Needing justification for morality

[Eudaimonist]

If there is no enforcer, then morals (in an atheist world being irrational) will succumb to more practical (and rational) actions that maximize profits - look at the wolves of wall street or corrupt men in power.

While I certainly wouldn't mind a raise at my job, I'm hardly a profit-maximizer. I wouldn't be the same person if I were. Money and power just aren't my top values in life, and the only enforcer is myself.

While he may do so at first to please these vestigial emotions, he will ultimately wander astray from these laws, supposedly realizing them to be only remnants of psychological evolution and shackles that keep him from true success.

True success in my eyes is a wise and ethical life. It involves reflection for the sake of self-knowledge, the development of creative talents for self-actualization, and the earning of my self-respect.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Senator Cheese]

Yes, all wolves of wall street and corrupt men are atheists.

At the risk of pulling a "no true scotsman": anyone who believes in a God that will give him eternal damnation for greed and self-centeredness will have a hard time scamming the system for that fifth mansion and beachhouse.

Well, who says morality is about laws, to begin with? Unless morality is arbitrary (as opposed to founded in reason) there is no need for an entity to command it.

I am sorry, I did not understand this.

Is it possible that you are projecting your desires (power, corruption, success...) on everyone?

The attraction to sin/temptation is rooted within everyone.
Nonetheless, it is very rational to seek success, power and assets - be it from a hedonistic or evolutionary standpoint. Provided, there's noone stopping you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nonetheless, it is very rational to seek success, power and assets - be it from a hedonistic or evolutionary standpoint.

What makes that rational?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Huntun]

Morality has to be one of the trickiest philosophical questions out there . All the major theories of normative ethics seem to have numerous problems and unanswered questions that allow skeptics to poke holes in them. This includes the theories I find most attractive too obviously.

 

[Huntun]

At the risk of pulling a "no true scotsman": anyone who believes in a God that will give him eternal damnation for greed and self-centeredness will have a hard time scamming the system for that fifth mansion and beachhouse.

I could see a Christian giving in to temptation just like any other person. There are also different theories of grace and divine forgiveness out there that could get the person off the hook for hell even if they did fall into the sin of greed. Where sin abounds grace abounds even greater.

 

[juvenissun]

Only because if you question it, you would believe that god would punish you for it. Which is something a tyrant, not a benign loving being, would do.

No. That is a view from one who knows very little about the Christian God.

God does not punish you. You forsake God and you suffer because God is not with you any more. God says: Do this, it is moral. You do not do it, so you suffer.

 

[juvenissun]

You had said that you can't justify genocide, and then proceed to say that "the reason for that particular genocide is perfectly sound", suggesting that you think that genocide (at least one particular example) is justified.

I detect a contradiction from you, and all within one post.


With genocide, the greatest act of evil. You are a genocide apologist. Yes, I got that.

I imagine that Nazi soldiers agreed with Hitler, figuring that surely Hitler would know how his orders were justified. Obedience and moral flexibility are identical. Obedience and moral integrity are opposites.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I do not need to reply this ignorant post. But, ...

The genocide case is: Ancient Israelites obeyed their God, 4000 years ago.
In my understanding, that was the only case justified. It is an example which illustrates what moral really is.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

One thing is painfully obvious now: you are morally bankrupt.

What makes this obvious to you?

 

[Chany]

I do not need to reply this ignorant post. But, ...

The genocide case is: Ancient Israelites obeyed their God, 4000 years ago.
In my understanding, that was the only case justified. It is an example which illustrates what moral really is.

The subjective opinion of a being?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You had said that you can't justify genocide, and then proceed to say that "the reason for that particular genocide is perfectly sound", suggesting that you think that genocide (at least one particular example) is justified.

I detect a contradiction from you, and all within one post.



With genocide, the greatest act of evil. You are a genocide apologist. Yes, I got that.

I imagine that Nazi soldiers agreed with Hitler, figuring that surely Hitler would know how his orders were justified. Obedience and moral flexibility are identical. Obedience and moral integrity are opposites.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark, you are aware that intentionality/motive is key in determining whether an act ordered by a moral agent is evil correct?

 

[seeingeyes]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

What's interesting too, is that this is backwards from how Jesus expressed it. He started with the good things man does, and then extended it "how much more so with God?"

God wasn't a prerequisite for understanding morality, morality was a prerequisite for understanding God.

Two cents.

 

[Chany]

Mark, you are aware that intentionality/motive is key in determining whether an act ordered by a moral agent is evil correct?

No, the motive of the agent has little to nothing to do with the morality of an action. The actual and real end consequences of an action are much more important. If I'm deranged and my motive is something like to save people, it doesn't matter if the action is completely detrimental to that purpose.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, the motive of the agent has little to nothing to do with the morality of an action. The actual and real end consequences of an action are much more important. If I'm deranged and my motive is something like to save people, it doesn't matter if the action is completely detrimental to that purpose.

Chany, two men each end the life of a child.

One of the men is a doctor who works in a pediatric ICU and has ordered that a child be taken off of life support because it is suffering and very ill.

The other man stabs a child to death because the child refused to have sex with him.

The actual end consequences of these men's actions is that in each case a child's life has been taken.

The MOTIVE that each man had in so doing determines whether the act is good (the first scenario) or evil (the second scenario).

 

[Chany]

Chany, two men each end the life of a child.

One of the men is a doctor who works in a pediatric ICU and has ordered that a child be taken off of life support because it is suffering and very ill.

The other man stabs a child to death because the child refused to have sex with him.

The actual end consequences of these men's actions is that in each case a child's life has been taken.

The MOTIVE that each man had in so doing determines whether the act is good (the first scenario) or evil (the second scenario).

The intended purpose of each act is different. Motivation plays a part of this intention, but ultimately the motivation is independent of the actual end consequences.

The morality of the same act is not dependent upon the motivation of the agent, but dependent upon the specifics of the situation.

The act is right in the first case because of the situations and specifics. Motivation plays a small part. Let's that everything about the first situation is the same, except the fact that the doctor is performing the action because he gets some bonus out of the child's death. The action itself is still moral, just one of the agents involved is acting for the wrong reasons. We could say the agent is immoral or there is an immoral motivation involved, but the action itself is still moral or immoral independent of this.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Morality is a virtue, and is it's own reward (is self-rewarding). No justification needed.

That's avoiding the actual issue. That's like saying doing good is good. The whole problem is that people assert entirely different ideas about what constitutes morality. So one must first operationalize the term and get clear about what is and is not morality and provide a good methodology by which to arrive at it. Surely that requires justification.

No. If God says so, do it.
Very simple.

Hurrrrr

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. That is a view from one who knows very little about the Christian God.

God does not punish you. You forsake God and you suffer because God is not with you any more. God says: Do this, it is moral. You do not do it, so you suffer.

What do you call the flood then, and the many cities god personally had destroyed such as Sodom and Gomorrah? Those cities didn't perish through in fighting or war, god blew them up.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mark, you are aware that intentionality/motive is key in determining whether an act ordered by a moral agent is evil correct?

No, I am not aware of that. I am aware of something quite different. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Hitler had "good intentions" for his killing. The Germans needed lebensraum, living space. One can certainly paint his actions as noble if one forgets that he was willing to commit acts of genocide in order to achieve his goals.

Actions aren't good simply because someone had good intentions. Intent is one element of determining the quality of someone's character, but it is not sufficient.

Plus, you have the omniscience problem. A non-omniscient person could perhaps be excused for not fully realizing the evil she is committing. An omniscient being has no excuse whatsoever.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Senator Cheese]

What makes that rational?

If there is no enforcer, then I would assume you don't believe in an objective morality either. That means, anything that you can arrange with your own conscience will be an adequate behavior. Noting that our own conscience is dynamic and can be altered (making us apathetic to some suffering or wrongdoing), and considering our conscience to be a mere evolutionary-emotional shackle that keeps us from unleashing our true potential, it would be rational to maximize profits while paying little attention to that irrational emotion.

In a world without God, I would argue, it is indifferent as to how you seek fulfillment - you might do it by constructing a set of rules ("personal" morals) fit to your own character/beliefs that you follow (and pat yourself on the back for doing so). Or, you might do it by scamming some poor shmuck, buying yourself an island in the Carribean and screwing some 16-year old virgin every other night.
If there is no God, why should one way be "better" than the other? After all, emotions are just emotions - controlling them to provide you with the maximum feeling of luck and happiness (fulfillment) should be the sole purpose of existence.

I know this may be a ridiculously stupid line of argumentation, but that's what I look back at my Atheist life at: you're going to die when you're 100 years old anyway, so why not enjoy life to the maximum and frick the consequences (and anyone else while you're at it)?

I could see a Christian giving in to temptation just like any other person. There are also different theories of grace and divine forgiveness out there that could get the person off the hook for hell even if they did fall into the sin of greed. Where sin abounds grace abounds even greater.

There's a difference in someone momentarily falling back into sin and repenting - and someone knowingly perpetrating immoral behavior because they do not believe in any negative consequence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If there is no enforcer, then I would assume you don't believe in an objective morality either.

On the contrary, if morality is objective, there is no need for an enforcer. It would simply be the case that one sort of action would be better than another.

I do believe that there is an objective aspect to morality. It's not that morality is itself objective (it's a cultural or conceptual construct) but rather the standard by which one may evaluate values for their goodness and desirability is objective.

That means, anything that you can arrange with your own conscience will be an adequate behavior. Noting that our own conscience is dynamic and can be altered (making us apathetic to some suffering or wrongdoing), and considering our conscience to be a mere evolutionary-emotional shackle that keeps us from unleashing our true potential, it would be rational to maximize profits while paying little attention to that irrational emotion.

This is not even close to my view. I don't think that conscience alone is sufficient to weigh the goodness of values. Conscience is merely a tool, albeit a useful one, but is only as good as its "programming" -- the moral ideas that one has adopted.

And I have no idea what you mean by "our true potential". Our true potential is wisdom and good character, not money, power, status, fame, etc.

In a world without God, I would argue, it is indifferent as to how you seek fulfillment

The "world" may be indifferent, but that does not mean that it doesn't matter to one's life how one seeks fulfillment.

If there is no God, why should one way be "better" than the other?

Because one is a human being with a nature that determines one's needs and highest potentials. It is possible to fail at being the best human being that one can be.

After all, emotions are just emotions - controlling them to provide you with the maximum feeling of luck and happiness (fulfillment) should be the sole purpose of existence.

Not my view. That is far too subjective a concept of happiness.

I know this may be a ridiculously stupid line of argumentation, but that's what I look back at my Atheist life at: you're going to die when you're 100 years old anyway, so why not enjoy life to the maximum and frick the consequences (and anyone else while you're at it)?

If that is what you truly believed as an atheist, you were clearly messed up, but you shouldn't project your personal failings onto others.


Okay, your argument seems to boil down to this: it is rational to achieve one's "true potential", this being traditionally "materialistic" values such as wealth and power, and morality only stands in the way, so avoid morality.

However, this begs the question of just what one's true potential is. If one's true potential includes other values, such as wisdom, then it isn't necessarily rational to be careless about morality. Morality may be a means to one's true potential, instead of a hindrance.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

What makes this obvious to you?

Oops. I'm terribly sorry. I replied to the wrong post. It was meant to be a reply to the post above yours.

There's something in your post I wanted to reply to as well though, I must have been distracted...

Just because you know that a person will do (x) if you give them (y) before you give them (y), it does not follow that you cause them to do (x) by giving them (y).

I agree in terms of causation.
However, it's incredibly irresponsible.

Let's fill in some blanks here...

Just because you know that a person will go on a killing spree if you give them a gun before you give them a gun, it does not follow that you cause them to go on a killing spree by giving them a gun.

Indeed, giving them a gun doesn't cause them to go on a killing spree. But if you KNOW that they WILL go on a killing spree when you give them a gun, then it's very irresponsible of you to do so.

Imagine this scenario: you sit in a bar and the dude next to you says "if I had a knife, I'ld cut the bartender to pieces" and you KNOW he means it. You then hand him a knife. What does this say about you?