The source of moral obligation

[Freodin]

Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?

I apologize if that sounds like a childish "why?" question... but if there is a "moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties", then what is the meaning of these "moral duties"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you owe money, doesn't that give the creditor a legal claim on your resources?



Morality may or may not be, but obligations are.



Jeremy didn't say that; he said no moral law giver = no moral law. Ana the Ist and JGG, for example, have stated that they do not believe in moral obligations. Obviously then, they don't have to answer the question.



If the Silver Rule is a binding law, from what authority is it derived? Whose rule is it?

I haven't read the entire thread...but can you see the absurdity of the statement you made here? I said there aren't any moral obligations so I don't have to answer the question? It's almost as if you believe that since I don't think they exist...then they don't exist for me.

Is that what you think? Or do you think they exist apart from your mind as "something you feel obligated to do/not do"?

If you believe they just exist in the mind ...then the answer of where they come from isn't going to be the same for everyone. Whether it's some social evolution, some function of humanity, political, or spiritual...it doesn't really matter does it?

If you believe they exist apart from the mind...that someone/something creates these obligations... then demonstrate they exist.

 

[Davian]

That would only be the case if Jeremy had not added the "if there is no moral law giver" to the OP, and not simply asked "where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from".

The fallacy here is Jeremy's false dichotomy: no moral law giver = no morals.

...Jeremy didn't say that; he said no moral law giver = no moral law.

A distinction without a difference.

Moral Law: a general rule of right living; especially : such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason. Merriam-Webster

Note that "God" is an option, not a requirement, hence the fallacious requirement of his "law giver".

If the Silver Rule is a binding law, from what authority is it derived? Whose rule is it?

Did I say it was binding? Like a scientific "law", it is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is no more binding than: I don't punch you in the face when I disagree with you because I don't want to be punched in the face.

 

[Davian]

That would only be the case if Jeremy had not added the "if there is no moral law giver" to the OP, and not simply asked "where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from".

The fallacy here is Jeremy's false dichotomy: no moral law giver = no morals.

I said that?

Post #25:

"Jeremy is under no obligation to do anything or to refrain from doing anything except do as he determines is best for him."

"The point I was making is that no one or nothing obligates Jeremy to not take Mark's iPad if Jeremy determines it is in his best interest to take it."

What else might you be implying by this, other than this "Jeremy" may be a sociopath?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I apologize if that sounds like a childish "why?" question... but if there is a "moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties", then what is the meaning of these "moral duties"?

You replied with a question instead of trying to give an actual answer.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

We have evolved to be social beings and that means, getting along socially enhances the chance of survival.

So, people in general, want to be accepted in society and to do so, one has to be cognizant of how their actions impact others. We also all have, a conscious, that we have to live with in regards to our actions and this conscious impacts everything we do.

Where, in what you typed above, is the ontology of moral obligation explicated?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Asking "Can there be morailty without God?"

Who here has asked that?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You seem to be confusing "belief in deities" with a moral compass.

Why do you say that?

Yes, it's called a "dirty cop".

Or a clever cop.

Depends on who you ask, right?

Now, you seem to be equating "breaking the law" with a moral compass. That's not correct either.

Why do you say that?

You have the legalright to be an impolite, self-centered, egotistical, narcistic back stabber.

Social contract theory is a normative theory developed by Hobbes who himself was an advocate of psychological egoism.

So yea, calling someone egotistical who promotes social contract theory is essentially calling a spade a spade.

Congratulations.

Sounds like he is a psychopath.

Yea, now you are beginning to see what types of people would love to promote social contract theory.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I said there aren't any moral obligations so I don't have to answer the question?

You said you don't believe in moral obligations. Fair enough. I have nothing more to say to you about it. The question was not whether they exist, it's if they exist, where do they come from? I don't expect you to answer the question if you don't accept its premise.

A distinction without a difference.

Not at all. It's perfecty possible to do ethics without the concept of a moral law. The ancient Greeks did.

Moral Law: a general rule of right living; especially : such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason. Merriam-Webster

Note that "God" is an option, not a requirement, hence the fallacious requirement of his "law giver".

"God" may be an option; "law giver" is not. So the question is still there; if not God, then who or what? Merriam-Webster at least tries to give alternatives: "conscience", "man's moral nature" "natural justice as revealed to human reason". Do you want to go with one of those or do you have some other answer?

Did I say it was binding?

If it's not binding it's not an obligation.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It sounds like Jeremy is a psychopath, and not even religion could make him moral.

Jeremy is an atheist who agrees with Dawkins when he says, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

And...

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

And...

Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution.

And...

We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. ... This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living.

Jeremy also agrees with humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz when he says, "The Copernican and Darwinian revolutions have dethroned us from the conviction that we are the center of a universe that was created for us, and the belief that we are fundamentally different from all other species. Many refuse to accept the full implications of these discoveries."

Jeremy also is a fan of Thomas Hobbes, like several other atheists here who adhere to social contract theory. Davian is one such fellow. You see, Thomas Hobbes believed that for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing societal rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these rules. A kind of "I am going to do this or not do that because it is in my best interest" type of philosophy.

Jeremy understands that some people, like Christians, or atheists like Mark or Archaeopteryx, feel very strongly that certain actions like stealing people's iPads are really wrong and that if he disagrees, he will be labeled as psychopathic.

Jeremy laughs because these "atheists" do the very same thing they accuse Christians and other religious folk of doing. Jeremy realizes they are attempting to give weight to their views by saying that their views are true even if Jeremy thinks otherwise. He likens them to Christians who tell women they should not have abortions because abortions are really wrong even if the woman having it thinks it is right.

He likens them to Christians who tell homosexuals that homosexuality is wrong even if the homosexual thinks it is right.

If someone disagrees with Mark or Archaeopteryx, they are labeled as psychopathic by them the same way a Christian would label someone who disagreed with them as "prideful sinner".

Jeremy sees Mark and Arcaheopteryx as fundamentally no different than anyone else who affirms the existence of objective moral values and duties.

Jeremy sees them repeatedly affirming premise 2 of the moral argument for the existence of God which he finds amusing.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In regard to the case study, Jeremy's moral development has been severely limited by ongoing psychopathy. No moral idea, whether derived from religion or something else, would have any purchase on him. He has little to no concept of what it means to be morally obligated. The psychopathy needs to be successfully treated if Jeremy is to develop any sense of morality at all.

Jeremy once again finds this amusing.

When Archaeopteryx cannot convince Jeremy to adopt his particular set of views on what is right and wrong, good and bad, he dismisses him as psychopathic.

It seems you are implying, or rather arguing, that certain actions are self evidently obligatory and good, and that if a person cannot recognize this, then they are morally handicapped, or as you love to say, err...uhh "psychopathic".

It is almost as if you are suggesting, and pardon the phrase, God forbid, that some things are objectively wrong!

Could it be!!!??!!

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I haven't read the entire thread...but can you see the absurdity of the statement you made here? I said there aren't any moral obligations so I don't have to answer the question? It's almost as if you believe that since I don't think they exist...then they don't exist for me.

Is that what you think? Or do you think they exist apart from your mind as "something you feel obligated to do/not do"?

If you believe they just exist in the mind ...then the answer of where they come from isn't going to be the same for everyone. Whether it's some social evolution, some function of humanity, political, or spiritual...it doesn't really matter does it?

If you believe they exist apart from the mind...that someone/something creates these obligations... then demonstrate they exist.

You actually need to address Mark and Archaeopteryx and everyone else who labels my fictitious case study protagonist as psychopathic.

You see Mark and the others disagree with you Ana. They do affirm that we are under moral obligation to do and not do certain things.

So why do you not ask them to demonstrate their existence?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The Silver Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you".

To whom is Jeremy under obligation to to order his life according to that rule?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Rather that this carefully constructed straw-man, I look at it from a different angle.

Evolutionarily speaking, it was only yesterday that humans were living in small, nomadic groups, competing for resources with other groups and wild critters.

Within these small groups, social behaviour could be the difference between survival and extinction. I would expect that groups that tolerated individuals that hoarded or stole food from others, or terrorized others within the group, would be at a disadvantage to those groups that made sure that everyone the group was fed, the old (for their knowledge) and young were cared for, and kicked those disruptive individuals out on their butt (or more harsher penalties).

Then, times get tough.

"The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000 individuals when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change."

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The groups that didn't survive these times didn't get to be our ancestors. Social behaviour - what we call morality - was selected for as a survival trait.

The "social contract" within these surviving groups would eventually reach out to other groups with whom they found it advantageous to cooperate with.

The theft of an iPad left out on a counter does not invalidate the social contract.

Jeremy, who is now using Mark's iPad to type this reply......

Simply loves the conclusion you came to!!! It was a bit long-winded, but delicious nontheless!

Bravo

 

[quatona]

You see Mark and the others disagree with you Ana. They do affirm that we are under moral obligation to do and not do certain things.

So THAT was your point? That there are atheists who believe this?
Stop the presses!

So why do you not ask them to demonstrate their existence?

Whose existence?
Btw. I have been discussing with Mark about this on quite a few occasions.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm saying that mistreating others is not just at their expense, but at one's own as well.

Jeremy wants to know who you are that he should adopt your view of what mistreatment is?

Jeremy knows that you are a by-product of socio-biological evolutionary processes just like he is. He asks, why should your view be seen as worthy of adopting as opposed to his own if his own suits his self-interests just the way he wants it to?

He wants to know, very seriously.....are you God?

Because it is in his best interests.

Jeremy is astonished that you would presume to tell him what is in his own best interest!!!!!:o

He likens you to the hell-fire and brimstone preacher who commands all the wicked to repent and believe because it is in their best interest!!!!!

There is a natural human good that is preferable to the alternatives precisely because he is a human being.

Why should I adopt your view of what "is a natural human good"?

I don't assume anything. I regard the human good as real and beyond mere agreement or opinion. If he doesn't understand what that good is, then he lacks skill at living a human life. It's his loss.

My my my!

Why should I regard what you regard? Who are you to say that someone lacks skill at living a human life?

Are you God? Did you make humans? Did you instruct them in the way they should live?

Are you not an evolved primate, like I?

Then, sadly, he will act in ways that are self-destructive and he won't be doing what he is ethically obligated to do.

No, he will be doing the self-serving, egotistical, thing to do because he can and can get away with it and because no one else can legitimately pass judgment on him and because HE has determined that it is IN HIS best interest to do what he wants to do.

Mark telling Jeremy that his actions are self-destructive is like Jeremy telling Mark that his actions are self-destructive.

Weird huh?

I don't know what you mean by "pure self-interest". Perhaps you mean to ask me what if he intends to steal other people's iPads anyway? Then he will reap the consequences, both external and internal.

Indeed. He will have the free iPad with all of your personal information on it which he can sell on the black market or use for whatever purpose he sees fit. The internal consequence is the wonderful feeling of having once again used the system and used another homo sapien for his advantage.

We can't live on pure desire or instinct.

You can't. Jeremy can. He has been for over 60 years and is able to run 3 miles a day, do 200 pushups and can talk philosophy all day long with no sign of slowing down. His conscience is clear, and he has prepared a nice little nest egg and has money in the bank.

We, as human beings, need to understand the world in conceptual terms and to reason from our understanding in order to produce both material and psychological values and thereby find well-being as human beings. That's part of what makes us the species that we are. There is no substitute for this.

Jeremy agrees. There is no substitute for well being. All is well with him and his and he has attained this well being by lying, cheating, stealing and defrauding whenever he is sure he can get away with it.

Then he will be missing out on a longer, and probably better, life.

You cannot project onto Jeremy, your views and goals and aspirations. He has his own goals.

Yes, he is obligated, because it actually is in his best interests to do so.

Actually it is in Jeremy's best interest to ignore your efforts of converting him.

I don't care what his definition of success is.

With a sentence you have stated Jeremy's whole attitude towards your attempts at convincing him to adopt your views.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You actually need to address Mark and Archaeopteryx and everyone else who labels my fictitious case study protagonist as psychopathic.

You see Mark and the others disagree with you Ana. They do affirm that we are under moral obligation to do and not do certain things.

So why do you not ask them to demonstrate their existence?

Well it's your OP, isn't it?

Although I don't think I've had this discussion with everyone here, I've had a similar discussion with Mark. I understand his position, I disagree... but I understand it. Throughout the discussions akin to this one that I've seen him I can't recall him ever claiming any ability to "prove" the existence of any such moral obligations...I could be wrong on this, but I don't recall him ever making such a claim.

To me at least, the truth about morality is an uncomfortable one not far from the truth of god's non-existence. We'd like to think there are moral laws/obligations because it feels better that way. We don't like to think that perhaps in similar situations we'd act just as horribly as others have...we prefer to judge from the sidelines, so to speak. It's that judgement that allows us to look at others as morally "beneath" us, or even our moral betters (and therefore something to strive for)...losing that is a bit like losing a part of your identity.

I think every atheist who once believed understands that feeling...even though most of them now see themselves better for it knowing that what they lost when they stopped believing was something false anyway. It's a bit harder to convince someone to accept that their sense of morality isn't really any different. It's something so ingrained in you that it cannot simply be abandoned... but once understood for what it is you can see past it.

 

[Davian]

Not at all. It's perfecty possible to do ethics without the concept of a moral law. The ancient Greeks did.

Please detail how they are distinct.

"God" may be an option; "law giver" is not. So the question is still there; if not God, then who or what? Merriam-Webster at least tries to give alternatives: "conscience", "man's moral nature" "natural justice as revealed to human reason". Do you want to go with one of those or do you have some other answer?

"Man's moral nature", by all the evidence at hand, appears to be a product of evolution, of being a social animal. On what exactly are you going to hang Jeffery's "moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties" sign on in that circumstance?

If it's not binding it's not an obligation.

I note how you trimmed my response of my explanation of and in what manner it was binding.

 

[Davian]

To whom is Jeremy under obligation to to order his life according to that rule?

See post #3.

 

[Conscious Z]

I'm not sure why Jeremy keeps referring to himself as "Jeremy" instead of "I." Anyway, I think that people often overlook the very plausible non-cognitivist claim. Non-cognitivism essentially says that moral statements are expressions rather than propositions. When we say "Rape is bad!" what we're actually doing is something similar to "BOOO!" or "Yuck!" Expressions like "Boo!" or "Yuck!" are not true or false. They are merely expressing our sentiments on an issue, much like we might say "Yum!" when eating tasty food.

Evolution has produced in us some very strong sentiments, and the strongest are those that are tied to survival. Hence, we aren't as opposed to theft as we are murder.

To the topic of moral obligations: Moral obligations can clearly be stated at least as if-then conditionals. If you want to reduce suffering and maximize happiness, then you shouldn't kill innocent babies or p*ss in your neighbor's punch bowl. The difficulty comes in demonstrating a compelling obligation if one rejects the "if." If I don't share the goal of minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness, I probably won't be motivated by such a conditional. However, it might make sense to respond to such a person by saying "Well, you SHOULD share that goal, thus you should still avoid killing babies." Obviously, the question could further be pressed to "Why should I share that goal?" It has been argued in the literature before that, if two people don't share a certain number of foundational ethical beliefs, they can't have a moral disagreement. In most moral disagreements, what the two sides are essentially doing is arguing for conformity. For example, one might say something like "The reason you shouldn't have an abortion is that you wouldn't kill an infant baby, and this is the same thing!" Of course, if one doesn't agree that killing infant babies is wrong, or that causing suffering in general is wrong, there is little to which an opponent can point.

I say all of that to say that moral obligations probably only make sense to people who have already agreed upon some basic moral tenets. They can be very basic such as "It's not good to cause needless suffering." Once those "rules of the game" are in place, all sorts of moral obligations can be derived from those simple premises. However, such obligations might not be felt by someone who does not agree to those basic tenets.