Does morality exist without God?

[ebia]

I get the impression ebia is insisting that we pin ourselves down in some recognised ethical theory. If we don't and answer as we are he'll opine that we obviously know nothing about ethics.

If you don't have any specifics then it would appear that you haven't thought though ethics very deeply.


Empathy gives you an insight into how others are impacted by things. How do you get from there to deciding on the morality of something? Does morality even exist in an action? If you're going to make large claims about another ethical approach it's only reasonable to put yours on the table to see how it measures up

 

[ebia]

No, I have been asked for a framework which requires vague generalities.

Yes, have you?

Yes. And in the process realised how complex an area it actually is.

 

[Skavau]

If you don't have any specifics then it would appear that you haven't thought though ethics very deeply.

You've been given specific answers. You don't like them.

Empathy gives you an insight into how others are impacted by things. How do you get from there to deciding on the morality of something?

This seems like this question answers itself.

Really, I'm astonished this even needs elaborating. If you have insight on how your actions will negatively effect others and you have an interest and/or desire in limiting how your actions impact others negatively then you can do just that.

Morality is all about how your actions impact others. It is about what one ought to do in consideration of others be it a deontological unwillingness to consider any particular action or case-by-case consequentionalist outlook.

If you disconnect it from that then you have nothing.

Does morality even exist in an action?

Yes. Some actions are moral others are not.

 

[joshuacox]

morality is actually a mathematically proven evolutionary advantage...I can't remember the documentary i saw well enough to quote, but here's the just of it.

One of the major problems (back in darwins time) with darwins theory of evolution was where we got our altruism from? Scientists back then couldn't see how selflessness could have evolved.

However some mathematician back then figured out that even if 9 out of 10 times
mom staying to defend her cubs from attack, lead to the whole family unit dieing. The survival chance of the species was still increased.

The mathematician later went crazy trying to disprove his own theory. He just couldn't deal with the fact that morality probably wasn't a gift from God, but was just another tool to aid in passing our genetics into the future.

 

[ebia]

You've been given specific answers. You don't like them.

It's not like or dislike , it's a need for more detail to evaluate what you think.

This seems like this question answers itself.

Really, I'm astonished this even needs elaborating.

Perhaps because you haven't examined all the stuff you take for granted

If you have insight on how your actions will negatively effect others and you have an interest and/or desire in limiting how your actions impact others negatively then you can do just that.

Morality is all about how your actions impact others. It is about what one ought to do in consideration of others be it a deontological unwillingness to consider any particular action or case-by-case consequentionalist outlook.

If you disconnect it from that then you have nothing.

Yes. Some actions are moral others are not.

That a particular viewpoint, not a self-evident truth. Virtue sees morality as primarily residing in the character of people, deontology as it primarily residing in actions, consequential ethics as it primarily residing in consequences.

 

[ebia]

The mathematician later went crazy trying to disprove his own theory.
He just couldn't deal with the fact that morality probably wasn't a gift from God, but was just another tool to aid in passing our genetics into the future.

Then he needed a better theology; those two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Skavau]

That a particular viewpoint, not a self-evident truth. Virtue sees morality as primarily residing in the character of people, deontology as it primarily residing in actions, consequential ethics as it primarily residing in consequences.

And all of them derive their values from an observation of impacting others.

On Virtue: What makes a character trait a virtue over a vice?

On Deontology: What makes an action inherently wrong?

On Consequentialism: Why is a specific outcome labelled good over bad?

The answers to all of the above can be similar. I invite you to give a credible system of morality that is entirely apathetic to the concerns of others.

 

[ebia]

And all of them derive their values from an observation of impacting others.

On Virtue: What makes a character trait a virtue over a vice?

On Deontology: What makes an action inherently wrong?

On Consequentialism: Why is a specific outcome labelled good over bad?

The answers to all of the above can be similar. I invite you to give a credible system of morality that is entirely apathetic to the concerns of others.

F
The whole point is that they don't all work back from consequences, that's why they differ. . In virtue ethics a virtue is just that: actions derive their morality from virtues, not from consequences. An action is morally good if it is what a virtuous person would do in that situation.
In deontology actions simpy are right or wrong.

We wouldn't have more than 2000 years of deep moral philisophy if it all boiled down to consequentialism.


Empathy can play a part in each, but its a different part.

 

[ebia]

So I'm still looking for detail of how you get from "empathy and reason" to moral decision so we can see where the axioms are and therefore whether its fundamentally any different from having "because God said so" somewhere in the process.

In virtue ethics the virtues have to come from somewhere.
In deontology the rules have to come from somewhere.
In consequentialism the measures of good and the formulae for comparison have to come from somewhere.


"Empathy" is not a sufficient answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Empathy gives you an insight into how others are impacted by things.

That is not quite accurate. I can see someone weeping and not know why they are weeping, but I will still be able to know that they are experiencing sadness. We use reason to determine how our actions will impact others. When we try to figure out if we are serving justice or injustice we are using reason.

How do you get from there to deciding on the morality of something? Does morality even exist in an action? If you're going to make large claims about another ethical approach it's only reasonable to put yours on the table to see how it measures up

Morality exists in deciding which actions you should or should not take. Those decisions are based on your ability to predict, through reason, the impact that your actions will have on others. You already know what causes pain and suffering for yourself, so you can use reason to extend that to other people knowing that, through empathy, they have the same emotions that you do.

Morality is NOT determined by "because __fill in blank___ said so". That is not morality because you are not making decisions of what you ought or ought not to do using reason and empathy. You are simply following instructions as if you were a computer.

Think about it. When you are trying to teach children morality how often do you say "How would you feel if someone did that to you?". Quite a few times. That is the basis of morality.

Of course, the practice of morality itself is very complicated. However, there are many things in our day to day lives that are very complex, but they operate by very simple rules. Morality is no different. Morality is an emergent property of empathy and reason.

 

[Skavau]

F
The whole point is that they don't all work back from consequences, that's why they differ. .

Yes, I know this.

In virtue ethics a virtue is just that: actions derive their morality from virtues, not from consequences.

Right, so someone who subscribes to a form of virtue ethics must ask themselves at some point:

How does one distinguish between a virtue and a vice? What makes this particular character trait a virtue?

In deontology actions simpy are right or wrong.

So a deontologist would ask themselves at some point:

Why is this action right and not wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

So I'm still looking for detail of how you get from "empathy and reason" to moral decision so we can see where the axioms are and therefore whether its fundamentally any different from having "because God said so" somewhere in the process.

P1. You experience emotional distress and pain.
P2. You can determine what causes that distress and pain.
P3. You can determine that others experience emotional distress and pain.
P4. You can determine which of your actions will result in emotional distress and pain in others.
Conclusion: Purposefully commiting actions that cause pain in others is wrong because you would choose to avoid that same distress and pain.

"Empathy" is not a sufficient answer.

Why not?

 

[ebia]

That is not quite accurate. I can see someone weeping and not know why they are weeping, but I will still be able to know that they are experiencing sadness.

That's part of what I meant by "an insight into.."

We use reason to determine how our actions will impact others. When we try to figure out if we are serving justice or injustice we are using reason.

Too vague

Morality exists in deciding which actions you should or should not take. Those decisions are based on your ability to predict, through reason, the impact that your actions will have on others.

Consequentialism. That's one view. But it still begs as many questions as it answers:
Why pick that view?
How do you measure different forms of good and ill?
How do you compare different sorts of impacts on different people/groups of people?
How do you compare a large impact on one person to small impacts on a large number?

You already know what causes pain and suffering for yourself, so you can use reason to extend that to other people knowing that, through empathy, they have the same emotions that you do.

Morality is NOT determined by "because __fill in blank___ said so". That is not morality because you are not making decisions of what you ought or ought not to do using reason and empathy. You are simply following instructions as if you were a computer.

Think about it. When you are trying to teach children morality how often do you say "How would you feel if someone did that to you?". Quite a few times. That is the basis of morality.

Of course, the practice of morality itself is very complicated. However, there are many things in our day to day lives that are very complex, but they operate by very simple rules. Morality is no different. Morality is an emergent property of empathy and reason.

Empathy being involved in most people's morality does not imply that it always operates in the same way. 2. Most people don't have a coherent ethical framework; on questioning nearly everyone will throw up exceptions. Appealing to mass behaviour amounts to "because our culture says so". And what different cultures say varies enormously, particularly as to how individuals compare to the community.

 

[Skavau]

"Because our culture says so" is also not a moral argument.

 

[ebia]

"Because our culture says so" is also not a moral argument.

But it's there unsaid in everybody's moral thinking just as much as "because God said so" is. It's just left unrecognised most of the time.

What I'm pointing out is that functionally there isn't any difference between the theist and the non-theist except that the theist is more aware and honest about the external factors and axioms.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's part of what I meant by "an insight into.."

Correct, empathy is just one part of what you meant. The other part is reason.

Too vague

Since we are talking about morality in general it is necessarily vague.

Consequentialism. That's one view. But it still begs as many questions as it answers:
Why pick that view?

Because it is based on the objective foundation of shared empathy. An objective system has the advantage of being non-arbitrary and based on something that a large group of people have access to, namely their ability to use empathy and reason to guage how their actions will impact others.

[quoteHow do you measure different forms of good and ill?[/quote]

By the emotional impact that those same actions would have on you.

How do you compare different sorts of impacts on different people/groups of people?

By making them not different through the use of empathy.

How do you compare a large impact on one person to small impacts on a large number?

By putting yourself in both positions and guaging the impact it would have on you.

Empathy being involved in most people's morality does not imply that it always operates in the same way.

Correct. There are those who are incapable of using empathy and do not understand the impact of their actions. We usually describe these people as insane. We do not punish them the same way as we do those who are able to use empathy in the way that most people use it. This is another example of how empathy and reason form the basis of morality and justice.

2. Most people don't have a coherent ethical framework; on questioning nearly everyone will throw up exceptions. Appealing to mass behaviour amounts to "because our culture says so". And what different cultures say varies enormously, particularly as to how individuals compare to the community.

I think most people do have a coherent ethical framework even if they can not describe it coherently at the drop of a hat. I think they innately understand how their actions cause pain in others. It takes some work to figure out what those innate qualities are, and ferret out the foundations of how morality works.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it's there unsaid in everybody's moral thinking just as much as "because God said so" is. It's just left unrecognised most of the time.

No it isn't. You see the command, and then you ask yourself it following that command is a moral or not. We don't determine our morality by what a culture is, but by how a culture ought to be.

What I'm pointing out is that functionally there isn't any difference between the theist and the non-theist except that the theist is more aware and honest about the external factors and axioms.

Name a non-theist that bases their morality on "because God says so".

 

[Skavau]

But it's there unsaid in everybody's moral thinking just as much as "because God said so" is. It's just left unrecognised most of the time.

So it might be (it isn't in my moral thought).

Doesn't make it moral.

What I'm pointing out is that functionally there isn't any difference between the theist and the non-theist except that the theist is more aware and honest about the external factors and axioms.

What?

You're pointing this out are you?

What's your argument for it?

 

[ebia]

Correct, empathy is just one part of what you meant. The other part is reason.

Since we are talking about morality in general it is necessarily vague.

General is not the same as vague

Because it is based on the objective foundation of shared empathy.

Define objective.

How do you measure different forms of good and ill?

By the emotional impact that those same actions would have on you.

By making them not different through the use of empathy.

By putting yourself in both positions and guaging the impact it would have on you.

That's not sufficient. In consequentialism one needs to be able to compare the good/ill produced by different actions on different people. "This will produce some good/ill" is not suffient to make choices". How does one compare the impact this action will have on this individual compared to other individuals and the communities, compared with alternative choices? How does one chose the ill of this choice verses the different ill on different people/communities of that choice? How does one prioritise ill verses good? How does one prioritise individuals verses communities?

Correct. There are those who are incapable of using empathy and do not understand the impact of their actions. We usually describe these people as insane. We do not punish them the same way as we do those who are able to use empathy in the way that most people use it. This is another example of how empathy and reason form the basis of morality and justice.

I think most people do have a coherent ethical framework even if they can not describe it coherently at the drop of a hat. I think they innately understand how their action cause pain in others. It takes some work to figure out what those innate qualities are, and ferret out the foundations of how morality works.

Experience of discussions ferreting it out suggests that it always turns out to be incoherent.

 

[ebia]

So it might be (it isn't in my moral thought).

I suggest that it unavoidably is, but that you have not recognised it.

How do you prioritise individuals verses community, for instance?