Should You Feel Guilty When You Break the Law? Implications of Theory of Evolution on Morality

[Elok]

Trying to predict exactly how the bulk of humanity would behave under any given circumstances is an order of magnitude more difficult than predicting the weather. I just hold to my personal beliefs:

1. If I had to choose between being either moral or rational, I'd choose the former;
2. It's not rational to be unswervingly moral without some supernatural component;
3. Non-absolute morality (e.g. do not steal unless the potential reward vastly outweighs the potential punishment) is rational but not what most (including I) would call truly moral behavior;
4. There is no objective evidence for or against the supernatural;
5. There is no particular reason why there would be objective evidence for the supernatural;
6. (half of Pascal's Wager) atheism, even if 100% correct, is not personally beneficial;
7. While the thought of being right is immensely satisfactory, the fact that this desire is not connected to personal benefit is itself irrational, so screw it;

Conclusion: Might as well believe.

From there to my particular set of beliefs is more complicated, and not the subject of the present thread, so we'll leave it out.

[KrazyHorse]

"to rape, torture, and kill a child is not 'wrong' per se, but it's certainly not my particular cup of tea," even though that's exactly what non-objective morality means

NO!

This is precisely NOT what non-objective morality means. It is not a taste that I simply choose not to engage in. It is a WRONG for which I make the decision for ALL OTHERS and which will prevent to the best of my ability.

You are conflating two different concepts:

1) "Universality" of morality (my moral justification in compelling others)
2) "Objectivity" of morality (my ability to prove from morality from first principles)

This is what I expressly guarded against. Please be more careful in your readings.

[KrazyHorse]

That said, I'm not convinced that any level of specificity makes morality more or less objective than otherwise, since it always boils down to the first principle of human welfare having intrinsic value, which is a subjective proposition. I do have no problem with compelling, deterring, and reacting to specific observable behaviors that I subjectively despise, because I happen to subjectively value human welfare, but that doesn't mean I have any rational basis to "judge" anyone in the usual sense of the term.

Dude, what rational basis do you have to believe in the scientific principle, or even more concretely the evidence of your senses or the fact that your memories represent things which happened?

That doesn't make the conclusions fully non-rational. There are axioms in ANY set of beliefs or conclusions. Universal human welfare is a much simpler and more robust axiom than is the presence of a God, revealed through whatever written or oral tradition the user follows, laying down a complex morality which differs greatly from tradition to tradition. That's no less rationalist than is the choice to believe that the Earth and other planets rotate the Sun rather than vice-versa because it reduces the complexity and apparent arbitrariness of the original theory.

[Arrian]

Muther****er! Apolyton ate my post.

Short version:

Another soft atheist type here. Generally, my thinking goes like this:

Morality is created by humans for humans. Human societies have had all sorts of moral codes over the years. Obviously we need them. Perhaps it's because we're not really rational beings.

My argument for a moral code (don't lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc) is based on an appeal to self-interest. There is *always* somebody bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, etc. than you are (or, in the extremely unlikely case that there isn't at this moment, there will be soon enough). Do you want to live in a society where they can have their way with you as they please? I don't. So we have morals, and we have laws (not exactly the same, of course, but there is correlation).

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Muther****er! Apolyton ate my post.

Short version:

Another soft atheist type here. Generally, my thinking goes like this:

Morality is created by humans for humans. Human societies have had all sorts of moral codes over the years. Obviously we need them. Perhaps it's because we're not really rational beings.

My argument for a moral code (don't lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc) is based on an appeal to self-interest. There is *always* somebody bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, etc. than you are (or, in the extremely unlikely case that there isn't at this moment, there will be soon enough). Do you want to live in a society where they can have their way with you as they please? I don't. So we have morals, and we have laws (not exactly the same, of course, but there is correlation).

-Arrian