NationStates Jolt Archive

Can anyone show me a basis for morality without invoking God and using only reason? I am not against morality, but I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

...take your pick:

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part1/sect2/texts/R_Stoicism.html

:cool:

Yes, the fact that you are on the side of morality without believing in God.

Or, it wouldn't be beneficial to ourselves if we let people have no morals and let people do whatever, whenever. Kinda stabs us in the back at some point.

*shrug*

There is no morality but what we make for ourselves.

Unfortunately there is none, since all morals are relative to the person or culture.

One might state that you simply shouldn't steal or kill. But that too is relative, since it is not written into our genes to not kill or steal from our fellow man.

So, other than the fact that it is the law of the land, there is no non-religious basis for morality.

Yes, the fact that you are on the side of morality without believing in God.

Or, it wouldn't be beneficial to ourselves if we let people have no morals and let people do whatever, whenever. Kinda stabs us in the back at some point.

So you subscribe to utilitarianism, which defines good as what is useful? I see. Do you have a logical basis for declaring good=useful?

So you subscribe to utilitarianism, which defines good as what is useful? I see. Do you have a logical basis for declaring good=useful?
Yeah, my stuff is useless if people keep stealing it.

Universalism?
If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.
The old golden rule.

nature could supply morality. i'll give an example, it is best for an organism to want it's species to survive, so humans generally think killing is immoral.

nature could supply morality. i'll give an example, it is best for an organism to want it's species to survive, so humans generally think killing is immoral.

I understand that, but its basically a variation of utilitarianism, which brings up the question of why species survival=good?


Universalism?
If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.
The old golden rule.

A good rule from a religious perspective, but how is it backed by reason?

I understand that, but its basically a variation of utilitarianism, which brings up the question of why species survival=good?


it doesn't, but the ones that don't survive don't get to pass down their genes for not wanting to survive, therefore it's instinctuall to want to survive.

Without a lack of a god or other religious dieties to look to, the most likely cause of human origin is evolution. The beginnings of morality would be evident in early man. The only source of food available to him would be from hunting. A lone hunter will a chance of either eating that night whatever he managed to kill that day or going hungry if he was unable to kill anything. If conditions for an individual within a group are considered, his situation is much improved. If any hunter fails to catch anything, he will still be fed by whatever the other hunters were able to catch. This demonstrates the basic idea that working together=better living among human beings. Those who act against the good of the group are cast out and working alone=worse living/faster death creating a very good reason not to act against members of the group. This eventually results in instilling feelings such as feelings of shame, guilt, etc. which are aroused by hurting members of the group as a survival instinct. Over time this standard of conduct evolves into what we now deem morals. Q.E.D.

Without a lack of a god or other religious dieties to look to, the most likely cause of human origin is evolution. The beginnings of morality would be evident in early man. The only source of food available to him would be from hunting. A lone hunter will a chance of either eating that night whatever he managed to kill that day or going hungry if he was unable to kill anything. If conditions for an individual within a group are considered, his situation is much improved. If any hunter fails to catch anything, he will still be fed by whatever the other hunters were able to catch. This demonstrates the basic idea that working together=better living among human beings. Those who act against the good of the group are cast out and working alone=worse living/faster death creating a very good reason not to act against members of the group. This eventually results in instilling feelings such as feelings of shame, guilt, etc. which are aroused by hurting members of the group as a survival instinct. Over time this standard of conduct evolves into what we now deem morals. Q.E.D.

So in other words, morals are set by evolution. We have an instinct to have certain morals?

One possible interpretation:

The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas has posed that ethics cannot be based on any sort of metaphysical rule that attempts to "justify ethics," because attempts at justification suborn the role of the Other to our own consciousness (i.e, we should only help them because...). The typical answer to the parenthetical has been "because the Other is fundamentally the same as we are." This type of justification, argues Levinas, is what allowed the Holocaust to happen, because all Hitler had to say is that the Jews "weren't really the same as us," and then killing them became ok (as a survivor himself, Levinas' unique perspective on this is fascinating). In place of a justification for ethics, Levinas offers up the idea of "being for the Other" or "unconditional infinite ethical responsibilty," a type of morality in which we bind ourselves to acting for the Other simply because we have seen the Other and their suffering.

Interesting take, I think.

So in other words, morals are set by evolution. We have an instinct to have certain morals?

Specific morals, no. Beneficial morals, generally yes. Morals simply provide a superior standard of living for the individual. To see this, just imagine today if all morals suddenly vannished and people did whatever they wanted. Poeple would be looting stores, shooting people that picked on them in high school, it would be complete anarchy. There would be no police to restore order because they would have no moral reason to and robbing is much more profitbale than policework. The stores wouldn't even have clerks to man the cash registers, truck drivers to deliver goods, goods would exist to sell due to mechanization of manufacturing processes bbut even those would fail as nobody would be delivering raw materials. Comparing the standards of living, life expectancy, even the possibility of safe companionship for the average individual in a society with morals and one without the society with morals would show marked differences in what the moral society and society lacking morals would result in. The exact nature of the preferred morals will differ from group to group, looking at what each country today values in morals demonstrates this. The standard of living in each country may vary, but would still be better than what it would be without them.

Specific morals, no. Beneficial morals, generally yes. Morals simply provide a superior standard of living for the individual. To see this, just imagine today if all morals suddenly vannished and people did whatever they wanted. Poeple would be looting stores, shooting people that picked on them in high school, it would be complete anarchy. There would be no police to restore order because they would have no moral reason to and robbing is much more profitbale than policework. The stores wouldn't even have clerks to man the cash registers, truck drivers to deliver goods, goods would exist to sell due to mechanization of manufacturing processes bbut even those would fail as nobody would be delivering raw materials. Comparing the standards of living, life expectancy, even the possibility of safe companionship for the average individual in a society with morals and one without the society with morals would show marked differences in what the moral society and society lacking morals would result in. The exact nature of the preferred morals will differ from group to group, looking at what each country today values in morals demonstrates this. The standard of living in each country may vary, but would still be better than what it would be without them.

So in other words, what defines morality is what works. If we didn't have morality, we wouldn't even be here discussing this.

Can anyone show me a basis for morality without invoking God and using only reason?
have you got a coin handy? flip it. good job! now, next time you come to a moral choice, assign one choice to each side of the coin, and flip it.

given that morality is purely subjective, this method is as objectively valid as any other.

I think what you're looking for is Immanuel Kant; the Prolegomena (aka the Groundwork), and his Critiques of Pure and Practical Reason. His system is based on the Categorical Imperative which states that one should act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In other words, do unto others etc etc., except he attempts to prove it using only reason. Naurally, morality derived from only reason does have its problems, most notable is an extremely strict absolutism. He does consider it to be a complete system with his writings on religion and the existence of god, but god is not the basis of his ethical system, nor is god a necessary step for it.

I think what you're looking for is Immanuel Kant; the Prolegomena (aka the Groundwork), and his Critiques of Pure and Practical Reason. His system is based on the Categorical Imperative which states that one should act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In other words, do unto others etc etc., except he attempts to prove it using only reason. Naurally, morality derived from only reason does have its problems, most notable is an extremely strict absolutism. He does consider it to be a complete system with his writings on religion and the existence of god, but god is not the basis of his ethical system, nor is god a necessary step for it.

How does he prove it using only reason?

I'll attempt to do this in an organized fasion.

I don't like suffering.
Others probably don't like suffering either
I don't want others to suffer
Therefore: It is best to do as little harm to others as possible.

How does he prove it using only reason?
Look to Levinas for that.

Can anyone show me a basis for morality without invoking God and using only reason? I am not against morality, but I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

Oh boy, that's a pretty deep philosophical question. People have been trying to answer that question since the renassance (actually, St. Thomas Aquinas tried, but you don't want anyone to mention religion). Edit: That's not fair. Now that I think about it, people have probably been trying to define morality since people started practicing philosophy.

The best answer I can give is natural law. Natural law is sometime equated with moral realism (although this association is often disputed). Moral realism is supported by theoretical reason and practical reason. That is how a basis for morality is often derived, although it is very open to dispute. One problem is that natural law is all bark and no bite without legal positivism, and when you use that to enact natural law you're basically saying "Natural law is a constant force, but, paradoxically, you will not follow it unless we enforce it with police, so that is what we will do." In other words, you're saying that natural law is the correct moral code and if you are a rational being you should be compelled to follow it because it is derived from rationality. At the same time we need police to enforce natural law (implying that, despite being rational, it has no governance over you) so, in essence, might makes right regardless of natural law (it is assumed that the police could make law something that would be immoral under natural law).

Does that answer your question?

I would suggest reading Kant, but take it with a grain of salt.

I would suggest reading Kant, but take it with a grain of salt.

He had some odd ideas of what is rational, but it's a main basis for this thread.

Can anyone show me a basis for morality without invoking God and using only reason? I am not against morality, but I thought it would be an interesting experiment.
when religion and reason/science collapse, religion is right.

Moralities were made from if you kill someone, their relatives will kill you, if you steal then you will be killed and it goes on

I understand that, but its basically a variation of utilitarianism, which brings up the question of why species survival=good?
Instinct.

As mom said, "opinions change, morals don't."

For instance: Yes in the case of a mugger pointing a gun at you a pacifist would find it revolting kicking the mugger in the nuts, taking his gun and shooting him, where as a former war veteran would see it as self defence and throwing justice. That's where opinion begins.

But where morality ends is the fact that there is a mugger, and the mugger is a bad guy, he is the universal evil.

Therfor by clear defninition and common sense we can safely say you shouldn't mug people correct?

How does he prove it using only reason?

That is based in his Categorical Imperative (CI), whereby he claims that any action is morally (read rationally) wrong if, when it is run through the CI, comes to a contradiction. You should act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. For instance, suppose I think I should steal 100k from my company because I want a new car (my maxim). If I run this maxim through the CI, it states that I must want it to be the case that everyone should steal 100k from their companies when they want new cars (universal law, meaning applicable to every rational being). But if everyone did that, then people would in the end be stealing from me to buy a car, and as a rational being I don't think people should steal from me just to buy a car (if at all). So I arrive at the contradiction that I don't think people should steal from me and, via the CI, I do think people should steal from me. Hence, stealing 100k from my company is wrong.

when religion and reason/science collapse, religion is right.

I hope you can prove your premises....

I hope you can prove your premises....
/me slams head against the wall. Read my quote. G-d created science and reason, therefore he is above science and reason.

Can anyone show me a basis for morality without invoking God and using only reason? I am not against morality, but I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

"the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
-- John Stuart Mill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle )

So long as a person is not causing direct harm to others, what morals he lives by is entirely his own choice.

So, other than the fact that it is the law of the land, there is no non-religious basis for morality.
Exsqueeze me? You make it sound like the Law of the Land isn't important?

Utility

:rolleyes:

*yawn*

next...?

/me slams head against the wall. Read my quote. G-d created science and reason, therefore he is above science and reason.

You're assuming a premise about reason that you can't prove. Also, 'tis a circular argument I'm afraid. But then, you obviously won't accept that, and so you must excuse me. If there is a god, it made me a rational creature, subject to the laws of reason. And since you can give no reasonable argument for your conclusion, I must, as a rational creature, call you an idiot.

/me slams head against the wall. Read my quote. G-d created science and reason, therefore he is above science and reason.


Thats non falsifiable and therefore unreasonable.

Try again.

-snip quote-

So long as a person is not causing direct harm to others, what morals he lives by is entirely his own choice.

But isn't it a moral that we shouldn't harm others? Where does that come from?

Universalism?
If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.
The old golden rule.

A good rule from a religious perspective, but how is it backed by reason?

I think that it's pretty clear. People treat you in a manner dependent on how you treat them. If you harm others a lot, people would retaliate, via judicial means or otherwise. If you want people to treat you well, you treat them well. The basis of moral is, as is most human behaviour, purely selfish in the long run.

But isn't it a moral that we shouldn't harm others? Where does that come from?

The idea that we should not harm others is a means to maximize human liberty. The desire to maximize liberty comes from the desire to minimize violent coercion. The desire to minimize violent coercion comes from the recognition of the fact that violent coercion is not conducive to individual survival.

But isn't it a moral that we shouldn't harm others? Where does that come from?

Self interest. If everybody obeys the "do no harm" rule, you do not get harmed either.

Just read a decent human evolution text book, and it becomes fairly obvious.

It arose because 'moral behavior' resulted in more of your total genetics surviving (remember, if your sister has a bazillion kids, lots and lots of your genetics get in to the next generation, even if you yourself have no kids).

As humans became able to use more abstract thinking, it got all screwy, with some benefits here, with lots of negatives there, because we just didn't know enough then.

While it's a constant fight, in many cases moral structure is slowly improving in the species. Notice that slavery, while hardly dead, is at least theoretically illegal in most of the world. But that took many many thousands of years (And who knows how long our ancestors have been enslaving sentient beings prior to historical record).

Unfortunately, much of the progress is being stalled by false or at least unproven information. Much of the way America was working in the early days, for instance, was based on the idea that if the Puritans "purified" the place completely, they'd all get to go to heaven -early-. So they were rather ruthless, and, unfortunately, its hard to get that back out of the culture.

Of course, due to the screwy way in which we've evolved (and all the mutations that hit us), there's no one true morality.

"Never hit someone you love, who loves you" sounds good and moral, right?

What if they have a spanking fetish?

Yeah. Dammit all.

Read up on Jean-Paul Sartre. He was an Atheist Existentialist. I am actually writing a paper for a class on a basis for atheist morality. The idea is that the moral thing for an atheist to do is that which he believes everyone else should do. Close to the golden rule, but not quite. (Sartre doesn't say this explicitly, it's my interpretation)

/me slams head against the wall.
Be carefull about implosions.
Read my quote. G-d created science and reason, therefore he is above science and reason.
That is what you believe, but i dont think so. Could you please point me to the relevant bible parts about God creating science?

OT: Yes, Kant had it right imo. The only thing we can be sure of is our ability to think, therefore it is consequent to derive a morality from logic.