Intrinsic and/or Universal Morality

[Oneofthediaspora]

You confuse the question of why people do the right thing with what the right thing is.

Possibly true.
Feeling "good" about doing something is a very inaccurate indication that such an action is "right", so there's obviously more to it than that.
We'll come back to that.

So why does it feel "good" to do the right thing?
I'd argue that sometimes it actually doesn't, but that's by the by.

 

[TeddyKGB]

If there is no God, everything, from any interpretation, to any definition or moral is completely in existence because those who are in charge wish it to be so. If a group has the belief that their sole purpose was to kill, what is wrong with what they are doing? We may say their acts are illogical, but aren't all acts? What is it about theft or murder that makes them inherently wrong or right? Or is there nothing?

Invoking God does not automatically free your position of subjectivity. What about God-given morality would solve all the problems you pose?

Are the social inhibitions just a logical conclusion? If so what makes people turn against great odds to try to save others at great risk to themselves or maybe a larger group of people? Human "nature?"

There is a robust body of literature on evolutionary altruism. Perhaps this requires its own thread?

 

[God-free]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if an atheist is part of a group of some kind, then that group becomes the atheist's religion?

If an Atheist is part of a group of some kind that either tells the group the nature of the universe and its set-up and/or how one should live, the group is a religion. It is my conjecture that one does not even have to be aware of such a set up.

Sorry, but you're wrong. I don't intend to give you a lesson in cosmology or the scientific method. I do suggest that you should look them up. You'll see there is nothing religious about it. Re telling people how they should live: There are rules and laws in every society. Being a part of society (ie; a group), and following the rules and laws of society, doesn't mean society is a religion.

How many people believe that there is no God, a person must rely on his or herself for anything in life, the universe is unknowable and that one should be a "good person?" These are the beginning of a religion.

First of all, the universe is not unknowable. We just don't know everything about it... yet. As to the rest, 1) I don't know how many people don't believe in god(s). 2) Yes, people do rely on themselves and others for the whatevers in life. 3) To me, being a "good person" is beneficial to myself and others. None of this necessarily leads to religion.

Consider omnitheism... is it not a religion? There may not be nearly any structure in it, books or many communities... But they most likely share many major common indicators on the nature of the universe and humanity.

Omnitheism is the belief that all religions contain a core recognition of the same god. So, no, in and of itself, omnitheism is not a religion. Anyway, this is irrelevant to me since I have no belief in the existence of any god(s).

The definition of 'religion' that you've chosen to use doesn't go deep enough into what is generally thought of when discussing religion. As it is commonly used, 'religion' is best defined by the first 3, but mostly the 1st and 3rd, examples below.

You may define religion however you would like. The majority of the definitions of religion, to be completely impartial, say "Esp. Higher power" or something of the like. These would imply that religion can exist without the need for a higher power. If we are to use the connotation of words, why don't we all support the suggestion to use the "devil's dictionary?" Does anyone else love the irony of how much agreeing upon a religion is like agreeing upon morals? The only measure of what is correct or not we have without a God or higher power is what the majority believes.

You're free to use whatever definition of 'religion' that you'd like. However, when I disagree, or think you're being intellectually dishonest in your use of the word, I'm just as free to say so. Why do you think you need a "God or higher power", whose very existence cannot be confirmed, to dictate your morality to you?

"... ecular humanism is necessarily non-religious. This doesn't mean that secular humanists are anti-religious -- there is a difference between non-religion and anti-religion. Although secular humanists are certainly critical of religion in its vaious guises, the central point of being non-religious simply means that it has nothing to do with spiritual, religious, or ecclesiastical doctrines, beliefs, or power structures."

Secular humanism would necessarily like to consider itself non-religious and align itself with "science."

It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike". Secular humanism IS non-religious.

Here I would also like to mention the irony that if you were to hold your mouse up to many users of CC you would read "Faith: Atheist" or "Faith: Humanist."

There's nothing ironic here. It's a matter of available choices. No atheist defines atheism as "faith" in the religious sense of the word.

~Barbara

 

[cantata]

Possibly true.
Feeling "good" about doing something is a very inaccurate indication that such an action is "right", so there's obviously more to it than that.
We'll come back to that.

So why does it feel "good" to do the right thing?
I'd argue that sometimes it actually doesn't, but that's by the by.

I'm not suggesting that feeling good about doing something (or bad about not doing something) is a test of whether it is right or wrong.

I am just explaining to you why I believe people do "good" things, and by "good" I assume you mean apparently selfless things.

Human beings are equipped with a superego. It can be incredibly emotionally painful to disobey it egregiously. People are also equipped with empathy, and to ignore it can be agonising while to embrace it can be deeply pleasurable and satisfying. We also have the social consequences of our actions to consider. So when people do things which appear selfless - meaning that they lose some material wealth or suffer some physical pain, or even die - they are averting what they (usually subconsciously) regard to be a more serious emotional or social consequence, or even producing a more pleasurable emotional or social benefit.

An example: someone might buy soup to give to a homeless person because they feel empathy for the person ("They must be freezing!"), they would feel guilty if they didn't ("It's hardly any money, I can easily spare it..."), they will feel good if they do do it ("I'm a generous person"), and they will receive some social reward (such as thanks from the person, the appreciative smiles of passers by, &c.).

All this outweighs the loss of £2.50.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Human beings are equipped with a superego. It can be incredibly emotionally painful to disobey it egregiously. People are also equipped with empathy, and to ignore it can be agonising while to embrace it can be deeply pleasurable and satisfying.

Hello Cantata; I missed you yesterday

Now we're getting down to it!
I am guessing that you are an atheist (I don't really want to get bogged down in the definition of that for now) and so I am further assuming that any explanation of any natural phenomena by you would have to be a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. Am I right?

Now let's take the very first sentence of the quote above. Is there a naturalistic explanation for the super-ego? Do all people have it?
Could it not be argued that Freud (or his translator James Strachey) by coining this phrase, was just putting a new name to a very ancient concept which other (and in my opinion much better) thinkers had called simply "conscience"? Freud added some new stuff about fear of castration and whatnot but I personally think his addenda were unecessary. And complete bollocks ;-).

Let's consider empathy. Lots has been said regarding the naturalist or materialistic explanation of why we have empathy. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this.
I have major problems with the common biological explanations of altruism. Not because there are no good genetic arguments for it, but rather what these arguments tell us about the nature of empathy itself.

 

[cantata]

Hello Cantata; I missed you yesterday

Aw, thanks! Darned degree, distracting me from my true calling.

Now we're getting down to it!
I am guessing that you are an atheist (I don't really want to get bogged down in the definition of that for now) and so I am further assuming that any explanation of any natural phenomena by you would have to be a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. Am I right?

Close enough.

Now let's take the very first sentence of the quote above. Is there a naturalistic explanation for the super-ego? Do all people have it?
Could it not be argued that Freud (or his translator James Strachey) by coining this phrase, was just putting a new name to a very ancient concept which other (and in my opinion much better) thinkers had called simply "conscience"? Freud added some new stuff about fear of castration and whatnot but I personally think his addenda were unecessary. And complete bollocks ;-).

Yep, "conscious" is a fine word. But I think it's a set of psychological phenomena which are produced by our environment and our genes, and I also chose the word "superego" because I wanted to avoid some of the unnecessary baggage that comes with "conscience".

Let's consider empathy. Lots has been said regarding the naturalist or materialistic explanation of why we have empathy. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this.
I have major problems with the common biological explanations of altruism. Not because there are no good genetic arguments for it, but rather what these arguments tell us about the nature of empathy itself.

I'm not exceedingly well-read on this subject, which is why I phrased my comments in relatively immediate, everyday terms.

I think you need to be careful to distinguish between empathy and altruism. I don't really believe in the latter, I have to say.

 

[quatona]

All atheists believe, as I understand, that morality can be developed without the need for religion as part of their reject of religion.

No, the only thing all atheists have in common is lacking belief in any god concepts.

How are morals determined however, without a "religion?"

In the same way as with a religion, but without ascribing them to the god of your choice.

Isn't what is right or wrong totally dependent on our definitions and what the populous believes?

What an individual believes to be right or wrong (as well as what an individual believes his god to determine right or wrong) is dependent on this person´s definitions and values.

Let's use this definition of Religion from the Random House Unabridged dictionary:

No, let´s not use it.
But even if we would use it, atheism by this definition wouldn´t still be a religion. It is not a set of beliefs, but the lack of one particular belief.

Atheism is not well-defined,

Well, it is. The word describes the lack of belief in any god concepts.

but wouldn't, as a group, atheist agree on what is moral or immoral and what should be legal or illegal?

No, why would they?

As part of my religion murder is immoral. By what virtue would an atheist or group of atheists determine the same except through accepting it as true?

By the same virtue that a theist determines that the god of his choice - whom he beliefs to share his moral ideas - exists: his own opinion and convictions.
Personally, I tend to avoid operating with the term "truth" in these matters.

Isn't that what "truth" is?

Isn´t what what "truth" is?

Thank you for your ideas, your time, and most of all your respect toward others.

No problem, you´re welcome.

 

[Nooj]

I am guessing that you are an atheist (I don't really want to get bogged down in the definition of that for now) and so I am further assuming that any explanation of any natural phenomena by you would have to be a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. Am I right?

To be accurate, an atheist only lacks a belief in the existance of a God. That doesn't preclude the atheist from believing in the supernatural.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

OK, conscience (I assume you mean conscience as opposed to "conscious" which is what you wrote first).
You say that it can be incredibly emotionally painful to disobey it egregiously. If you are speaking from personal experience (which I assume you are to some extent) then this actually speaks volumes about you. You are obviously a good person.

My experience is slightly different. I have found (to my discredit) that the first time one disobeys one's conscience it *is* incredibly painful; but by doing so it makes all subsequent disobedience to conscience (particularly disobeying it in the same way) less painful. In fact the emotional discomfort seems inversely proportional to the number of times one performs the particular disobedience. I don't think I am the only one to have noticed this sad fact either.
(BTW, I am sure someone of your intellect can see echoes of the doctrine of the Fall in this observation and how it might have some relevance to the paper you wrote recently on "sin". My own experience in obseving this phenomenon actually pre-dated any serious contemplation of the Fall and when I did finally give it some thought my previous experience led me to accept this doctrine more readily).

After that pre-amble which is not completely irrelevant (honest!) we reach a point we reached earlier where we both agreed that a pleasent or unpleasent feeling attached to an action and its consequences are no good or accurate indication as to whether said action "should" be performed or not.
So we are left with a bit of a problem here. If there is no "should" then what informs our decision to perform an action? Presumably we are left with feelings.
Some people due to years of practice may feel no emotional pain at performing some act of cruelty or ommission whereas another person would baulk at such an act.
Is it meaningful to say that both people are "right"?
If so this has far-reaching implications regarding culpability and therefore possibly criminal justice. Or maybe merely "justice".

Doesn't Reason play a large role in determining whether we should perfom an action?
If so, the materialist/naturalist has a much bigger problem to deal with.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

To be accurate, an atheist only lacks a belief in the existance of a God. That doesn't preclude the atheist from believing in the supernatural.

Thank you so much for this.It's an interesting fact that I admit I have overlooked.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

All atheists believe, as I understand, that morality can be developed without the need for religion as part of their reject of religion. How are morals determined however, without a "religion?"

Moralities, like languages, (and religions, for that matter) are cultural products: not utterly random, but intersubjective. That's why you may find cultures where it's considered immoral to bare your teeth while laughing, or highly offensive to expose your naked nose to public view. Which leads us straight to the second question:

Isn't what is right or wrong totally dependent on our definitions and what the populous believes?

Absolutely! Yet, in spite of peculiarities like the ones mentioned above, most - but not all - moralities agree on most rules that make a peaceful and productive co-existence within a social group possible: don't steal from a clan-mate; don't kill your neighbour - in short, don't disrupt the internal coherence of the group you belong to. These "basics" are not an exclusively human trait, by the way. Pretty much every social species out there adheres to these principles, punishing transgressors in order to maintain peace within the group.

Atheism is not well-defined, but wouldn't, as a group, atheist agree on what is moral or immoral and what should be legal or illegal?

As part of my religion murder is immoral. By what virtue would an atheist or group of atheists determine the same except through accepting it as true? Isn't that what "truth" is?

Thank you for your ideas, your time, and most of all your respect toward others.

As others have pointed out, there are some pretty good reasons for not going about killing your neighbours - none of which involve appeals to a (supernatural) authority randomly decreeing that it is wrong to do so.