same. This is also called sin in the bible.

 

[o_mlly]

All members of a social species ... feel good when they do good and bad when they do bad.

And those who think they did good but feel bad afterwards are delusional?

 

[bèlla]

Not necessarily. I wouldn't rob an elderly person. And I don't mind helping either. I view it as an aspect of character and upbringing. That's my moral compass. It remained in place when I wandered and returned to the fold.

~bella

 

[Ken-1122]

If we are nothing more than a collection of atoms the individual movements of which are deterministic or random,

Just as an automobile is more than a pile of steel, glass, rubber, and oil, we are more than just a collection of atoms; IOW we are more than just a pile of ingredients.

does it make sense to feel good or bad about a moral decision?

Yes! As intelligent beings this does make sense

If we then feel bad about robbing an old lady, are we either being irrational or demonstrating some form of faith?

No faith, no irrationality.

And if we feel good about helping that same lady carry her groceries, is it the same story?

Yes.

 

[Leaf473]

No. We evolved as a cooperative species. All members of a social species (barring the statistically outlying psychopaths and sociopaths) feel good when they do good and bad when they do bad. It's just how it works.

If I'm following what you're saying, then we evolved to believe something for which we have no evidence. That is, we evolved to believe that it is good to promote the survivability of the species, and bad not to.

 

[Leaf473]

As I understand, we all know how we would like for others to treat us. So it bothers our conscience when we don't do the same. This is also called sin in the bible.

True. I think the Bible also assumes that we are more than atoms moving around.

I agree that we are more than atoms, but for the sake of discussion on the thread, I'm assuming that we are not.

 

[Leaf473]

Not necessarily. I wouldn't rob an elderly person. And I don't mind helping either. I view it as an aspect of character and upbringing. That's my moral compass. It remained in place when I wandered and returned to the fold.

~bella

I hear what you're saying.

But... did you ever seriously consider that you were nothing more than atoms?

I don't mean that as a challenge, it's just an honest question (and a question I ask anyone else reading this).

And if you did consider it, did you try to live in a way that flows out of the idea that we are just atoms?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If I'm following what you're saying, then we evolved to believe something for which we have no evidence. That is, we evolved to believe that it is good to promote the survivability of the species, and bad not to.

No. I'm not sure what you are saying has no evidence. That something is good? That we merely believe that survival is good?

Well life just is. And if the living stopped surviving, life just wouldn't "is" at all. Surviving is built into life. If it weren't, there wouldn't be life (to repeat myself.)

 

[o_mlly]

Well life just is. And if the living stopped surviving, life just wouldn't "is" at all. Surviving is built into life. If it weren't, there wouldn't be life (to repeat myself.)

So, people who believe life is meaningless are delusional?

 

[Leaf473]

Just as an automobile is more than a pile of steel, glass, rubber, and oil, we are more than just a collection of atoms; IOW we are more than just a pile of ingredients.

Yes! As intelligent beings this does make sense

No faith, no irrationality.

Yes.

Whether an automobile is more than a collection of its parts or not, I think we would agree that its decision-making ability and its motion through space can be reduced to the motion of its atoms. It's gas pedal is depressed, or the brake pedal.

In a similar fashion, is human intelligence anything more than the random or deterministic motion of atoms? A stimulus enters the brain, and depending on the layout of the atoms at that time and possibly some quantum indeterminism, a decision is made.

Just as we don't generally say that a car feels good about its "decision" to accelerate, does it make sense to say that there is a rational basis to feel good about a human "decision"?

I suppose we could say that the rational basis for feeling good about a decision is based on the layout of the atoms in our brains at the time. But that layout, imo, is simply the result of things like evolution, which itself is simply a long series of atoms moving around deterministically or randomly.

 

[Desk trauma]

No.

 

[jayem]

So, people who believe life is meaningless are delusional?

I suppose it’s possible. But more likely, they’re depressed. (Which is a physical illness—a neurotransmitter dysfunction.) Or maybe it’s a temporary feeling because they’re having a really, really bad day.

 

[Leaf473]

No. I'm not sure what you are saying has no evidence. That something is good? That we merely believe that survival is good?

Well life just is. And if the living stopped surviving, life just wouldn't "is" at all. Surviving is built into life. If it weren't, there wouldn't be life (to repeat myself.)

I think I'm saying that there is no evidence that the survivability of humans is good.
Well, as I'm thinking about it, of course there is no evidence for it, it's a moral designation.

If we say that life just is, I think it follows that actions just are. That would include the action of making a moral designation.

I think you and I actually agree, for the most part: if we are simply atoms, there is no reason to feel good or bad about a moral decision beyond the hard wiring of our brains through evolution and the soft wiring of them by society.

Our brains are amazingly plastic, though, from what I've read. I wonder what happens when someone sets about rewiring their brain? Maybe it would take the form of chanting to yourself that there's really nothing to feel bad about.

 

[jayem]

I think you and I actually agree, for the most part: if we are simply atoms, there is no reason to feel good or bad about a moral decision beyond the hard wiring of our brains through evolution and the soft wiring of them by society.

I agree with that for the most part. I'll assume that what you call soft wiring is learning and acculturation. IMO, that's a larger determinant of moral decision making and behavior than hard wired instincts. I don't believe we can totally eliminate our less estimable instinctive drives, but we can learn to suppress them. Though this varies from person to person. Some individuals can override their instincts better than others.

 

[Jay Sea]

If we are nothing more than a collection of atoms the individual movements of which are deterministic or random, does it make sense to feel good or bad about a moral decision?

If we then feel bad about robbing an old lady, are we either being irrational or demonstrating some form of faith?

And if we feel good about helping that same lady carry her groceries, is it the same story?

This idea has been rattling around in my head for quite a while, I'm not sure if I expressed it well. Please let me know

(Having read the statement of purpose for this forum, I think this is the right place to post this. But if there's a better place to put this, that's cool.)

Even animals feel and have a sense of what is good or bad for them. Whether we are a collection of atoms is irrelevant to the fact that we make moral decisions. It makes sense to feel good, bad or neutral about any decision we make. We could make a good decision and feel bad because of consequences of the decision. Moral questions and decisions are complex as there can be unforeseen consequences.
WE still have to make them in good faith.
In LOve
Jay Sea

 

[Astrid]

If I'm following what you're saying, then we evolved to believe something for which we have no evidence. That is, we evolved to believe that it is good to promote the survivability of the species, and bad not to.

The BEHAVIOUR deeply predates the human species and is very widespread
among organisms of many kinds

It's nothing to do with "Belief".

Of course, anyone with half a brain sees that a family or any
other group that cannot cooperate is doomed.

You are concocting a nonsensical/ nonexistent paradox.

 

[Kylie]

If we are nothing more than a collection of atoms the individual movements of which are deterministic or random, does it make sense to feel good or bad about a moral decision?

If we then feel bad about robbing an old lady, are we either being irrational or demonstrating some form of faith?

And if we feel good about helping that same lady carry her groceries, is it the same story?

This idea has been rattling around in my head for quite a while, I'm not sure if I expressed it well. Please let me know

(Having read the statement of purpose for this forum, I think this is the right place to post this. But if there's a better place to put this, that's cool.)

I think it's more empathy rather than faith.

If you rob an old lady and then feel bad, it's empathy because you are understanding how she feels by imagining how you would feel in her place. If you rob an old lady and don't feel bad, it shows that you don't put yourself in her place, which shows you lack empathy.

Likewise, if you help her with her groceries and feel good, you have empathy because you can imagine how good she feels.