Atheism - Shadows of Doubt

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
I believe I do mean the first. And why don't you buy it? Do you know of a culture wherein generosity and care for others without thought for personal benefit is despised? Or where the idea of not acting like a jerk even when you could get away with it is not supported?

It's a common view without doubt, but also the opposite view that "the end justifies the means" is not that uncommon (it may not be "advertised" as good, but it's still used, esp. when we look on those which act immorally). But aside from that my infidelism was mainly about the root of this impulse, and if it's generally "just there".

I read this as you saying that social utility is not the end of morality, just a reason why morality came about. If that's so, I'd like to hear what you think the end of morality actually is.

Hm, I'd say the reason points to the end. I can't express it better. IMO morality is there to solve certain problems in human societies, for example to stabilize a society. I know that noone does have to agree to that, but I think you can hardly ignore the practical (historical) development. You can easily say "Why should I - the individuum - care about stability (instead of maybe my own good above all else)?" But the theoretical argument loses much when you look into the real world - people did realize again and again that some social order and some sort of norms etc. helping it isn't too bad.

Well, for today it's enough

[Elok]

If you insist...

Originally posted by Tassi
This contention rests on me valuing my own status in the future, which I need not value.
If I do not, then it is not rational for me to value educating children for this reason.

That assumes that I value a say in how things are run.
If I do not, then it isn't rational for me to value democracy for this reason.

That assumes that I value being the despot.
If I do not, then....

But if I'm not a believer, or if I do not value being closer to the divine....

See how, when I take out your value system, your statement then becomes false or irrational? Can you give me an "actual reason" as to why I should value myself? Or my say in things? Or the divine?
Probably not. Those values are just as arbitrary as all other values.

But I'm not discussing all other values, am I? No, I'm discussing moral values. Though, as seen below (where I also address these "points," you don't seem to see any difference.

Indeed! Except that gratification of ones moral system is a personal benefit. Hence, if I value (for instance) the existence of my children, then I can rationally sacrifice myself and remove my ability to make moral determinations or to enjoy things or whatnot because I take gratification in actualising this value.
If I value pain, then I can rationally torture myself.
Etc etc...The personal benefit comes in that I am fulfilling a value.

No, you presumptively save your children towards the end of saving your children, to which the feeling of gratification is attendant. Much like the urge to pee or to have sex has the end of eliminating waste or reproducing, in the long run. True, sex is largely done for pleasure (hence birth control), but I'm assuming we're placing morality on a different level from something you do purely for fun. And if you value pain, you're mentally unwell.

Hence yes, the statement is literally nonsensical. Which also makes the statement "People don't do things that don't benefit them" a truism. So what? The statement can never be false no matter what action a person takes, hence it's somewhat meaningless to this discussion.

Er, no. Hence it is a consistent support for my argument. It's the foundation I've been resting it on the whole bloody time. I don't know what you're talking about, TBH.

Except that you do the exact same thing. Except instead of holding your fellow man and his quality of life to be of value, you instead hold that your own gratification and happiness is of highest value. It's no different than any other system of morality.

But there is no basic reason to hold your fellow man and his quality of life to be of value, any more than there is a basic reason to hold a rock or a tree to be of intrinsic value. Whereas there is a reason to hold oneself to be of value (it's all you've got). That's my whole point.

I think the misunderstanding occurs because you seem to think that amorality equals selfishness. If I am a person without morals at all, then I will act in a manner to maximise my own benefit. But this itself is a value and a moral statement - I'm saying it is DESIRED that I act to maximise my own benefit and that it is OKAY to act in such a manner. It is a moral system not dissimilar to any other moral system.

No, not every "should" statement is moral. "I should hurry if I want to catch the 11:00 train" is not a moral statement. "Should" is only a moral statement when it is contingent on morality, as in "I should help that homeless guy, it's the right thing to do." And amorality could very well have you helping the homeless man anyway, just for the reason of "I should help that guy, then he'll help me in return." Or, "I should help that guy, it'll impress women." Note that amoral and immoral are two different things. Amoral behavior can coincide with moral behavior, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Ultimately, though, there are no "actual" reasons to value myself. There are no "actual" reasons to value my children. There are no "actual" reasons to value anything whatsoever. Our values are not based on reason, since reason *has to have a value to work off of*. They are not based on logic, because logic *checks for consistency, and hence has to have material to check*. Our intrinsic values, our highest values, are outside of these systems.

Now, sure, humans have certain biological and psychological urges and compulsions to value various things. Humans have a very strong impulse toward valuing themselves, and it makes sense: An animal that doesn't value itself at least somewhat highly is likely to not survive But as to whether this belief is rational or not is a literally absurd question.

Therefore, your attempts to "rationalise" them, to give us an "actual reason" to value something, are pointless and unnecessary. You can invent whatever gods you please to try to make you more comfortable with your moral system, but you are not doing anything fundamentally different than what I do when I make moral determinations about the world. Its just that you aren't comfortable with the idea that your morals or values are not rational, because you think that they must have a truth value in order for you to act, when this is not the case.

Aaaand here's where we get terminally PoMo. OMG! You're right! But if you're going to take such a view of things, there's no point in EVER ARGUING ABOUT ANYTHING, because nothing can be assumed as true to begin with. One plus one does not equal two, because we have not allowed for the assumption that there is such a number as one, or even that numbers exist. If you do not think self-preservation is worthy of a priori status, feel free to kill yourself. I will not impose my value system on yours. Especially since it'll shut you up if you do, allowing me to argue with people who aren't talking like they're from Bizarro World.

I suppose it may "feel silly", but it is perhaps correct to simply "leave it at that".

So I "should" leave it at that? Ooh, should means a moral judgment, you can't do that, I'll tell teacher!

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
It's a common view without doubt, but also the opposite view that "the end justifies the means" is not that uncommon (it may not be "advertised" as good, but it's still used, esp. when we look on those which act immorally). But aside from that my infidelism was mainly about the root of this impulse, and if it's generally "just there".

When I hear "the end justifies the means," I think of a subset of this same moral inclination, one that says stuff like "it's better to kill a million people; the world is overcrowded, so it'll save a lot of suffering in the long run if I do." It can be used to convince yourself to do something that you feel in your heart is immoral, but it's a subversion, not a separate value. The phrase TEJTM doesn't mean anything unless you've already decided on the nature of ends to be achieved. Or did you mean something else?

Hm, I'd say the reason points to the end. I can't express it better. IMO morality is there to solve certain problems in human societies, for example to stabilize a society. I know that noone does have to agree to that, but I think you can hardly ignore the practical (historical) development. You can easily say "Why should I - the individuum - care about stability (instead of maybe my own good above all else)?" But the theoretical argument loses much when you look into the real world - people did realize again and again that some social order and some sort of norms etc. helping it isn't too bad.

Well, for today it's enough

Yes, people did it, but to what end? I don't call cooperation for mutual survival morality. If that were so, a wolf-pack could be called moral. Cooperation and setting norms is just a different kind of self-interest found among social animals. I think of morality, at its core, as doing good for others with no promise of return, or doing good when you could benefit by doing bad. There's no reason to do that except that it "feels right," but if you do it only because it feels right you have no logical ground to stand on when arguing with a pederast who humps little boys because, to him, it "feels right." Is morality just a mental illness called normal because the majority of human beings have it?

[Aeson]

Morality is subjective. (As is "good" and "bad".) On an individual level morality operates based on what is in the apparent best interest (be it instinct, conscious, or subconscious reasoning) from the individual's perspective.

On a societal level morals are determined based off of the morals of the individuals that comprise the society. (Individuals who have passed on a moral legacy still "comprise" part of that society even.) How much any given individual's morals will impact the societal morals is based on the individual's standing within the society, their ability to persuade, impress their will on others, ect.

Of course the pressures based off of societal morals will affect the morals of the individuals that comprise the society. (And not necessarily to draw the individual to consensus with the society.) An individual has to consider the consequences of acting with/against the societal morals. This modifies the evaluations that lead to moral conclusions. It becomes a feedback loop, where individual's morals are influenced by societal morals, societal morals are influenced by individual morals, and so on and so forth.

There's no reason to do that except that it "feels right," but if you do it only because it feels right you have no logical ground to stand on when arguing with a pederast who humps little boys because, to him, it "feels right." Is morality just a mental illness called normal because the majority of human beings have it?

"It feels right" is somewhat misleading wording, but we can use it anyways.

You claim that there is no logical ground to stand on if you say "it feels right" is the basis of morality. Consistantly applying the logic would mean:

- the pederast is acting according to their individual morality

But you've forgotten the rest:

- the one arguing with the pederast is acting according to their individual morality.
- the boys (and/or their guardians) have their own individual morality too.
- the society which they all are a part of has it's own societal morality as well.

In the end, the argument is what is in the individual's best interests. Remember, it's a feedback loop. The individual's interests have to take into account the societal moral implications.

Now, in our society there are more (influential) people who's personal morality views sexual relationships with underage children as "it does not feel right". Because of this the societal morals are rather firmly that "it does not feel right" as well. Our society has taken measures to protect itself from those things which "do not feel right", as that is what has been determined to be in our collective best interests, and the pederast has to take into account those measures. So the decision is not simply whether sexually molesting a child "feels right", but also whether the potential consequences (prison, being a social pariah, ect.) "feels right".

If the pederast chooses to molest a child anyways, then he is acting with his personal morality, but against the societal morality (and any individual morality which supports it).

You may think this devalues morals, but I think it gives us the knowlege, and thus the opportunity, to help convince those who's personal morality would be detrimental to us, themselves, or society to take on more utilitarian morality. To go back to the hypothetical you offered... If the pederast is inhibited by societal pressure, even if it's seems "fake" to you because it's been forced, it may save the child from psychological damage, and society from all the ills that can stem from such. And that is important.

I think of morality, at its core, as doing good for others with no promise of return, or doing good when you could benefit by doing bad.

Without motivation there is no action. just because the motivation may not be "here and now", or that other people benefit from the action as well, does not make it any less of a self-serving action.

You have already explained in this thread your motivation for living a "moral" life. It is a subjective analysis you've done about wwhat is in your best interests. While your actions may be different than those with other subjective viewpoints (and of course may not be), the underlying mechanics are the same.

I do not believe in a God or an afterlife, or deny their possibility. I simply do not know, so do not take God or an afterlife into account when making my decisions, as they are unknown variables and thus useless to evaluate. Yet I live what could best be described as a wholesome Christian (in the NT sense) life.

I could go into more specific detail as to what justifications I have for the morals I live by, but as you've already mentioned, they probably won't make any sense to you. "Sense" is another subjective term, and anyways, it really doesn't matter that my morals make sense to you. They are my morals, and as such their justification only needs to make sense to me.

Just as it doesn't matter that your justifications for your morals probably don't make sense to me, they are still your justifications, your sense; and that's what matters when you are determining your morals.

[Elok]

Yes, of course I am being moral for the sake of self-interest in that sense. That's the crux of my argument. A supernatural end makes it work, while no other end I have heard will.

I'd like to remind you that I'm not trying to convert anyone. People will come to God on their own time, if at all. I only stepped into this thread to shoot down the usual smug atheist BS about all the silly irrational religious people. My counterexample, which I've been using for a good while now, was only to demonstrate a similar "irrationality" in atheism from a different perspective, and it snowballed from there as usual.

But I think I'll keep using it, all the same. If one person gets frustrated enough to feel discouraged from pulling that lame Pink Unicorn crap again, it'll be worth it. And if not, it's still good intellectual exercise.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, of course I am being moral for the sake of self-interest in that sense. That's the crux of my argument. A supernatural end makes it work, while no other end I have heard will.

Any accepted end can work given the proper circumstance and perspective. Even an irrational one. Which one works for you is not necessarily the one which works for someone else.

The one[s] that work for me are not based on the supernatural. (At least not anymore than I am, or this forum is.)

[Elok]

Yeah, and I understand that it works for you, even if it is baffling to me. Like I said, I'm just playing counter-schmuck here to balance things out. And I've calmed down, at least for the moment.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
Or did you mean something else?

Well, I descended into incoherent babbling during my last posts. Ignore it. I'm not used to serious debates anymore where we exchange long posts without any insults or godwinizations....

Fortunately Aeson made a more systematic post.