Tweet
Okay, I've gotten into trouble with this before (provoked a flamewar and then some), but I didn't phrase it at all diplomatically. So let's try again. But first, I'd like to make a few requests:
*Please, no barbs about pink unicorns. They aren't relevant to the subject at hand, I've heard them plenty of times before, and there are other posts for that.
*I am sincerely curious about this, I'm not trying to pick a fight or mock atheists.
*I do not intend to argue for the existence of God from the difficulty of nontheistic ethics. I agree that would be fallacious.
*If you want to get into a discussion of the merits of theistic ethics (i.e., "you only do it from fear of hell"), please start your own thread. Or at least wait a while.
*Fellow "religionists" on 'Poly, PLEASE don't join the fray, at least not at first. This subject is likely to turn into a flamewar as it is.
With that said, I'm taking Ethics this semester, and I'm increasingly puzzled by the possibility of secular humanism or other forms of non-theological ethics. The examples I have heard cited as precedents for it all fall through; Kant's system has serious problems (in addition to basically just replacing the word "God" with "categorical imperative" and leaving the rest unchanged), and John Stuart Mill's brand of Utilitarianism has one serious hole, which he plugged in his original book with some vague statements about proper upbringing and nobility of the human soul. Sidgwick challenged it as an intuitive leap from the individual to the universal good, or some such. Unfortunately, Sidgwick's solution to it, the assertion that, for some reason, human beings have an intuitive inclination to the greater good, appears to be little different from religious faith. You don't know why you should act a certain way, you just hope or assume there's a good reason and follow through.
That's the big problem I have with nontheistic morality. Moral behavior is indeed best for humanity as a whole, but I can see no reason for individuals to act in the interest of their whole species rather than themselves. It sounds good because of ingrained cultural prejudices, but if you eliminate those it makes no sense. Notable counterarguments I've encountered include:
*Moral behavior ensures a better world for our children to live in. Supposing I have no children, is morality irrelevant? What about moral decisions which affect only faraway people and countries, and are unlikely to harm me or my descendants any time soon, e.g., old colonialism, which ruined plenty of foreign cultures for centuries while making European powers filthy rich? And what about nepotism? If I screw people over to favor my family, everyone I have personal cause to care about is better for it, provided I get away with it. My distant descendants might suffer repercussions, but am I to do things for the sake of people who don't exist yet, and who I will never meet?
*Morality is a good survival strategy, in Darwinian terms. Except it isn't, most of the time. Morality as most of us think of it includes some component of altruism, which is by definition NOT evolutionary beneficial. Altruism sacrifices your own interests without hope of return. It's a powerful human instinct and I think it's admirable, but from a survival aspect it's not too useful. Look at abolitionism in 19th-century America. What kind of crazy person is willing to risk violence and alienation for the sake of a powerless element of society?
*It's important to listen to emotion, in addition to reason. But why, and which emotions? There are plenty of impulses other than the conscience which may act contrary to it, so why does the conscience get special treatment? If you bite the bullet and say "because I just wouldn't feel right otherwise," how is that distinct from, say, pure hedonists, who listen to a different set of impulses?
*Please, no barbs about pink unicorns. They aren't relevant to the subject at hand, I've heard them plenty of times before, and there are other posts for that.
*I am sincerely curious about this, I'm not trying to pick a fight or mock atheists.
*I do not intend to argue for the existence of God from the difficulty of nontheistic ethics. I agree that would be fallacious.
*If you want to get into a discussion of the merits of theistic ethics (i.e., "you only do it from fear of hell"), please start your own thread. Or at least wait a while.
*Fellow "religionists" on 'Poly, PLEASE don't join the fray, at least not at first. This subject is likely to turn into a flamewar as it is.
With that said, I'm taking Ethics this semester, and I'm increasingly puzzled by the possibility of secular humanism or other forms of non-theological ethics. The examples I have heard cited as precedents for it all fall through; Kant's system has serious problems (in addition to basically just replacing the word "God" with "categorical imperative" and leaving the rest unchanged), and John Stuart Mill's brand of Utilitarianism has one serious hole, which he plugged in his original book with some vague statements about proper upbringing and nobility of the human soul. Sidgwick challenged it as an intuitive leap from the individual to the universal good, or some such. Unfortunately, Sidgwick's solution to it, the assertion that, for some reason, human beings have an intuitive inclination to the greater good, appears to be little different from religious faith. You don't know why you should act a certain way, you just hope or assume there's a good reason and follow through.
That's the big problem I have with nontheistic morality. Moral behavior is indeed best for humanity as a whole, but I can see no reason for individuals to act in the interest of their whole species rather than themselves. It sounds good because of ingrained cultural prejudices, but if you eliminate those it makes no sense. Notable counterarguments I've encountered include:
*Moral behavior ensures a better world for our children to live in. Supposing I have no children, is morality irrelevant? What about moral decisions which affect only faraway people and countries, and are unlikely to harm me or my descendants any time soon, e.g., old colonialism, which ruined plenty of foreign cultures for centuries while making European powers filthy rich? And what about nepotism? If I screw people over to favor my family, everyone I have personal cause to care about is better for it, provided I get away with it. My distant descendants might suffer repercussions, but am I to do things for the sake of people who don't exist yet, and who I will never meet?
*Morality is a good survival strategy, in Darwinian terms. Except it isn't, most of the time. Morality as most of us think of it includes some component of altruism, which is by definition NOT evolutionary beneficial. Altruism sacrifices your own interests without hope of return. It's a powerful human instinct and I think it's admirable, but from a survival aspect it's not too useful. Look at abolitionism in 19th-century America. What kind of crazy person is willing to risk violence and alienation for the sake of a powerless element of society?
*It's important to listen to emotion, in addition to reason. But why, and which emotions? There are plenty of impulses other than the conscience which may act contrary to it, so why does the conscience get special treatment? If you bite the bullet and say "because I just wouldn't feel right otherwise," how is that distinct from, say, pure hedonists, who listen to a different set of impulses?
Comment