The source of moral obligation

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

 

[RDKirk]

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. Reaching him on a moral level would first require successfully treating the psychopathy.

I suspect this is true.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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, has any purchase on him. He has little to no concept of what it means to be morally obligated. Reaching him on a moral level would first require successfully treating the psychopathy.

Agreed. It seems even worse than that. Jeremy would ask: Why should I (Jeremy) "consider certain things"?

If potential facts are unimportant to Jeremy, he is extremely disconnected from reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RDKirk]

Ancient Greek philosophers didn't have a notion of moral obligation because they didn't have a law concept of ethics. There was virtue and there was vice. Virtue was what turned you toward your telos, or your purpose; vice was that which turned you away from it. The notion of a moral law is a Christian contribution.

I worked with a guy who would on his own initiative "do me a favor"--something I never asked him for--and then try to tell me I was obligated to repay him.

Sorry, no. "Obligation" is not imposed, a person obligates himself through voluntary contract with another person.

Now, I'd debate whether Christianity invented "moral law" (where was Hammurabi--who claimed Marduk gave him the law? Where was Moses?). The Roman Army had moral law. What you described was Platonist morality, which certainly wasn't all there was.

And most of Christianity today considers itself virtue-based rather than law-based and most Christians today would argue you based on that difference.

Personally, my morality is duty-based...but again, it's not an imposed duty but a voluntarily entered contract that creates the duty I've accepted.

 

[JGG]

Precisely.



I doubt Jeremy will find this troubling. Jeremy is ultimately responsible for protecting himself. He is not going to have faith that everyone else is so concerned about his best interest. Remember, one assents to the social contract ultimately out of self-interest anyway.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Game theory, the likely basis of our social contract, actually has more to do with family, offspring and the community. If I don't murder your kid, you have no reason to murder mine. Let's make a pact and work together.

None whatsoever! That is the point. And he won't because Jeremy is a consistent atheist.

Really? How do you figure?

He realizes that such notions are just social constructs, ultimately illusory and totally relative to the society he happens to find himself abiding in.

So, you're suggesting that someone who believes that these notions are something other than social constructs, will behave better or worse?

Bingo!

Nope.

And Jeremy could be a law enforcement officer himself. He could be the chief of police!

He could be in with the cops real well. Who knows.

Possibly. But you realize that the more you define this scenario, the more you demonstrate how the vast majority of our society does not fit into it?

And as far as leaving the protection of the contract, this does not bother him at all because:

1. He knows that all those who hold to a social contract theory do so ultimately out of self-interest.

Again, that does not seem to be true. If we had complete anarchy, no visible society, no laws or law-enforcement, and no justice system, then everybody just work toward their own self-interest at the expense of others. Like Jeremy. The difference is, with the social contract you're not just working toward your own self-interest, but in other people's as well. That's what makes a community or society, people working together for the collective good. Jeremy's actions only benefit himself, and do so at the expense of theirs. That's why most of us demand that people like this guy be removed from society.

This means that he knows that people are going to ultimately look out for themselves. So he is not going to hesitate to do what he determines is in his best interest. He is good at faking it. Whenever he can break the law, cheat, lie, steal, defraud and get away with it, he will because he has only his self interest at heart.

Sure. Most of us are rational people who realize that we need society to function well for our lives to function well. Jeremy is not. Most of us invest in our community and society. Jeremy does not. Most of us have empathy and sympathy toward others, and are prepared to "sacrifice" some of our interests in theirs. Jeremy has none of these things. Most of us enjoy our society, and place value on being a part of it. Jeremy does not. Luckily, not everybody is a sociopath, like Jeremy.

He has a few years to live before he dies and he is not going to waste them denying his own desires just to be faithful to some contract that he knows people break out of self interest all the time.

Again, we are a social species, and most of us would rather be part of a community or society than have an iPhone or two. It appears you don't understand that.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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

I take it you frown upon social contract theory.

 

[Davian]

It sounds to me like most atheist answers suggest they believe in "moral conditioning" rather than moral laws.

Social contract theory explains why societies have laws, but it doesn't explain whether an action is intrinsically moral or immoral.

I think you need to go read about social contract theory.

Social Contract Theory

It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit down on the front of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955... but that hardly makes her action immoral, since the law itself was unjust.

I think you need to read some history.

Rosa Parks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Davian]

I take it you frown upon social contract theory.

Only your misrepresentation of it. Have you no comment on post #23? Is it not accurate?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Jeremy should consider the following:

1) He isn't just a mass of desires. He is a rational being that is capable of judging his desires for their appropriateness to his life, and who has a need to follow long-term rational courses of action. Upon reflection, Jeremy may come to understand that actions have consequences, including internal consequences. By giving in to this desire, simply because it is a desire, he is weakening his ability to exercise the rational virtues that he needs to live a successful life.

2) By nature, he is a social being. By stealing from someone else, he is treating society as his enemy, even if other people are not currently aware of this (although there is no long-term guarantee of that!) If he looks to take advantage of others, he will prefer the company of his "soul mates" -- other parasites. It won't be obvious to him, but he will be cutting himself off from friendship with virtuous people who offer far better values than free iPads.

3) He will be robbing himself of self-respect. Deep down, he will understand that most other people create the values that they get in life (such as iPads earned through productive work), instead of acting like a parasite and living through the accomplishments of those others. The most basic "punishment" for being a thief is knowing that one is only a thief and that most people aren't.

I'll leave the list at that, though there are more considerations possible for Jeremy. He is putting himself down a dark road that is inconsistent with his good as a complete human individual. A teacher once told me that a student who cheats on exams is only cheating themselves out of an education. I think that there is truth to that. People who try to cheat at life only cheat themselves out of all of the best that life has to offer.

None of those answers make any reference to a moral obligation though, and that's what was being asked. Simply answering "nothing" would have been perfectly reasonable. I think was needs to be stated to underline the point the OP is making is that "obligation" implies a superior and an subordinate. Obligstion is something a superior places on a subordinate. So, if that superior isn't God, who or what is it? Simple question. If it isn't answered, what sense does it make to speak of "moral obligation" at all?

Sorry, no. "Obligation" is not imposed, a person obligates himself through voluntary contract with another person.

An obigation often isn't chosen, but it no less binding. Even with a voluntary contract, there's an authority that has the responsibilty of enforcing it.

Now, I'd debate whether Christianity invented "moral law" (where was Hammurabi--who claimed Marduk gave him the law? Where was Moses?). The Roman Army had moral law. What you described was Platonist morality, which certainly wasn't all there was.

There is a difference between a written legal code and moral law that transcends temporal political authority. I'll grant you that the Law of Moses became that in Judaism, but it was Christianity that introduced that concept to the wider world.

And most of Christianity today considers itself virtue-based rather than law-based and most Christians today would argue you based on that difference.

Historically, Christian morality has been both law-based and virtue based. Post-Enlightenment moral philosophy is, if anything, even weaker in its understanding of virtue than in its understanding of moral law, but I digress.

Have you no comment on post #23? Is it not accurate?

It's irrelevant. It doesn't address the question asked. It changes the subject to Jeremy's eternal destiny rather than his contemplated action. In other words, it's a red herring.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Let's see how this works if we have a "moral law giver" like that found in the bible.

Is Jeremy a believer?
Yes) - Go to heaven
No) - Burn.

What obligates Jeremy to deny himself and his own personal interest in his scenario?

I can keep asking this question if you want to keep throwing out red herrings.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think was needs to be stated to underline the point the OP is making is that "obligation" implies a superior and an subordinate. Obligstion is something a superior places on a subordinate.

I don't see how that is the case.

If I owe money, that may be an obligation, but it doesn't imply that I am subordinate to a superior. That individual could just be my friend, an equal, and in no position of authority over me whatsoever. That individual could even be a subordinate.

I have never heard the idea before that morality is some sort of relationship between superiors and subordinates. It doesn't seem necessary to the concept at all. Even in an anarchistic society, I could still have moral obligations. Moral obligations are internal, not merely the result of external forces, such as police.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

...
It's irrelevant. It doesn't address the question asked. It changes the subject to Jeremy's eternal destiny rather than his contemplated action. In other words, it's a red herring.

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 E Walker]

Agreed. It seems even worse than that. Jeremy would ask: Why should I (Jeremy) "consider certain things"?

If potential facts are unimportant to Jeremy, he is extremely disconnected from reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Claiming your views about right and wrong are factual does not make them factual anymore than me claiming my views about right and wrong are factual makes mine factual.

Propositions are not made factual/true by claiming they are factual/true.

If a Christian were to claim that God exists because it is a fact, you and Archaeopteryx would not hesitate to point out the deficiency in that line of reasoning.

 

[Davian]

What obligates Jeremy to deny himself and his own personal interest in his scenario?

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

Silver Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can keep asking this question if you want to keep throwing out red herrings.

Red herring? Tell me what your hypothetical "moral law giver" adds to your scenario.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Claiming your views about right and wrong are factual does not make them factual anymore than me claiming my views about right and wrong are factual makes mine factual.

I agree.

Do you doubt that human beings have reason, and not just desires? Or that they are social beings by nature? Or that they have a need for self-respect? I would think that those are uncontroversial facts about human nature.

You may be unconvinced by my reasoning, of course, but I think that I have answered your questions in a reasonable way. I have tried to explain to you: "where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

You and Jeremy are sitting in a Starbuck's. He sees the iPad you have been using to post replies on this forum. He wants it. You get up to go take a leak. Not thinking it would be taken while you are gone, you leave it on the table.

Jeremy knows he can calmly walk over and pick it up because the place is dead. The few people in there have their heads stuck up their smart phones and he knows he can get away without getting caught because he has done it hundreds of times.

Who or what obligates him to deny his desire to have your iPad and leave it right where it is instead of taking it?

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.

 

[RDKirk]

None of those answers make any reference to a moral obligation though, and that's what was being asked. Simply answering "nothing" would have been perfectly reasonable. I think was needs to be stated to underline the point the OP is making is that "obligation" implies a superior and an subordinate. Obligstion is something a superior places on a subordinate. So, if that superior isn't God, who or what is it? Simple question. If it isn't answered, what sense does it make to speak of "moral obligation" at all?



An obigation often isn't chosen, but it no less binding. Even with a voluntary contract, there's an authority that has the responsibilty of enforcing it.

Nope. A powerful entity may impose a task upon me, but that is not an moral obligation upon me. If you capture me by force of arms and enchain me, that does not place upon me a moral obligation to obey you.

I create the moral obligation upon myself when I voluntarily enter into a covenant relationship, or at the very least acquiesce to being in a covenant relationship.

This is true whether the covenant relationship is between men--such as enlistment into the military--or between man and God.

Nor do the covenant relationship and any corresponding obligations necessarily infer a superior/subordinate relationship. Two men of equal social status can easily enter a covenant relationship. Example: Abraham and Abimilech (Genesis 26:23–33).

There is a difference between a written legal code and moral law that transcends temporal political authority. I'll grant you that the Law of Moses became that in Judaism, but it was Christianity that introduced that concept to the wider world.

Historically, Christian morality has been both law-based and virtue based. Post-Enlightenment moral philosophy is, if anything, even weaker in its understanding of virtue than in its understanding of moral law, but I digress.

We can quibble on that for quite a while. I would argue that Christian morality is neither law-based nor virtue-based, but straightforward deontological...duty-based.

 

[RDKirk]

Nope. A powerful entity may impose a task upon me, but that is not an moral obligation upon me. If you capture me by force of arms and enchain me, that does not place upon me a moral obligation to obey you.

I create the moral obligation upon myself when I voluntarily enter into a covenant relationship, or at the very least acquiesce to being in a covenant relationship.

I would add that even if you do enslave me, my moral obligations remain those I voluntarily entered into.

For instance, if I am a soldier taken prisoner by the enemy, the laws and commands of my captors do not become moral obligations upon me. My obligations are still to the commander I made voluntary covenant with.

Now, my commander may have already ordered me, "If taken prisoner, obey their commands," but that obedience is still a matter of upholding the obligation I voluntarily entered into with my commander.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If I owe money, that may be an obligation, but it doesn't imply that I am subordinate to a superior.

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

I have never heard the idea before that morality is some sort of relationship between superiors and subordinates.

Morality may or may not be, but obligations are.

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. 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.

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

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

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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?