Does morality work without a deity?

[Timsup2nothin]

Interesting. Let me ask you this, have you ever seen someone commit an "immoral" act and you confronted or judged them?

I confront people who threaten my peace and/or welfare. Whether their actions are acceptable in their morality is of no consequence to me, and I have no interest in imposing my morality on them. I merely protect myself.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point

I would argue that laws, because they are by definition enacted by those in power, are a reflection of what those in power value. Again, this doesn't deny the practical nature of those laws, but I think that however desirable having completely logical laws may be (and to be honest that point is debatable) people cannot avoid passing laws without value judgments forming the underlying assumptions or arguments behind them.

So in effect, the group morality, as reflected in the legal system, is the morality of those in power imposed on everyone else. In short, this group morality is 'might makes right'. You are correct, I will not agree to that. I live with the consequences of it, but I do not accept it.

Except that this statement contradicts itself. If morality is purely individual, then Ben has no authority to state whether anyone else's morality is "immoral", even if that person subscribes to a group morality where individuals have come together to agree on a moral code.

In other words, if morality is only up to the individual (and subjective), then immorality is also subjective. The group morality doesn't allow anyone to be any more or less immoral than they already allow themselves to be.

Correct. The group morality is a sham. It allows individuals to commit actions that they recognize as immoral by their own moral code, as if by accepting a group morality they are no longer subject to their own. What the Bens think of murder has no bearing on the Bobs, but when the Bobs all get together and decide that killing off the "immoral" Bens is necessary it is the Bobs whose morality suffers.

This is why I said it is always difficult dealing with Christians, because Christ understood this point. "Turn the other cheek" is a clear statement that in his opinion Bob would be better off by letting Ben kill him than by sacrificing his own morality. He then demonstrated that his commitment to his own morality did indeed extend that far. Christians want others to adopt Christ like morality, but band together in the shelter of their own group morality to avoid doing so themselves.

 

[warpus]

What I'm most interested in with this idea are the consequences of morality being genetic.

If you are truly interested in how human morality evolved, this might be a good starting point for some reading.

 

[Borachio]

It doesn't work well with a deity.

Let's take the decalogue:

1. I am the Lord thy God, thous shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land of the Lord.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
10 Thou shalt not covet stuff.

I was going to write something about all these. But now I come to it, I find I can't really be bothered. No one ever reads what I write anyway. So here's Hitchens on the subject instead.


Link to video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was going to write something about all these. But now I come to it, I find I can't really be bothered. No one ever reads what I write anyway. So here's Hitchens on the subject instead.

I read what you write, but I hardly ever watch video clips...

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of imposing a morality being fundamentally immoral. Nearly all morality is taught, and so all of it is imposed memetically (at the very least). It more matters if a wrong morality is being imposed. Teaching true morals would be fine ...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of imposing a morality being fundamentally immoral. Nearly all morality is taught, and so all of it is imposed memetically (at the very least). It more matters if a wrong morality is being imposed. Teaching true morals would be fine ...

And who gets to determine what morals are true?

Any imposed morality, at its core, is going to be built upon 'might makes right'.

You can accept the consequences of that without conceding your individual morality. I obey many laws based on a compliance vs consequences calculation rather than any consideration of the group morality, because there are no laws that require me to betray my own morality, or at least the circumstances have never been put to the test.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, you're always imposing your morality on others. It's just then a matter of relative force, and whether the 'mighty' cohort is 'more correct' than the unmighty cohort.

Additionally, there IS a final arbiter of whether the moral choices were correct, and that's the outcomes and consequences of moral choices. These decisions don't go into Chaos, but into a deterministic universe where decisions have consequences. So, whether or not you approve of your choices being 'judged', they ARE judged.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I disagree, but it may just be word play.

Well, you're always imposing your morality on others. It's just then a matter of relative force, and whether the 'mighty' cohort is 'more correct' than the unmighty cohort.

I don't impose my morality on anyone. That doesn't mean I don't put constraints on their actions. If someone wants to sock me in the head, I am not going to allow it, but I frankly do not care where they stand on the right and wrong of socking people in the head. It is also inaccurate to say that my reasons for not allowing it relate to my own views on the right and wrong of it. I mostly just don't like getting socked in the head.

Constraint on behavior is often just a matter of relative force, but that has nothing to do with the morality of anyone involved...unless the behavior of the "mighty" one is constrained by his own individual morality.

Additionally, there IS a final arbiter of whether the moral choices were correct, and that's the outcomes and consequences of moral choices. These decisions don't go into Chaos, but into a deterministic universe where decisions have consequences. So, whether or not you approve of your choices being 'judged', they ARE judged.

This seems to be circular logic to me. The "moral" choice is the choice that leads to a "better" outcome. But isn't morality the determining framework for judging what outcome is 'better'?

Option A leads to the enslavement of the human race by mutant turf beetles. That seems a bad outcome, so option A was not a moral choice...but wait, what if my morality favors the turf beetles? Then that is a good outcome and option A was the moral choice. Once again my subjective morality is the final arbiter for me.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah. I think the disconnect is that you're of the opinion that morality is some type of zero-sum game. There are a gazillion of zero-sum variants, for sure. But a morality can migrate towards and away from being euconsensual (i.e., a scenario where every participant would have agreed if they knew more).

You can impose euconsensual morality, if you just so happen to be correct in your prediction of future outcomes. But the future always decides on whether moral choices were correct.

 

[Borachio]

And who gets to determine what morals are true?

Any imposed morality, at its core, is going to be built upon 'might makes right'.

You can accept the consequences of that without conceding your individual morality. I obey many laws based on a compliance vs consequences calculation rather than any consideration of the group morality, because there are no laws that require me to betray my own morality, or at least the circumstances have never been put to the test.

I don't think it's necessary for a morality to be imposed on people. It could still be effective if the members of a particular group simply agree, through a process of negotiation and cooperation, what their morality is going to be. And this could be an on-going process. Difficulties might only arise when one group decides to stick to one set of rules while another has moved on.

I personally don't understand morality at all though, it has to be said. I've considered myself to be an amoral person for so long I think I've forgotten why. Was it because it's simply impossible, imo, to determine the ultimate consequences of our actions? I forget.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah. I think the disconnect is that you're of the opinion that morality is some type of zero-sum game. There are a gazillion of zero-sum variants, for sure. But a morality can migrate towards and away from being euconsensual (i.e., a scenario where every participant would have agreed if they knew more).

You can impose euconsensual morality, if you just so happen to be correct in your prediction of future outcomes. But the future always decides on whether moral choices were correct.

I don't really believe in scenarios where every participant would have agreed if only they had known enough, because I don't foresee any outcome that will ever be universally acknowledged as 'for the best', or even just good.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure, but you're a relativist. Previous conversation has led me to believe that you don't even believe that you can predict outcomes sufficient to make moral choices. I think your workaround is to deliberately minimize the amount of force you use on others when imposing your morality on them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, but you're a relativist. Previous conversation has led me to believe that you don't even believe that you can predict outcomes sufficient to make moral choices. I think your workaround is to deliberately minimize the amount of force you use on others when imposing your morality on them.

I do deliberately minimize my use of force. That is consistent with my morality, regardless of predicted outcome.

 

[Borachio]

But why do you use any force at all?

I just never seem to feel the need to. Nor do I ever appeal to the authorities to use it on my behalf.

Mind you, I don't live in a particularly rough area any more. But even why I did, I never had to use force against anyone in any way.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I influence behavior, commonly with force, or at least threat of force, and though my personal morality calls for minimizing use of force it doesn't preclude it. I'm comfortable and generally have a reported effect of making people feel safe, so I don't have any problem with it.

 

[Borachio]

Oh right? Is that so?

I like to think if I have any influence at all (and to be honest I probably don't, and that's maybe just as well) it's through my undoubted charm, personal charisma and exemplary behaviour.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh right? Is that so?

I like to think if I have any influence at all (and to be honest I probably don't, and that's maybe just as well) it's through my undoubted charm, personal charisma and exemplary behaviour.

I have a lot of experience with thuggery. We all dance with the one what brung us.

 

[Borachio]

Thuggees!

They're some of my favourite cultists! All hail to the great Kali!

Yes. No.

I never found it necessary to engage with the world like that (not that the world of the thuggee has anything to do with what we're talking about: I digressed). I'm a born pacifist, I guess. It's natural to me.

But I'm no pushover. (I fondly like to imagine.)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Morality in its purest form is just about preventing things that hurt society such as stealing and murder.

 

[Tahuti]

I read what you write, but I hardly ever watch video clips...

Seconded. I come to a forum to read stuff, not watch videos.