Scientists and Atheists Should be Moral Absolutists

[hypnagogue]

Russ, you seem to be employing an evaluation of moral codes by reference to their social utility: If moral code X works, i.e. if X is empirically shown to be beneficial to society, then it is established to be 'true' (in some sense). This is the descriptive component of morality. But even though there exists a descriptive component, I have to agree with Tom that it's not really a moral code unless it also has a prescriptive component. In and of itself, observing that adherence to moral code X benefits society is really no different from observing any fact of nature. For instance, we could just as well observe that the Earth orbits the sun, and certainly there is no morality in that phenomenon one way or the other.

To transition from observation of facts to a system of morality requires an additional argument that I don't think you've yet made explicit. That additional argument would be something like this:

1. Moral code X benefits society;
2. Anything that benefits society, broadly speaking, is to be valued, is good;
3. We should strive to bring about goodness in the world;
4. Therefore, we should adhere to moral code X.

That's certainly a noble argument, and one we would be wise to pay credence to, for our own collective good. However, I think the nature of the argument invalidates any hope for establishing some system of morality as somehow describing objective facts about the world. Built into this argument is an implicit evaluation of goodness, an implicit value system. Values like these, I think, are clearly idiosyncratic creations in the minds of humans rather than some objective facet of nature.

Think of it this way: If someone were to systematically disagree with you about the goodness of those things you valued, what objective criterion could you turn to in order to settle the debate? Certainly you couldn't refer to social utility and so on, as that would be circular. I don't think you could objectively settle this debate any more than you could objectively settle a debate over whether broccoli tastes good or not. There is no fact of the matter as to whether broccoli is delicious or disgusting; its gustatory 'goodness' can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the domains of individual, subjective tastes. The same is true for all values in general, I think; it's just that it's much more difficult to find someone who thinks e.g. that pain and suffering is to be valued than it is to find someone who thinks broccoli does or doesn't taste good. We humans do seem to have a relatively stable and conserved set of core values built into us, which can create the illusion of universal, context-free, objective and absolute truth. But in the end, to me at least, it is still an illusion.

Just to be clear, btw: I think morality is to be valued and people should strive to act morally and so on; I just think there is no truly objective or absolute basis for this imperative. But nor do I think there needs to be one.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've mentioned this before and I think many of you have read it before so I'll try to summerize.
While there is no dictionary separation that I can find I personally define Morals and Ethics as two separate things. I define Morals as a religeous perscription taken on faith and Ethics as a logical deduction based on consequences.

In my opinion Ethics (as I define them) are relative and work on a case by case basis, although general guiding principles can be associated with broadly defined situations. To me Ethics would be the Atheist counterpart to the Morals of the religeous and it would seem only logical to me that scientists would base their actions more on these Ethics than Morals. Ofcourse I have no issue with scientists being religeous though.

Like Tom and Moonbear I'm having a bit of trouble discerning how you define "Moral Absolutism" vs "Moral Relativism". From what you have said it would seem to me as though your version of Morals is somewhat relative.

 

[Dawguard]

Like Tom and Moonbear I'm having a bit of trouble discerning how you define "Moral Absolutism" vs "Moral Relativism". From what you have said it would seem to me as though your version of Morals is somewhat relative.

I can't speak for Russ, but the reason that absolutism can appear somewhat relative is due to the fact that absolutists admit that their understanding of morals change. The distinction is actually simple, but easy to misinterpret. Slavery for example; it was once considered morally acceptable. However, further study and understanding of morals revealed it to be completely unacceptable. The morals didn't change, our knowledge of them did. Under relativism, slavery would have been OK so long as most people beleived it to be so. Under absolutism it is always wrong even if everyone accepts it. I hope this clarifies the question.

 

[hypnagogue]

Under relativism, slavery would have been OK so long as most people beleived it to be so.

I don't think this is quite right, or at least, it's not how I understand moral relativism. Moral relativism just holds that there is no ultimate, objective authority for evaluating moral codes. The statement that "slavery would be OK as long as most people believed it to be so" sounds like it implicitly assumes some kind of objective morality apart from the beliefs of the individuals themselves, perhaps one that varies over space and time as a function of people's beliefs. But moral relativism rejects such a thing; there can be no statements like "slavery is OK" or "slavery is wrong" in relativism, as such statements are detached from the individuals who form those judgments.

I think it would be more accurate to say something like: "Under relativism, there is no truly objective standard by which to compare the morals of slave owners to non-slave owners and decide which is superior." One could readily compare the two within one's own subjective set of values and morals of course; the fundamental idea is just that such comparisons and judgments are always made within some subjective framework.

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't been following my own thread, but I saw one thing here:

I don't think this is quite right, or at least, it's not how I understand moral relativism. Moral relativism just holds that there is no ultimate, objective authority for evaluating moral codes. The statement that "slavery would be OK as long as most people believed it to be so" sounds like it implicitly assumes some kind of objective morality apart from the beliefs of the individuals themselves, perhaps one that varies over space and time as a function of people's beliefs. But moral relativism rejects such a thing; there can be no statements like "slavery is OK" or "slavery is wrong" in relativism, as such statements are detached from the individuals who form those judgments.

I think you are reading into it a little too much. Saying "slavery is ok" isn't a complete sentence (it requires an implied object), so you need to interpret it to figure out to whom slavery is ok. I think the statement is really implying the redundant: "slavery is ok to a person who thinks slavery is ok" and not saying that one person saying it is ok makes it universal.

Nitpicking that aside, the point is that under moral relativity, no one has the moral authority to tell anyone else that slavery is wrong. That doesn't make slavery universally ok, but it does mean that we'd have to accept it from others if we want to be moral relativists*. And that, I think, is the point of that statement.

*That, I think, is also an inherrent contradiction in moral relativism. It implies an absolute principle of respect for the morality of others. Ie, moral relativism is the aboslute principle that everyone can choose their own personal moral code.

I think it would be more accurate to say something like: "Under relativism, there is no truly objective standard by which to compare the morals of slave owners to non-slave owners and decide which is superior." One could readily compare the two within one's own subjective set of values and morals of course; the fundamental idea is just that such comparisons and judgments are always made within some subjective framework.

Certainly, but I think the issue here is how you take that and apply it to the real world. How do you outlaw slavery if there is no applicable moral standard that says it is wrong?

And that kinda brings us back to my main point about the illogic of moral relativism: fully-realized moral relativism can only exist under anarchy because only in anarchy can every person truly decide for him/herself what morality to follow (until, of course, their next-door neighbor decides to follow his personal code, which includes cannibalism...).

Also, I'd like to emphasize that I don't see the difference between universal and Universal morality to be particularly important. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether a morality is universal simply based on the practical reality of everyone following it (or being forced to follow it) or if it is Universal because it is ordained by the God who also created the equations that govern the physical universe. It is because only either flavor of universal morality actually works when put into practice that I argue that scientists and athiests should be moral absolutists.

That said, the fact that a functional anarchy has never existed and the particulars of the absolute (for that society) moral code used in a society make a big difference in how "successful" (subjective, I know...) that society is, I think that provides convincing evidence that what works in morality is somehow hard-wired into our genetic code. And there is only one (scientific) way for that to happen: morality is derived from the same laws of the universe that directed our physical evolution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And that kinda brings us back to my main point about the illogic of moral relativism: fully-realized moral relativism can only exist under anarchy because only in anarchy can every person truly decide for him/herself what morality to follow (until, of course, their next-door neighbor decides to follow his personal code, which includes cannibalism...).

From what it says here it would seem that the main feature of relativism is the concept that there is no inherant truth in any particular coda. "Truth" (with a capital T) can not be measured.
I'd imagine that you would argue that the "Truth" of the matter lies in wether or not it works. I think you would be able to find plenty of people from the era of slavery that thought it worked just fine. Aside from people eventually deciding that they did not agree with it and did not think people should be slaves any more can you point me to what about slavery did not "work"? If people had never decided otherwise and their society continued to work just fine with slavery would you conclude that slavery is "right"?
Relativism does not prescribe any particular manner in which morals/ethics should be followed. It only describes the nature of morals/ethics from which to draw conclusions about how they might be practiced. Nothing about relativism says that we should allow all people to prescribe their own moral codes and only be subject to their own moral codes.

 

[Dawguard]

From what it says here it would seem that the main feature of relativism is the concept that there is no inherant truth in any particular coda. "Truth" (with a capital T) can not be measured.

Herein lies the problem with relativism; if you draw this out to its logical conclusion there is no truth, nothing. There can be no wrong if there is no right. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that anything is OK? Won't this eventually cause you to believe that you can do whatever you want so long as the law doesn't catch you? How can a system of morals exist that deny their own existence?
This is the inherent instability of relativism. While its premise is admirable, that of overcoming the blind dogma that stems from absolutism, the result it draws is self-destructive. Teach relativism to a society and it will, in time, deny all morals. Ultimetly relativism destroys the search for truth, since there is no moral truth. What we are left with is a greedy, decedant society with all its individuals members seeking their own gain at the expense of everyone else.
If we want there to discover how to act ethically and morally, we first have to admit that they actually exist. Since relativism will lead us to believe that they don't exist on an individual basis I see no reason to accept it. Relativism is an easy answer that leads nowhere.

 

[hypnagogue]

Also, I'd like to emphasize that I don't see the difference between universal and Universal morality to be particularly important. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether a morality is universal simply based on the practical reality of everyone following it (or being forced to follow it) or if it is Universal because it is ordained by the God who also created the equations that govern the physical universe. It is because only either flavor of universal morality actually works when put into practice that I argue that scientists and athiests should be moral absolutists.

Not to belabor the point, but the only way some moral system can be said to "actually work" is with respect to some subjective value system, even if only implicitly. One cannot evaluate whether something works or not without specifying its intended goal, and the intended goal is only intended as a goal in the first place because it is assigned some desireable value by some creature's subjective value system. In a discussion about moral absolutism vs. relativism it's important to draw out these seemingly pedantic observations.

From a practical standpoint, I agree with your position. Practically speaking, it is probably the case that most human beings have some common set of core values. It therefore makes sense to erect a social moral schema respecting and enforcing these core values. This is something like your universal (little u) morality.

I've just been concerned with arguing against Universal morality. I do not think there is any real basis for such a thing. This is not a practical point about how we should act as moral beings, but rather a metaphysical one about the nature of moral truth.

Maybe what I'm advocating is a "compatibilist" view between moral relativism and universal morality, like Hume's compatibilism between free will and determinism. Moral relativism holds that no moral code is absolutely true, but rather only gains truth or falsity when considered with respect to some subjective value system. But if it is the case that most individuals' subjective value systems are essentially similar on some level or another, then you still have a basis for practicing a universal morality of some sort.

Moral relativism certainly does not entail that one should be free to do whatever one wishes, anymore than the heliocentric model implies that human beings are worthless and unimportant. Moving from the geocentric to the heliocentric model may have undercut some supposed objective foundation to the importance of humanity, but of course that importance can still be maintained without objective support by means of purely subjective values. Likewise, moving from moral absolutism to moral relativism may undercut some supposed objective foundation to the respect demanded by socially ordained moral codes, but the essence of those codes can still be maintained by subjective values. Just because there is no objective reason why one should not be an anarchist does not entail that there is no reason not to be an anarchist.

That said, the fact that a functional anarchy has never existed and the particulars of the absolute (for that society) moral code used in a society make a big difference in how "successful" (subjective, I know...) that society is, I think that provides convincing evidence that what works in morality is somehow hard-wired into our genetic code. And there is only one (scientific) way for that to happen: morality is derived from the same laws of the universe that directed our physical evolution.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing here that our moral codes might find absolute validation by virtue of having been formed by objective evolutionary forces, because they "work."

But hopefully you can see the circularity in this. Assuming that human morality was created and promoted by evolutionary forces because it has helped us thrive as a species, we still do not arrive at any absolute validation of morality because we are still implicitly adhering to some subjective value system. Here, that implicit value is something like "the survival and reproduction of a species is good," or perhaps more generally, "order is good" or "whatever works is good." Again I submit that nothing is "good," nothing is to be intrinsically valued, in and of itself; goodness arises as a function of the fluid relationship between the objective world and some subjective creature over time.

 

[arildno]

Take a concrete example:
1. To preserve one own's life is a duty
2. To preserve one own's life is a right
3. In some situations, someone has a duty to lose his life (i.e, we should for example, deem it immoral of the individual to try to resist his own death)

Many who in general believe in 1. (against euthanasia, for example) can also be found to advocate 3.(for example believes in army conscription, and deny that prisoners on Death Row has a right to resist their deaths).

As for a clash between 1. and 2. advocates of 2 will often point to that option 1 (not to mention 3) imposes a restriction on the fredom of the individual.

That is, the principles of life-preservation and freedom are not the same, and different individuals will uphold these principles to different degrees.

To me, "absolutism" is merely the simplistic assumption that there necessarily exists a single, true balance between such (and other) concerns rather than at some fundamental level one makes a few axiomatic choices that determine the morality one pursues.

That point of view certainly allows the possibility that there may be some fundamentally differing moralities, but it by no means follows from this that one "isn't allowed" to make moral judgments, one certainly is, according to one own's standards of reasoning out of one's own axioms.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Herein lies the problem with relativism; if you draw this out to its logical conclusion there is no truth, nothing.

I don't think that relativism in itself rejects objective reality, that would be an entirely different discussion. Relativism only deals in social fictions as far as I can tell. I can see though where such a philosophy can spill over into one's perceptions of reality itself, that seems to be one of the factors that inspired this particular thread. "How does a scientist who deals with objective fact reconcile this with a relativistic view of morals?"
Richard Dawkins response to the "Most Dangerous Question" this year was interesting if a bit extreme and touched on this same sort of topic.
At any rate Relativism doesn't reject social fictions. It is only a theory as to their nature. In my opinion it's important to recognize that social mores are not indelibly enscribed on tablets, souls, or even DNA. If we realize that they are malleable it should aid our social evolution.

 

[Dawguard]

Take a concrete example:
1. To preserve one own's life is a duty
2. To preserve one own's life is a right
3. In some situations, someone has a duty to lose his life (i.e, we should for example, deem it immoral of the individual to try to resist his own death)

Many who in general believe in 1. (against euthanasia, for example) can also be found to advocate 3.(for example believes in army conscription, and deny that prisoners on Death Row has a right to resist their deaths).

As for a clash between 1. and 2. advocates of 2 will often point to that option 1 (not to mention 3) imposes a restriction on the fredom of the individual.

That is, the principles of life-preservation and freedom are not the same, and different individuals will uphold these principles to different degrees.

There is actually a simple explanation to this apparent paradox. It hinges on two things; the fact that a greater good should be morally superior and that rights can be abrigated.
Example for the former: a business man is expected to use his talents to improve his lot in life. However, if his interests clash with that of society it is morally correct for him to act in the benefit of society.
Example of the latter: a thief negates the right to his own property equal to that which he stole, i.e. restitution.
Now, when we apply these two principles to murder and the draft both can be explained. Capital punishment is excused becuase the murderer by taking another life abrigates his own right to his life. The draft is necesarry becuase it can be used for the greater good in order to protect society. Can both of these be abused? Of course, but that does not make their foundation faulty. There is no paradox, even with absolutism.

 

[clouded.perception]

The scientists who are relativists when it comes to morality are most likely, often the atheist ones.
As an atheist relativist, I'll give my point of view, but I don't know whether or to what extent ot's shared by others.

Bear with me: I believe there is no 'immortal soul'. I don't believe in any predetermined purpose for the universe, and I see life as a by-product of physical processes, not necessarily more or less than them.
The universe (not being a conscious creature) is indifferent to our existence. Any concepts of life, and correct behaviour, stem from us; our own opinions. Because there is nothing and nobody other than us (through our wish to survive and natural sympathy, such as the 'cute effect', etc.,) to determine what is right and wrong, yet we clearly have perceptions on such things, they are determined by us.

Put simply: the universe created us. We created morality. We don't have control over universal laws, but we have controlo over morality.

 

[heartless]

I didn't follow the whole thread, it's a little bit too long. I'd only like to say what I think.

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests)

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief. Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all. It's the same with every religious person, christians, muslims, hinduii and the like. They are unable to defend their ideas while talking seriously. In today's society religion is a false belief. People don't dig into what they believe, but follow the stereotype, I think there's only a tiny percent of people who actually follow their belief like their writings, laws, rules say. I also think that good fraction of scientists aren't atheists. Good fraction of scientist are not religious and don't believe in any religion out there. I myself came across many articles and books where scientists accept the existence of God which doesn't interfer with this world, or have any influence on one. All the above is just my opinion, I've never talked to variety of people about beliefs, but I talked to many folks in my school who I found unable to support their idea. Same was with my parents, relatives, and their friends or even people whom I met on the streets and fell like I want to stand and preach all the people, to stop believing blindly but find the sense in their beliefs.

They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

Morality is passed from parent to child, and I think it didn't change too much from the laws 3000 years ago. Every human gets to keep very similar concept of morality. But for example, animals are often governed by different morality. There aren't true laws of morality as there are laws that govern our universe. Morality may be changed within a few minutes, as long as many people start to accept your moral ideas. Morality in today's societies are driven by a stereotype, if majority of people do that, it is accepted as good. From the day you're born, parents teach you the morality they've learned from their parents who learned from theirs and so on. Now, you're parents start to you teach the opposite of moral ideas. Every good becomes bad and every bad becomes good. Then you are driven by totally different laws of morality than any other person. Morality isn't a steady thing, but changes over time. It used to be so that execution was accepted as good way to deal with people, well... not any more, although it still is in some parts of middle-east countries. As techology and world evolves, morality evolves.

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

It happens because different societies are driven by similar but not quite the same laws of morality. Morality in India may be a little different than here in US. They also don't need that because morality is self-accepted and obeyed without the help of the court and government. It probably is so that I'm wrong in in with this case.

It is my perception that the unwillingness to take that jump comes from a fear that it implies a creator - which would make this the one main issue where scientists allow their belief in [the nonexistence of] God to interfere with their logical analysis of morality. But the issue of God does not even need to be in play here.

Then, why look and dig into the morality at all? Wouldn't it be better to leave it and let it find a shape for itself? I don't think we in this case need government, who after scientists, would try to force the laws of morality unto people. It wouldn't be a good idea to ask government whether this specific thing is good or bad. We're free. Many people don't realize that almost 80 or even 90% of human's morality is based upon the Bible in whichever way you look. We follow almost all that Bible says, except for a few things - some commandments, faith and the like. Religion has already shaped good ideas of moralty. Today's morality isn't incorrect, it would be more convenient, and better to don't experiment with it.

That's all of my thoughts, thanks and I'm looking for many responses.

 

[quantumdude]

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief.

Am I to infer from this that you've taken a scientific poll? Where are the results?

Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all.

No, that's only strong atheism. Weak atheism asserts neither belief nor disbelief in any god.

In today's society religion is a false belief.

Now you're doing exactly what you accused "most atheists" of doing. You simply don't know that religious beliefs are false.

All the above is just my opinion,

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But an unsubstantiated opinion isn't good enough for the Philosophy section of PF. There are rules here, and you agreed to them. Either present a well-supported argument or please refrain from posting here.

That doesn't just go for you, that goes for everyone. The quality of posts here has really gone downhill lately.

I've never talked to variety of people about beliefs,

That's what I thought.

 

[heartless]

Am I to infer from this that you've taken a scientific poll? Where are the results?

No, I didn't do the poll, but I've had many conversations with my friends, parents, relatives and their friends. They almost all think alike, but since 30 or more people do the same thing, you may as well derive the farther results of people of the same social class, age and the like.

Now you're doing exactly what you accused "most atheists" of doing. You simply don't know that religious beliefs are false.

By false belief I don't mean that religions are wrong, I mean that people don't know what they believe in. They call themselves muslims or christians or jews but they don't follow what their religious writings say. They don't dig into their belief and don't know what their religions talk about.

That's what I thought.

That's exactly it. But by veriety of people, I mean, both averaged people, religion-heads, priests, rabiis, and the like. I wrote that "many" people, but by many it doesn't have to be everyone. Many people, are the averaged people, since there's much more of them than any others.

 

[clouded.perception]

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief.

What exactly do you mean about not being driven by logic?

Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all.

Yes -- I don't believe in God without evidence in the same way I don't believe in pixies without evidence.

Just wanted to point that out. Sorry if I interrupted your conversation.

 

[arildno]

Just chiming in with clouded.perception:

While "everyone" agrees the belief in pixies is just silly and DISMISSABLE AT THE OUTSET, this silliness somehow disappears if you give the pixie the qualities of omnipotence and all-goodness (in addition to transparent wings of course).
In fact, now the belief is to be regarded as something profound and spiritual..

Well, I for one don't get this, and never will.

 

[moving finger]

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Excellent post, excellent question.

Like many, I think I felt "intuitively" that moral values should be relative rather than absolute.

But your post has started me thinking. Thank you.

I'm going to do some more study & reading, and will be back.

My initial reaction is : Moral values are relative because they are values based on perspective and subjectivity. But I'm re-evaluating this.

Thanks for making me think!

Best Regards

 

[loseyourname]

What exactly do you mean about not being driven by logic?

I think he's trying to claim that atheism is the default position of the intelligentsia these days, and most atheists simply accept this status quo, rather than being driven to their beliefs by rational inference from the available evidence.

Of course, he does seem to go on to say that atheists do not believe in God because they have never experienced anything that would cause them to believe. I fail to see what's so illogical about this. I'd say the inference from "there is no good evidence for the existence of X" to "I do not believe in the existence of X" is perfectly rational. The real contentiousness lies in the truth of the first proposition and mostly in what exactly constitutes good evidence.

 

[moving finger]

Of course, he does seem to go on to say that atheists do not believe in God because they have never experienced anything that would cause them to believe. I fail to see what's so illogical about this. I'd say the inference from "there is no good evidence for the existence of X" to "I do not believe in the existence of X" is perfectly rational. The real contentiousness lies in the truth of the first proposition and mostly in what exactly constitutes good evidence.

If God wanted humans to believe in Him based on "good evidence", then He could easily provide plenty of such good evidence. God has it within His power to "prove" to everyone on Earth that He exists.

However, He chooses not to do this.

Conclusion : God does not want people to believe in Him simply because they have "good evidence" that He exists. Rather, He wants people to believe in Him based on faith alone - and faith by definition does not require "good evidence".

Now, if we are to assume that God is both omnipotent and consistent, then it follows from the above that He wants all people to believe in Him based on faith rather than "good evidence". Hence He will act to ensure there is no such "good evidence".

Thus, any and all phenomena which we might call "good evidence" are in fact either illusions or misinterpretations, and there is no such thing as "good evidence" that He exists.

Moving Finger

 

[moving finger]

A recent thread on moral absolutism/relativism got me thinking about the issue again, and rather than do the usual arguments, I'd like to take a slightly different angle at the issue.

Firstly, how do we define moral absolutism and moral relativism?

I suggest possible operational definitions are :

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

Any comments on these?

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests). But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. Ie, scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe. And yet, when it comes to morality, it seems a great many scientists and athiests are moral relativists. They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

I think it depends on how you define the term “laws of morality”
Morality is an extremely complex phenomenon. If someone believes (as I do) that notions of morality arise purely deterministically from interaction between individuals, then it follows that the basic “rules” of this morality are based on deterministic “laws”. The problem, however, is that the emergent “moral rules” are dependent on (derived from) the detailed value systems of the individuals concerned. Different individuals will give rise to different “moral rules”. Thus, given that individuals can vary across very wide ranges, there is no “universal set of moral rules” which would apply to all societies. Though the moral rules are based on universal laws, the detailed moral rules for a given society emerge from, and are dependent on, the individuals which make up that society.

In a similar way, “cloud formation” ultimately follows universal physical laws. But it does not follow from this that we can identify a “universal law of clouds” which will be applicable to all clouds and will prescribe the details of each cloud (size, shape, colour etc) in absence of the variable contributing factors which influence the formation of those clouds.

I am suggesting it is the same with moral laws. Moral rules ultimately follow universal physical laws, but it does not follow from this that we can identify a “universal law of morality” which will be applicable to all societies and will prescribe the details of all moral rules in absence of the variable contributing factors which influence those laws – ie the individuals in the society.

Best Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

I suggest possible operational definitions are :

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

Any comments on these?

1) In what sense optimum? How about using "existing" instead?

2) Your absolute definition wouldn't satisfy most people who believe in absolute morality because of the restriction "for any society". This raises the question whether different societies could have different absolute moral codes (for example democracy and shari'a).

 

[moving finger]

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

1) In what sense optimum? How about using "existing" instead?

Good suggestion. However the problem with “existing” is that it presupposes agreement on the “existing” moral code. Can we assume that all members of any given society will agree on all the details of the moral code for that society? I doubt it. Lawyers make a lot of money from the fact that there is often disagreement!

2) Your absolute definition wouldn't satisfy most people who believe in absolute morality because of the restriction "for any society". This raises the question whether different societies could have different absolute moral codes (for example democracy and shari'a).

But isn’t the thesis that “different societies have different moral codes” just Moral Relativism (why – because “different societies” = “different individuals”, and Moral Relativism says that moral code depends on the individuals which make up the society)?

Could you perhaps suggest a better definition of Moral Absolutism to distinguish it from Moral Relativism?

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science?

As both a scientist and an atheist I feel obliged to get to the bottom of this question, and provide Russ with the answer he is seeking.

From Wikipedia :

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.

The problem with this is that “the context of the act” includes the properties of the individuals involved. Thus, it follows that moral absolutism entails that morals are independent of the properties of the individuals involved.

But any society is simply a collection of individuals.

Therefore moral absolutism entails that morals are independent of the society to which they apply.

Therefore moral absolutism entails that there is one and only one set of morals, which must be applicable to all societies and all individuals.

What is wrong with the above argument, if anything?

Also from Wikipedia :

Moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but are instead relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.

It follows that moral relativism entails that morals are dependent on the individuals involved, and on the societies which these individuals make up.

Therefore moral relativism entails that there can be different sets of morals, applicable to different societies.

This explication of moral relativism I see as being entirely rational and deterministic. I see nothing in the above which would lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational for an atheist or a scientist to believe in moral relativism (as suggested by russ watters) – quite the reverse. The moral relativist position seems to me to be the more reasonable and scientific account of morality.

Russ - the simple answer to your question of why scientists/athiests do not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality is because the laws of morality are emergent laws which are critically dependent on the individuals involved (unlike physical laws which, it seems, are fundamental and not dependent on the entities involved). This means that physical laws can be considered absolute, whereas moral laws are not.

Best Regards

 

[George Jones]

I am a physicist, and I am not aware of any absolute physical laws.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But isn’t the thesis that “different societies have different moral codes” just Moral Relativism (why – because “different societies” = “different individuals”, and Moral Relativism says that moral code depends on the individuals which make up the society)?

I don't agree that “different societies” = “different individuals”. This is the Thatcher satz, "There are no societies, only individuals". But we evolved from animals that ran in bands and everywhere humans are found in structured societies. An absolute moral principle relative to a society is one that the society will punish an individual for breaking. Our big "civilizations" have legal codes and court systems to administer this, but even the smallest organized group will shun or exile someone who breaks one of their taboos.

 

[moving finger]

I don't agree that “different societies” = “different individuals”. This is the Thatcher satz, "There are no societies, only individuals".

I am certainly not saying there are no societies.
I am saying that individuals make up a society, and a society comprises individuals. It would be just as wrong to look at the morals of a society in isolation from the individuals that make up that society as it would be to look at the morals of an individual in isolation from the society of which he/she is a part.

An absolute moral principle relative to a society is one that the society will punish an individual for breaking.

That's a nice contradiction in terms - an absolute moral principle relative to a society?

A society does not exist as a disembodied "source of moral law" - the society is made up of individuals. And this is why not all societies have identical moral laws. Moral law is a balance between "social obligations" and "individual rights" - we cannot base morals on one and not the other.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

A society does not exist as a disembodied "source of moral law" - the society is made up of individuals. And this is why not all societies have identical moral laws. Moral law is a balance between "social obligations" and "individual rights" - we cannot base morals on one and not the other.

I agree with you that morals are about individuals, but I'd add that it also primarily has to do with human interaction.

I think to understand what morals are one has to try to understand why the first ones came about. It is my opinion that morals evolved as social mores meant to preserve the group. If you live in a situation where your actions have no impact on anyone else, whatever you do is either beneficial or harmful to you alone. But once people’s actions affect others, morals come into play. If what you do creates strife with others in your group, the group is threatened. Over time, especially after the French and American revolutions, we came to understand that the preservation and nurturing of the individual is central to preserving and furthering the group. So, I say the fundamental (which I think is a better term than “absolute”) moral is that one’s actions do not harm others.

What complicates this simple definition is religion where theologians have proposed that God insists we behave certain ways. Now added to the basic (and practical) idea of no harm is obedience to some set of absolute rules of the universe. Also, some theologians have imagined that a religion has the right and obligation to insist, demand, and even enforce what they interpret as God’s absolute morality.

If we take religion out of the picture it becomes more clear why the atheist and religious alike have an intuitive sense of what is “moral” . . . it just an awareness that to share this planet with others it is best if we do no harm.

While "everyone" agrees the belief in pixies is just silly and DISMISSABLE AT THE OUTSET, this silliness somehow disappears if you give the pixie the qualities of omnipotence and all-goodness (in addition to transparent wings of course). In fact, now the belief is to be regarded as something profound and spiritual. Well, I for one don't get this, and never will.

From our past exchanges you probably know I agree with you wholeheartedly about religion. However, religion and the belief that some sort of creationary consciousness exists are not the same thing. You want to dismiss God as silly based on rationality?

What I find ironic is the ridiculing of God belief by people who don’t know the slightest thing about why the best experts on the subject believe(d) it. Once again I say, take religion out of the picture and you can see there is another understanding of God available. Let me try an analogy.

What if I said to you that heat is radiating from a toaster, and you stand back and say it makes no sense to you and therefore talking about heat from a toaster is silly. I say, just put out your hand and feel it, but you say I can’t think heat therefore it doesn’t exist. I say, but you can feel it. You say, I don’t want to feel, I just want to think, so therefore what I can’t think doesn’t exist. I say, well, isn’t it just that YOU haven’t experienced it, and isn’t it that YOU just don’t want to feel? So how can you logically conclude that heat doesn’t exist because of your personal preferences of what to investigate and what to experience, and then go around calling others silly who might want to learn to experience heat?

Blind, experience-less belief in God may be silly, but that doesn’t mean all who believe in God do so that way. What you and other hard-core rationalists don’t seem to want to allow is that one’s sensitivity can be evolved with practice so that one learns to feel more subtle things. It is an ancient and venerated practice, and out of it have come many reports of detecting consciousness at work behind manifest reality.

Now, it is your choice not to develop this ability, but it seems rather narrow to assume that the way you have developed your consciousness is the only non-silly way to develop it, or that what you are capable of detecting is all there is to detect. Further, thus far it is not proven that the knowledge possible in this universe is limited to what the rationalist or scientist can achieve no matter how eager they are to set themselves up as the epistemological standard for us all.

 

[kyleb]

I believe that morals are absolute. However, I also understand that one requires an omnipresent perspective in order to obtain objective understanding, while as individuals we are bound by subjective ones.

 

[arildno]

From our past exchanges you probably know I agree with you wholeheartedly about religion. However, religion and the belief that some sort of creationary consciousness exists are not the same thing. You want to dismiss God as silly based on rationality?

What I find ironic is the ridiculing of God belief by people who don’t know the slightest thing about why the best experts on the subject believe(d) it. Once again I say, take religion out of the picture and you can see there is another understanding of God available. Let me try an analogy.

What if I said to you that heat is radiating from a toaster, and you stand back and say it makes no sense to you and therefore talking about heat from a toaster is silly. I say, just put out your hand and feel it, but you say I can’t think heat therefore it doesn’t exist. I say, but you can feel it. You say, I don’t want to feel, I just want to think, so therefore what I can’t think doesn’t exist. I say, well, isn’t it just that YOU haven’t experienced it, and isn’t it that YOU just don’t want to feel? So how can you logically conclude that heat doesn’t exist because of your personal preferences of what to investigate and what to experience, and then go around calling others silly who might want to learn to experience heat?

Blind, experience-less belief in God may be silly, but that doesn’t mean all who believe in God do so that way. What you and other hard-core rationalists don’t seem to want to allow is that one’s sensitivity can be evolved with practice so that one learns to feel more subtle things. It is an ancient and venerated practice, and out of it have come many reports of detecting consciousness at work behind manifest reality.

Now, it is your choice not to develop this ability, but it seems rather narrow to assume that the way you have developed your consciousness is the only non-silly way to develop it, or that what you are capable of detecting is all there is to detect. Further, thus far it is not proven that the knowledge possible in this universe is limited to what the rationalist or scientist can achieve no matter how eager they are to set themselves up as the epistemological standard for us all.

Well, many people in the past would have sworn that pixies existed.
In fact, many of them would have been convinced that at some time, they had spotted a pixie in the twilight, quickly vanishing.
I'm sure they were very excited about such experiences, and that it had been a very emotional moment for them.

(Similarly, nowadays, not only is the belief in ghosts a lot stronger in Japan than in the West, and there are thousands of sightings every year. I'm sure every such moment is emotionally rich)

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

I agree with you that morals are about individuals, but I'd add that it also primarily has to do with human interaction.

I didn’t say that morals are only about individuals. I said :

Moral law is a balance between "social obligations" and "individual rights" - we cannot base morals on one and not the other.

Human interaction is what human societies are all about.

I think to understand what morals are one has to try to understand why the first ones came about. It is my opinion that morals evolved as social mores meant to preserve the group. If you live in a situation where your actions have no impact on anyone else, whatever you do is either beneficial or harmful to you alone. But once people’s actions affect others, morals come into play. If what you do creates strife with others in your group, the group is threatened.

Agreed. Our “base” morals are indeed directly emergent from, and can be explained and understood on the basis of, a combination of genetic evolution and game theory. Such emergent and deterministic morals would guide human action and interaction in the absence of most intellectual thought about the origin and purpose of morals.

So, I say the fundamental (which I think is a better term than “absolute”) moral is that one’s actions do not harm others.

This is where morals (what I call the “higher” morals) start to depart from game-theoretical accounts. The extrapolation from “I will do no harm to others within my social group” (which can be explained on the basis of genes/game theory) to “I will do no harm to any other human being” is an intellectual step which cannot be explained on the basis of genes/game theory. Such higher morals have no deterministic origin, they are a lofty ideal which transcend rational explanation, they represent subjective “matters of opinion”.

I believe that all human beings have equal rights, but I cannot rationalise this belief.
What is the rational reason for believing that all human beings have equal rights?
Some moral absolutists will also claim that animals have the same rights, that we cannot value a human life above an animal life. What rational reason might we have for thinking this?

If we take religion out of the picture it becomes more clear why the atheist and religious alike have an intuitive sense of what is “moral” . . . it just an awareness that to share this planet with others it is best if we do no harm.

I agree there is a rational argument to support the notion that it is best if we do no harm (or at least minimal harm) to members of our social group.
But why is it necessarily best to do no harm to all other species on the planet, and is such a course of action even tenable?
Is there a rational argument to support such an idea?

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, many people in the past would have sworn that pixies existed. In fact, many of them would have been convinced that at some time, they had spotted a pixie in the twilight, quickly vanishing.

When people believe something is true from being trained by their culture (or an aspect of it), or if they believe it out of dislike or fear of some other belief system, then they are susceptible to seeing things as they imagine them to be, as well as susceptible to ignoring, glossing over, and dismissing what might contradict their beliefs.

People who believe in pixies or ghosts aren’t the only one’s who do such things. I see the crowd of "scientismists" (believers in science as able to answer all answerable questions) I debate here at PF do the same thing all the time. As someone who is neither religious nor who thinks science can answer all the questions, blind belief stands out to me no matter who is doing it. This belief that science is the ultimate epistemology absolutely requires that one ignore, gloss over, and dismiss the long history of at least one entirely different type of epistemology.

. . . I'm sure they were very excited about such experiences, and that it had been a very emotional moment for them. . . . I'm sure every such moment is emotionally rich)

You missed my meaning (assuming you mentioned “emotional moment” and “emotionally rich” in reference to my comments about feeling God). I’ll take another shot at explaining. I’ve written before about how consciousness can be seen as having two sides, the rational side and the sensitive side. Sensitivity is what I meant by feeling, not emotions which I consider a physiological mixture of mentality, sensitivity and often hormones.

I see all experience as based in feeling; that is, our sensitivity to information allows us to “feel” light and sound and taste and smell, we even might say we “feel” our intellect when we think, we “feel” ourselves remembering . . . we feel/sense everything we are conscious of. In this model, feeling is the fundamental substrate of consciousness, not rationality, because if you didn’t sense you were thinking, your brain might think but you’d have no experience of it, yet if you stop thinking you will still be conscious (I know because I do that all the time in meditation).

Now, just as we can develop our rational skills, we can develop our feeling ability. Western culture has been primarily dedicated to developing rationality, while the East explored the potentials of feeling. In the East one particular potential was realized, first by the Buddha, and then kept alive through the centuries by others who loved the experience.

How does one develop one’s sensitivity? It is really a very simple concept: you learn to quiet consciousness. Just like noise a stereo system produces can mask the subtleties of music recorded on a CD, a mind that is never quiet misses the more subtle information available to consciousness.

There are people who have spent decades and hours each day practicing this quiet. An interesting feature of the practice is that there is a place inside, sort of at the “heart” of human consciousness, that if felt, automatically quiets the mind; it takes a bit to find and then more or less “surrender” to this feeling, but when accomplished it draws one into an entirely new realm of conscious experience. Anyway, my point is that the practice really is one of feeling. How deeply can one learn to feel and how sensitive does it make consciousness, if say, one were to practice daily for thirty of forty years as a great many have? What might such a sensitized consciousness detect that those who haven’t done the work wouldn’t?

So here we find ourselves in a forum peopled by individuals who love to think, and who likely can’t ever quiet it with the skills they now possess. Not only do they not know about heightening one’s sensitivity personally, they don’t know much about just how extensively it has gone on throughout history all over the world, in Christian monasteries for example. Then, rather ignorant of what has been accomplished through sensitivity, they criticize belief in God from what they see going on in religion where people do blindly believe things. If you study the inner adepts, however, that is where you will find the most credible reports about being able to detect some sort of consciousness subtly at work behind physical reality, not in religious dogma and theology, which is essentially speculation taken from what others have experienced.

So that’s why I’ve said it is rather foolish to criticize ALL belief in God based on the application of science, a practice which relies strictly on rationality and sense experience. It’s foolish because science works fine for the clunky world of matter, but in terms of developing sensitivity, rationality is merely noise, and the senses are gross sensors. It is foolish because of trying to evaluate an entirely different epistemology (i.e., deepening conscious sensitivity) which involves withdrawing from the senses with one that works through full reliance on the senses; by trying to evaluate a practice where the main experience is that of wholeness with one that takes things apart; by evaluating an experience found only in utter quiet with incessant, non-stop, relentless thinking! Maybe a little humility on the part of all the genius science believers might allow them to see there are other human potentials to develop than what they’ve chose to develop, maybe they might even eventually understand why someone like the 15th century German monk Thomas Kempis said, ““A humble knowledge of thyself is a surer way to God than a deep search after learning . . . . [God is] to be heard in silence, with great humility and reverence, with great inward affection of the heart and in great rest and quiet of body and soul.”

A last point I would make is that I’ve not found rationality and deepening sensitivity to be in competition, they are distinct areas of consciousness, each with their own rules for development. There is no reason I can see that a person can’t be competent in both; in fact, I have found that one compliments the other. I can’t explain why but the deeper I feel, the better my intellect seems to work for me.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Agreed. Our “base” morals are indeed directly emergent from, and can be explained and understood on the basis of, a combination of genetic evolution and game theory. Such emergent and deterministic morals would guide human action and interaction in the absence of most intellectual thought about the origin and purpose of morals.

It can be explained in terms of just about anybody’s favorite theory, but of course that doesn’t make it so. Creationists might explain it in terms of God, atheists may want to make it genes. If you believe a priori that you are nothing but a physical thing or a spiritual thing, then every explanation has to fit that belief. Most people I know can’t refrain from “believing” something they don’t really have enough evidence to know if it is true.

I like believing nothing and then letting the weight of experience shift my certainty where it will.

This is where morals (what I call the “higher” morals) start to depart from game-theoretical accounts. The extrapolation from “I will do no harm to others within my social group” (which can be explained on the basis of genes/game theory) to “I will do no harm to any other human being” is an intellectual step which cannot be explained on the basis of genes/game theory. Such higher morals have no deterministic origin, they are a lofty ideal which transcend rational explanation, they represent subjective “matters of opinion”.

Because something transcends rational explanation doesn’t necessarily mean it is merely a subjective matter of opinion. First of all, everything conscious is subjective since all experience takes place within each consciousness; it’s just that some things can be commonly experienced. If I want to be more certain of your claims, I will look for what we can experience in common. But if I am concerned about my own certainty alone, that allows me to consider what I am able to experience only inside myself. Some people have the opinion that only what can be commonly experienced is trustworthy, but it seems a personal preference rather some hard, fast rule about what consciousness needs in order to know. What if you were the only person alive on this planet? Are you then able to know nothing?

Amongst my own collection of experiences are some which escape rational explanation. I might, for example, explain transcending group loyalty for human or even all life loyalty, as the result of experiencing an underlying basis of unity I've had during meditation, the experience of something that connects us all and at the essence level makes us all one. If so, then it isn’t an “intellectual step” at all that has transformed me, it is an experiential step.

I realize it is possible to create a rational explanation for anything really, but that doesn’t mean the explanation is adequate. Sometimes people, especially with consciousness stuff, will say “consciousness is an illusion,” to get rid of what they can’t explain. Partly I see that as once again an a priori belief getting in the way of objectively evaluating even, in this case, what we ourselves actually are (as consciousness); but I also see it as some people’s obsession with rational explanations.

Does everything real have to be accessible to reason? Or is there another way of knowing? For example, I understand that in philosophy “morals” are and have been mostly an intellectual thing. But . . .

I agree there is a rational argument to support the notion that it is best if we do no harm (or at least minimal harm) to members of our social group.
But why is it necessarily best to do no harm to all other species on the planet, and is such a course of action even tenable?
Is there a rational argument to support such an idea?

(I switched the order of your last two paragraphs.)

. . . I, like you, cannot rationalize why I feel the moral way I do. So we don’t get bogged down from the outset, by “feel” I don’t mean emotions. I simply mean some ongoing level of sensitivity that for me at least has deepened as I’ve aged and practiced meditation. I feel a connection to all life, and compassion for others. I want to understand them, I want the best for them. When I see people suffering it hurts; even when I watch a cartoon where Daffy Duck ineptly swings on a vine into a wall I flinch. That is very different than how I was when I was young, where the only person I seemed able to consider was myself.

My point is, what is it that truly makes one moral? Is it the exact and proper behavior, or is it sincerely feeling goodness? I mean, how many morals do you need if you naturally feel love and goodness? Aren’t you going to behave as you feel over what’s programmed into your head, or what you’ve “rationally” decided? Isn’t it the lack of feeling why we find so many moralists caught doing things they have openly rationalized against? And look at sociopaths, isn’t what makes them capable of such evil that they’ve shut down their feeling?

I believe that all human beings have equal rights, but I cannot rationalise this belief.
What is the rational reason for believing that all human beings have equal rights?
Some moral absolutists will also claim that animals have the same rights, that we cannot value a human life above an animal life. What rational reason might we have for thinking this?

Well, I still think one can “feel” this is a human need faster than rationalizing it, but there is a rational reason for believing in equal rights, and that is it “works.” This is the lesson learned in the field of organizational development where it used to be that business owners exploited workers thinking if they squeezed every bit of labor out of them it was profitable. It turns out that the costs of turnovers, purposeful work slow down and sabotage, sickness, lack of care for the work done, and a host of other problems actually costs a business in the long run. Right now the smartest companies are doing things that help employees thrive on the job, and very often not for humanitarian reasons.

We can evaluate all human interaction theories on this basis. Humans have, however you think they got there, needs beyond physical needs, and when those needs aren’t met it can have an unhealthy effect on our psychology, which in turn affects how and what the individual contributes to any sort of human interaction situation including society, business, marriage, parenting . . . all of it.

This might sound shallow in a serious philosophical discussion, but I think one of the best things going on culture-wide in the US anyway, is programs like Dr. Phil who is giving the masses much-needed lessons in what makes a group situation and the individual flourish. It is amazing to see so many people believe that giving children everything they want is good for them, or being as strict as the Gestapo is the way to discipline, or constantly nagging your mate will make them change for the better, or dumping your bad mood on others is justified, etc. People for the most part don’t seem to understand their own makeup, their own nature, and so both treat others and themselves in ways that lead to dysfunction. (There is a show on TLC called the “Dog Whisperer” which shows pet owners have the exact same problem understanding the importance of relating to a species according to its nature.)

 

[moving finger]

It can be explained in terms of just about anybody’s favorite theory, but of course that doesn’t make it so.

Of course not, reality isn’t like that. The best we can ever do is to propose hypotheses which attempt to explain “how” the world works in terms of simpler concepts. But we can never “prove” those explanations are the right ones. If you are looking for “proof” that your favorite theory is right then you’re on an impossible quest.

Most people I know can’t refrain from “believing” something they don’t really have enough evidence to know if it is true.

Everything in science, philsophy, logic and mathematics is predicated on premises, or propositions assumed true. If you seek a world-view with no premises you are on an impossible mission.

I like believing nothing and then letting the weight of experience shift my certainty where it will.

Like it or not, you are “assuming” that your “experience” is providing you with true information about the world. Unless you profess to be a true skeptic (believing in absolutely nothing, not even the “evidence” of your own senses) then you have to make assumptions about the world. (But even such a skeptic must make assumptions if he/she wants to interact with the world). What is an assumption but a believed but unproven truth?

Amongst my own collection of experiences are some which escape rational explanation. I might, for example, explain transcending group loyalty for human or even all life loyalty, as the result of experiencing an underlying basis of unity I've had during meditation, the experience of something that connects us all and at the essence level makes us all one. If so, then it isn’t an “intellectual step” at all that has transformed me, it is an experiential step.

In fact there is a completely rational explanation for your beliefs in this case. In a separate thread I have agreed that human moralising is probably often a combination of an intellectual exercise and an affective exercise (some agents will lean more towards affectation, some more towards intellectualisation).

I realize it is possible to create a rational explanation for anything really, but that doesn’t mean the explanation is adequate.

If you think my explanation inadequate, please do point out where you think it fails to explain correctly.

Sometimes people, especially with consciousness stuff, will say “consciousness is an illusion,” to get rid of what they can’t explain.

I don’t say this. Consciousness is very real. But we can very often be deluded into thinking that everything we think we experience via our consciousness represents some “fundamental insight into reality” which transcends rational explanation, when in fact it is no more than a simple emotion or feeling.

Partly I see that as once again an a priori belief getting in the way of objectively evaluating even, in this case, what we ourselves actually are (as consciousness); but I also see it as some people’s obsession with rational explanations.

I could equally claim that you seem obsessed with intuitive insights. You seem to have an a priori belief that your subjective experiences during meditation are telling you something fundamental about reality which cannot be rationally explained. I would say this belief of yours is getting in the way of you objectively evaluating reality.

Does everything real have to be accessible to reason? Or is there another way of knowing? For example, I understand that in philosophy “morals” are and have been mostly an intellectual thing. But . . .

If you have another explanation for the origin of morality and morals could you share it?

. . . I, like you, cannot rationalize why I feel the moral way I do.

I believe our moral inclinations do have a rational source, which is genetic. We have evolved to be moral animals, because morality usually “works well” within a social group of intelligent agents. This explains the emergence of a basic “feeling of morality”, and explains why it would be hard-wired into our behaviour. But these feelings have evolved to apply within small social groups, and I believe the further step of applying such moral rules to the entirety of humanity is an intellectual (or possibly in some cases an affectational) step.

So we don’t get bogged down from the outset, by “feel” I don’t mean emotions. I simply mean some ongoing level of sensitivity that for me at least has deepened as I’ve aged and practiced meditation. I feel a connection to all life, and compassion for others. I want to understand them, I want the best for them. When I see people suffering it hurts; even when I watch a cartoon where Daffy Duck ineptly swings on a vine into a wall I flinch. That is very different than how I was when I was young, where the only person I seemed able to consider was myself.

And I believe there is a perfectly rational genetically-based explanation for why we feel this way, and why these feelings change with maturity. A young child has no offspring, if he/she dies then this is the “end of the line” for his/her genes. It stands to reason, therefore, that there will be strong genetic reasons why that child will be more concerned with his/her own welfare and survival and have less sensitivity for the welfare and survival of others (ie a genetically-based reason for such behaviour). As that person reaches maturity, however, it is possible that they will have children of their own, in which case they will tend to start caring more for the welfare of others (especially others in their direct social group), and perhaps care a little less for their own personal welfare. As that person ages, and passes beyond the age at which they are likely to have any children, then from a genetic-survival viewpoint there is less benefit in prolonging that individual’s life compared to the lives of his/her offspring (the future survival of the genes now rests fairly and squarely in the subsequent generations).

My point is, what is it that truly makes one moral?

I think we need to agree a definition of “what is moral?” before we can tackle the question of what it is that makes one moral.

Is it the exact and proper behavior, or is it sincerely feeling goodness? I mean, how many morals do you need if you naturally feel love and goodness? Aren’t you going to behave as you feel over what’s programmed into your head, or what you’ve “rationally” decided?

I see no reason why one’s morals cannot be based on a rational decision (the intellectual road to morality) rather than on an emotional or affectational decision. (What makes you think that “feelings” are any less “programmed” than rational thoughts?)

Isn’t it the lack of feeling why we find so many moralists caught doing things they have openly rationalized against? And look at sociopaths, isn’t what makes them capable of such evil that they’ve shut down their feeling?

I would argue that sociopaths have in fact not shut down their feelings, that they in fact have extremely strong feelings, it’s just they are not the kinds of feelings which lead to moral behaviour.

I still think one can “feel” this is a human need faster than rationalizing it, but there is a rational reason for believing in equal rights, and that is it “works.” This is the lesson learned in the field of organizational development where it used to be that business owners exploited workers thinking if they squeezed every bit of labor out of them it was profitable. It turns out that the costs of turnovers, purposeful work slow down and sabotage, sickness, lack of care for the work done, and a host of other problems actually costs a business in the long run. Right now the smartest companies are doing things that help employees thrive on the job, and very often not for humanitarian reasons.

Well done, you’ve identified rational reasons for behaviour.
I don’t dispute that we can sometimes reach a useful conclusion faster by using our intuitions (what you call feeling) than we can by using our rationality. This is precisely why intuitions evolved in the first place. The point is, however, that our intuitions are not always right, especially when we apply them outside the sphere in which they have evolved to be effective.

We can evaluate all human interaction theories on this basis. Humans have, however you think they got there, needs beyond physical needs, and when those needs aren’t met it can have an unhealthy effect on our psychology, which in turn affects how and what the individual contributes to any sort of human interaction situation including society, business, marriage, parenting . . . all of it.

Yes, and all of this can be understood on a completely rational basis.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

Everything in science, philsophy, logic and mathematics is predicated on premises, or propositions assumed true. If you seek a world-view with no premises you are on an impossible mission.

Science, philosophy and logic are, or are dependent upon, rational processes which of course rest on assumptions. But I wasn’t talking about rational processes, but another sort of conscious process which with practice one can develop. Keep in mind, I have not said anything against rationality, I have only suggested 1) it is not the only way to know and 2) there are some situations where an advanced development of one’s feeling side of consciousness works better, and that morality is one of them.

Like it or not, you are “assuming” that your “experience” is providing you with true information about the world. Unless you profess to be a true skeptic (believing in absolutely nothing, not even the “evidence” of your own senses) then you have to make assumptions about the world. (But even such a skeptic must make assumptions if he/she wants to interact with the world). What is an assumption but a believed but unproven truth?

Well, I am not a skeptic because a skeptic must assume too much in order to doubt. There is little difference in my mind between a skeptic and a blind believer; one is reactionary, the other is clinging, and both are guilty of unconscious mental practices.

What you call my “assumption” about my experience I would say is instead acceptance since I have nothing to work with but my consciousness. I merely accept what I find myself as: conscious. And consciousness has demonstrated to me again and again that it comes to know via experience, so I accept that experiential priority too as long as my consciousness continues working that way.

Surrendering to your nature is vastly different from assuming things that are NOT needed to be assumed in order to contemplate reality. I say you are assuming something you merely want to be true for some personal reason, not because you either need to assume it in order to function as consciousness (which is why I “accept” the experiential basis of knowing), or because the evidence is sufficient to justify your assumptions. Case in point . . .

I believe our moral inclinations do have a rational source, which is genetic. We have evolved to be moral animals, because morality usually “works well” within a social group of intelligent agents. This explains the emergence of a basic “feeling of morality”, and explains why it would be hard-wired into our behaviour. But these feelings have evolved to apply within small social groups, and I believe the further step of applying such moral rules to the entirety of humanity is an intellectual (or possibly in some cases an affectational) step.

Why would you believe that now? Have you found the genes that produce moral inclinations? You believe something not because you have observed what you need to in order to be certain, but because you have already decided what the truth is! Now, just like I said earlier what such mental practices cause, you are trying to find bits and pieces to fit your a priori opinion, and I’d bet anything you are also filtering out anything that might contradict what you want to be true (i.e., rather than is true). That’s what happens to the search for truth when it’s done by “believers.” The best search can be done by non-believers.

In fact there is a completely rational explanation for your beliefs in this case. In a separate thread I have agreed that human moralising is probably often a combination of an intellectual exercise and an affective exercise (some agents will lean more towards affectation, some more towards intellectualisation).

Rational explanations are not proof! They merely make sense. Tons of things make sense (i.e., are internally logically consistent) which are not true. You can decide little more than tautologies with rationality alone. That is exactly why science replaced rationalistic philosophy/theology as the epistemological standard for modern culture.

I could equally claim that you seem obsessed with intuitive insights. You seem to have an a priori belief that your subjective experiences during meditation are telling you something fundamental about reality which cannot be rationally explained. I would say this belief of yours is getting in the way of you objectively evaluating reality.

Really? Why would you say that? What do you know about the experience that can be attained in stillness? Are you speaking from experience or are you trying to win a debate. Besides, you are the one who has already made up his mind that genetics is causing morality without the evidence! So who’s objectivity has been compromised here?

If you have another explanation for the origin of morality and morals could you share it?

I have shared it. I have suggested that first it was a rational process, just as you suggested. But then you posed the question of why someone would transcend the practical issues of group unity. I answered that is because some people learn to feel goodness and love and compassion and . . . Of my many acquaitances some are highly moral (often for religious reasons), one friend in particular subscribes to a very strict moral standard. But I have to tell you that another friend, who is a bit sleezy, I trust more. Why? Because I can feel his goodness. I know he waffles when it comes to being perfectly honest, but I also know he will be more careful about doing real harm to me or others.

It’s not my place to tell you what to prefer. I only know that I don’t trust people who are behaviorally/rationalistically moral UNLESS I feel their sincerity behind that. Give me an imperfect living conscious friend with a kind heart any day over a robotic perfectly-behaved and rationalized moralist.

Well done, you’ve identified rational reasons for behaviour.

Look, I haven’t even slightly hinted that rationality doesn’t have its place, or that there aren’t times when rationality should determine our behavior. Further, often even what we do out of feeling also often has practical effects and therefore can be justified rationally.

What I have said is that some things we do for rational reasons are better done through feeling. I have found morality to be one of those things.