Can Materialism Guard Against Materialism?

durangodawood · Mar 28, 2019

Tree of Life said:
So you would admit that for some people there is no moral obligation to be kind rather than cruel?

What about whole societies or cultures? Germany in the mid twentieth century wanted to eradicate everything non-German from their population. They specifically wanted to eradicate Jews. If you were to explain to Nazi leaders: "You know, you really ought not exterminate Jews in the gas chamber." They would have responded: "Oh but we want to exterminate them! Yes, it's an ugly business but it's necessary for the good of society."

Did the Nazis treat the Jews unjustly during WWII?

Tree of Life said:
Or suppose that the man wants to be miserable and wants his wife to be miserable as well. The wife, however, does not want to be miserable and wants to escape the marriage. Does the ought remain in force in that scenario? If so, how?

I guess I'm not sure what youre looking for with this "ought".

Moral obligation or "oughts" dont live 'out there' in some special place beyond the world. "Oughts" are simply natural recipes for good living that society has decided to recognize, teach, and where necessary, enforce.

Our mean husband is probably drowning in ignorance regarding whats actually good for himself. Or he might be a rare case of genuine psychopathy, in which case he'll probly end up jailed or medicated.

As for whole societies, yes they can get caught up in mass delusion resulting in wickedness. But time usually reveals how wrong they were.

Tree of Life · Mar 28, 2019

durangodawood said:
I guess I'm not sure what youre looking for with this "ought".

Moral obligation or "oughts" dont live 'out there' in some special place beyond the world. "Oughts" are simply natural recipes for good living that society has decided to recognize, teach, and where necessary, enforce.

Our mean husband is probably drowning in ignorance regarding whats actually good for himself. Or he might be a rare case of genuine psychopathy, in which case he'll probly end up jailed or medicated.

Why should your idea of what is good for the man trump his own idea of what is good for himself? What if he wants to be miserable and make other people as miserable as possible? By what authority do you say that he ought to be different?

As for whole societies, yes they can get caught up in mass delusion resulting in wickedness. But time usually reveals how wrong they were.

And what is the measure by which we may determine when a society has become deluded and wicked?

durangodawood · Mar 28, 2019

Tree of Life said:
Why should your idea of what is good for the man trump his own idea of what is good for himself? What if he wants to be miserable and make other people as miserable as possible? By what authority do you say that he ought to be different?

Authority is a non issue here.

I'm either right or wrong about this: most people are happier when the people around them like them and are happy too. This is just a natural fact. Most of the great religions and wisdom traditions agree with me.

Usually people who are huge jerks are simply acting out inherited bad coping strategies. A few have some genuine brain abnormality that makes them clinically psychopathic, and for our own protection we enforce various laws on them.

Tree of Life · Mar 28, 2019

durangodawood said:
Authority is a non issue here.

I'm either right or wrong about this: most people are happier when the people around them like them and are happy too. This is just a natural fact. Most of the great religions and wisdom traditions agree with me.

Usually people who are huge jerks are simply acting out inherited bad coping strategies. A few have some genuine brain abnormality that makes them clinically psychopathic, and for our own protection we enforce various laws on them.

You are describing human behavior from a sociological, psychological, and legal standpoint. That's fine. But by reducing morality to these issues you end up missing a huge part of morality that you're implicitly assuming.

You assume that people should be happy. Or you may also assume that other people have a right to be happy. These are moral assumptions that go beyond sociology, psychology, or legality.

For example, suppose that I really enjoy taking other peoples' money. It makes me happy to be able to get money so easily and not have to work for it. Furthermore, I'm able to get away with it! In light of how happy stealing makes me, wouldn't you say that I ought to stop stealing simply because it hurts other people or violates their rights? Wouldn't you say that my taking pleasure in hurting others indicates some sort of disorder and that I ought not to feel the way that I do?

durangodawood · Mar 28, 2019

Tree of Life said:
You are describing human behavior from a sociological, psychological, and legal standpoint. That's fine. But by reducing morality to these issues you end up missing a huge part of morality that you're implicitly assuming.

You assume that people should be happy. Or you may also assume that other people have a right to be happy. These are moral assumptions that go beyond sociology, psychology, or legality.

For example, suppose that I really enjoy taking other peoples' money. It makes me happy to be able to get money so easily and not have to work for it. Furthermore, I'm able to get away with it! In light of how happy stealing makes me, wouldn't you say that I ought to stop stealing simply because it hurts other people or violates their rights?

Society makes these understandings into morals and rights to further its indoctrination of individuals. (And I dont mean "indoctrination" in a bad way). We dont pull these morals out of the air. The facts about deep human satisfaction are observed by the wise, then enshrined as moral rules in our great myths and founding documents, then taught.

Again, the thief probably doesnt know any better about how good life can be. Or is perhaps just psychopathic. Either way he's a threat to the genuine happiness of the vast majority, and so we apply carrot/stick measures as fit.

Tree of Life · Mar 28, 2019

durangodawood said:
Society makes these understandings into morals and rights to further its indoctrination of individuals. (And I dont mean "indoctrination" in a bad way). We dont pull these morals out of the air. The facts about deep human satisfaction are observed by the wise, then enshrined as moral rules in our great myths and founding documents, then taught.

Again, the thief probably doesnt know any better about how good life can be. Or is perhaps just psychopathic. Either way he's a threat to the genuine happiness of the vast majority, and so we apply carrot/stick measures as fit.

So moral imperatives derive their authority from society?

The problem with this is that we also judge the morality of laws. But if moral norms come from laws, how can laws ever be the subject of moral judgment?

For example, we ask: "Is this law a just law? Should it be changed?" This implies that there is some standard of justice which is higher than human laws to which human laws are trying to conform.

durangodawood · Mar 28, 2019

Tree of Life said:
So moral imperatives derive their authority from society?

The problem with this is that we also judge the morality of laws. But if moral norms come from laws, how can laws ever be the subject of moral judgment?

For example, we ask: "Is this law a just law? Should it be changed?" This implies that there is some standard of justice which is higher than human laws to which human laws are trying to conform.

Moral statements derive their correctness from reality, from our nature as human beings. They dont have "authority" in terms of being able to apply force. Society - schools, parents, justice systems - has authority.

Moral statements dont come "from laws". Ideally, laws are crafted in the recognition of correct moral statements. If the law fails to align with correct moral statements about the highest happiness of people generally, they can be critiqued on those grounds.

Tree of Life · Mar 28, 2019

durangodawood said:
Moral statements derive their correctness from reality, from our nature as human beings. They dont have "authority" in terms of being able to apply force. Society - schools, parents, justice systems - has authority.

Moral statements dont come "from laws". Ideally, laws are crafted in the recognition of correct moral statements. If the law fails to align with correct moral statements about the highest happiness of people generally, they can be critiqued on those grounds.

All of this assumes the moral principle that people should act in ways that promote wellbeing according to their nature. This is a fine moral principle. But where did you get it from?

Why should we seek to promote wellbeing rather than seek to destroy ourselves and society?

durangodawood · Mar 28, 2019

Tree of Life said:
All of this assumes the moral principle that people should act in ways that promote wellbeing according to their nature. This is a fine moral principle. But where did you get it from?

Why should we seek to promote wellbeing rather than seek to destroy ourselves and society?

Yeah. It "assumes" that we simply value being happy and satisfied. Not much of a leap to assume that, imo.

To go any deeper than this, we'll be asking "how did we get this way"? There's excellent naturalistic explanations. Otoh some people prefer the religious explanations. Either way, I think I've pretty well demonstrated that the facts of our nature are sufficient for us to develop a morality from. We dont need a morality parachuted in from another dimension or something.

Tree of Life · Mar 28, 2019

durangodawood said:
Yeah. It "assumes" that we simply value being happy and satisfied. Not much of a leap to assume that, imo.

What if I can be more happy and satisfied at the expense of someone else's happiness and satisfaction. Does the natural world teach us that we can only be happy and satisfied if this happiness is equitably shared amongst all people? Doesn't nature teach us the exact opposite of this? Nature seems to teach us that the strong survive and thrive and that it's good for a species if the weak die off. Yet we would consider it morally horrendous for strong people to take advantage of weak people. And we consider it morally laudable when strong people use their strength to help weak people.

Anyway, how do you account for the rights of others? What if my happiness can be achieved at your expense?

durangodawood · Mar 28, 2019

Tree of Life said:
What if I can be more happy and satisfied at the expense of someone else's happiness and satisfaction. Does the natural world teach us that we can only be happy and satisfied if this happiness is equitably shared amongst all people? Doesn't nature teach us the exact opposite of this? Nature seems to teach us that the strong survive and thrive and that it's good for a species if the weak die off. Yet we would consider it morally horrendous for strong people to take advantage of weak people. And we consider it morally laudable when strong people use their strength to help weak people.

Anyway, how do you account for the rights of others? What if my happiness can be achieved at your expense?

When I talk in terms of "naturally" here, I dont mean just our animal ancestors, but also humans right up to the present day including everything we've observed over millenia about how people thrive or fail in human social settings.

I think we've learned that people generally do much better the less we all have to worry about our stuff being stolen at any moment or our neighbor murdering us in our sleep. And we've also learned that societies that permit that sort of thing are doomed to either internal revolution or conquest due to sheer mass dissatisfaction.

I like your example of the strong helping the weak because thats a positive moral value, as opposed to the negative ones we've mainly been discussing (dont do this, dont do that.) I think general benevolence is extremely valuable in building a strong society in which people feel secure and happy. General benevolence allows us to presume we can trust each other, rather than beginning every single encounter with the presumption of distrust. This is incredibily important for many things we naturally value, like material success - (trade, employment, currency, etc). And the strong helping the weak may be either a by product of the general benevolence we've encouraged - or it may help to build that benevolence. Or both.

Tinker Grey · Mar 28, 2019

durangodawood said:
(And I dont mean "indoctrination" in a bad way).

Try "inculcation".

durangodawood · Mar 28, 2019

Tinker Grey said:
Try "inculcation".

Some of both. I guess I'm on the fence about valid moral indoctrination is. The dangers are obvious. But so are the dangers of treating moral facts as subject to individual critical review for every person and event.

jayem · Mar 28, 2019

Tree of Life said:
What if I can be more happy and satisfied at the expense of someone else's happiness and satisfaction. Does the natural world teach us that we can only be happy and satisfied if this happiness is equitably shared amongst all people? Doesn't nature teach us the exact opposite of this? Nature seems to teach us that the strong survive and thrive and that it's good for a species if the weak die off. Yet we would consider it morally horrendous for strong people to take advantage of weak people. And we consider it morally laudable when strong people use their strength to help weak people.

Survival of the strongest, or most aggressive is a misunderstanding. It only applies to animals living solitary lives. In social animals, nature favors behavior which promotes the survival of the group. What we might call altruism is common among social species. The link is an informative (though long) article on the topic. One example it notes: vampire bats that have recently fed will regurgitate blood to feed weaker members of the colony who can't feed themselves. I'm sure you know that social insects, like bees, willingly sacrifice themselves to fight off predators threatening the hive. This behavior (which I'll call pro-social) is instinctive. It's hard-wired into their brains. It was favored by natural selection because it promotes the reproductive success of the group. Homo sapiens evolved from social primates living in smallish clans or tribes. We too, have a core of pro-social behavioral instincts. Such as an inhibition on attacking, or killing other members of the tribe. Cooperating in hunting or foraging for food and not stealing food or resources from tribe members. Protecting the tribe from aggressors, and caring--as much as possible--for the weak or injured. Just like in other social species, these instincts are hard-wired into our brains. They form the core of what we call morals. Given our larger brains, and more complex societies, we can modify them through acculturation and learning. And the strength of these instincts varies among individuals. Some of us unfortunately, show very little pro-social behavior. Not to mention that pro-social instincts are most strongly directed towards members of our our own tribe. But the salient point is that morality has its roots in the fact that we are social animals. It's a perfectly natural function of our neurobiology. And it didn't originate, nor is it dependent upon, any supernatural creator. It's a result of our evolution as a social species.

Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Archaeopteryx · Mar 29, 2019

Tree of Life said:
Could you unpack that for me a bit?

Tree of Life · Apr 2, 2019

Archaeopteryx said:

For a fuller discussion of this I direct you to my new thread - Moral Argument for God's Existence

The Youtube video is basically saying that some smart people believe that an atheistic account of objective values can be made. I would respond to his simple assertion with a simple denial. I don't believe that it can credibly be made.

Can Materialism Guard Against Materialism?

Dis Member

Hide The Pain

Dis Member

Hide The Pain

Dis Member

Hide The Pain

Dis Member

Hide The Pain

Dis Member

Hide The Pain

Dis Member

Wanderer

Dis Member

Naturalist

Wanderer

Hide The Pain

Similar threads