On Morality

[Jazzotron]

As I am sure we're all aware, morality has not been dictated by a big, bad, sky-fairy. But I am curious about morality as a whole. Topics such as the history of morality, moral psychology (if there is such a thing?),or even basic things such as "being good - what's the point?" or "is there right and wrong?" :confused:

Anywho, as you can tell from the rather vague and unfocused paragraph above, I am rather poorly educated upon this topic and seek enlightenment. I welcome and thoughts on this/these matter/s, and suggestions for decent introductory reading material would also be warmly welcomed!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Ah yes - I believe I started a thread in Fantasy Island (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2184) attempting to explain what some of my morals are. I must say some of those morals cannot be obtained from any of the religious books I have read.

[OzAtheist]

There was some good info on origins of morality in Shermer's book Mind of the Market. I'll try and post a few quotes later.

[paul]

Hi Jazzotron -

Morality is such an interesting topic and is well-grounded in Darwinism. Morality is conducive to survival and reproduction. Therefore, can be explained from an evolutionary point-of-view. I think Dawkins' The Selfish Gene did well at explaining how something so inherently selfish, can still be moral. As he argues, a cuckoo may become the foster parent of a wayward chick. In feeding it, it is wasting energy that could be more efficiently distributed to its own offspring. But the cuckoos doesn't discriminate in such a way. It's imperative is to care for small squawking things in its nest.

I think we ought to be good because it's good for us. This conclusion could be easily taken out of context. "What if being good, isn't good for us?" Well that's when I refer to utilitarianism. This is the moral framework I tend to adhere to. Check it out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism).

"Is there right and wrong?" Again, this is where I refer to utilitarianism and consequentialism. I don't think there is necessarily morally wrong or right actions, in and of themselves, rather, morally wrong or right consequences. I think it is incorrect to say "killing is wrong" as in some circumstances I am sure it is morally permissible.

Paul

[Caio]

It depends o n who you ask, personally I am from the view of amoralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorality)
as an extension of ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics) as a source of morality. An example is that I don’t see killing anybody as morally ok, under any circumstances, many here would disagree and often I find myself questioning this position, but it’s how I feel. Another example would be marriage, for all I care people should marry as many people and to anybody they want to, I don’t care, but again there would be many people (not all religious) who would also take a different t view point.

The way I have figured it, morality, as a whole topic is difficult to address, there are many schools of thought (and that’s an understatement), but “the selfish gene” by Richard dawkins, is a good read, especially if you are of the same mentality as me regarding morality…

[GenericBox]

If I could ... source ... my morality to anything it would be empathy (I think thats the one).

You know - where for everything you do that may hurt someone else you ask yourself: "if someone did this to me would I like it?".

I constantly think, before most things I do: does doing this action hurt anyone else? If it doesn't, I go ahead; If it does, then I weigh up the pros and cons of doing the action, and the 'severity' of the hurt to that someone. Most of the time if I need to continue doing an action at someone else's harm I will attempt reduce the harm to that person.

That's how I see it anyway. I guess I was just raised by the whole motherly saying: "If [Jimmy] did that to you would you like it?"

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Ah but what if someone really pisses you off? is that an exception to your empathy moral?

[GenericBox]

Don't know. No one has ever really pissed me off. Honestly.

I've never hit anyone, never even hated anyone. I just don't get that emotion. Never experienced rage.

I strongly doubt anyone could piss me off. Dunno. I probably wouldn't even recognise if someone did. I wouldn't know what I was feeling.

^^^ Being honest. Never hated/hit/had rage in my life.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

That's alright. I don't get the emotion of love easily. I strictly speaking do not love any members of my family because I cannot love them because I do not understand love very well.

[atheist_angel]

I just see love as acceptance and companionship with altruistic qualities.

[robertkd]

As I am sure we're all aware, morality has not been dictated by a big, bad, sky-fairy. But I am curious about morality as a whole. Topics such as the history of morality, moral psychology (if there is such a thing?),or even basic things such as "being good - what's the point?" or "is there right and wrong?" :confused:

Anywho, as you can tell from the rather vague and unfocused paragraph above, I am rather poorly educated upon this topic and seek enlightenment. I welcome and thoughts on this/these matter/s, and suggestions for decent introductory reading material would also be warmly welcomed!


oddly enough you articulate very well, your seem well educated, perhaps you might care to enlighten us with your understanding of morality what it is that you subscribe to :cool:

[Seamus]

It depends o n who you ask, personally I am from the view of amoralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorality)
as an extension of ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics) as a source of morality. An example is that I don’t see killing anybody as morally ok, under any circumstances, many here would disagree and often I find myself questioning this position, but it’s how I feel. Another example would be marriage, for all I care people should marry as many people and to anybody they want to, I don’t care, but again there would be many people (not all religious) who would also take a different t view point.

…

How does your position on killing not contradict your claim of amoralism? ie you have just stated an active belief and moral absolute.

Amoralism is unique in the regard that it has basically no active belief. Unlike moral nihilism which has an emphasis on the nature of morality and whether or not it is credible, Amoralism does not make such judgments, rather it leaves these decisions to the human to decide.


My position: Moral relativism,because I have not yet been able to find any moral absolutes..

The philosophical basis of my position is egoism.

http://://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoism


Like you,I have no interest in convincing others oft validity of my position. I assert only that it works for me.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=71&stc=1&d=1253424139

[Jazzotron]

oddly enough you articulate very well, your seem well educated, perhaps you might care to enlighten us with your understanding of morality what it is that you subscribe to :cool:

I guess I subscribe to the notion of "do unto others..." which in all likelihood arose from my religious indoctrination as a youth. Although now I practice this for the reason that it feels good to help out others. I wonder if I would subscribe to this without the brainwashing? Would this depend upon environmental factors, genetic predisposition, or some combination of both? I suppose this is why I asked the question/s in the first place! :p

An interesting example - I abhor bullies (social, workplace etc) which I can trace to my time as someone who bullied others as a youth. The shame I now feel about that has caused me on a number of occasions to smack-down those who try to victimise others. I cannot attribute this to my religious rearing - where did it come from? Why didn't I remain a bully, like so many others I have had contact with in adult life?

Anywho, my thanks to all for giving me some direction for research! I find it to be a fascinating topic and hopefully I will be able to increase my knowledge, by even a small margin (which - as you can see - I sorely need to do!;))

[eclectic]

Ah, a big and eternally interesting - and probably impossible to conclude - subject. For me following dogma is NOT moral because to me ethical behaviour must, by definition, include conscious thinking.

If you would like some reading, I recommend "Being Good" by Simon Blackburn for starters. It is very basic, but gives a good outline of the major philosophical thoughts on ethics. We read it as a background for the various ethics units I studied at uni. It really doesn't go very deep, but that's not what it's trying to do. You could then move on to readings by specific ethicists.

[Caio]

How does your position on killing not contradict your claim of amoralism? ie you have just stated an active belief and moral absolute.

Because it is a personal belief, I don’t believe that morality exists in an absolute sense, but possess moral views on certain topics.

[/quote]Amoralism is the complete disbelief in any sort of morality or ethical code. Though often associated with immoralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immoralism), the two are fundamentally different. Immoralism is a system that does not accept moral principles and directly opposes morality, while amoralism does not consider the existence of morality plausible, but does not necessarily oppose its ideology [/quote]

So while I believe in “evolutionary morality”, i.e. that our moral principals such as killing a fellow human is bad, it doesn’t exist in a realistic absolutist sense. I don’t see murder as being justifiable, but this is just a personal view (it has a lot of ifs maybes and buts), it is not an absolute naturally ordained (or otherwise ordained) rule of existence.
I hope this makes sense, ask please if it doesn’t and ill try to clarify…

[rainbowings15]

As always very enlightening and interesting. I also love how most of us are active way past midnight. :)
Whilst its important more than ever to "step lightly on the Earth" the truth is what ever we do, someone is paying for it. Look at how sweat shops are flourishing because of our demand for clothing, shoes etc. Where does the plastic go when finished. Food, water, medication: someone and/or something suffered. We are a cancer. All we can do is "our best". Thats when religion comes in handy because "God will forgive us" so we can keep go and ring up the ever accumulating credit card of life because God wil pay it all out for us when we get to meet him.
The only way to be truly moral is to live naked in a jungle and be a vegan. Although I do remember Neil from the "Young Ones" wanting more rights for vegetables. What to do...:D

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Don't kill
Don't steal
These two principles can be observed in many species other than humanity and, I think, point to our moral compass having an evolutionary history as a selective advantage. Killing or stealing would quickly see an individual cast out of their community or family. In animals where individuals benefit from collective efforts or have long juvenile and adolescent developments this would likely result in the individual's death or failure to breed.
In humans (if you like your Freud) the super-ego develops in young children to prevent the id from spurring behaviour that would see the individual cast out of the family, so we go as far as to develop a subconscious safeguard against first order self interest.
For us, the advantages of living in cohesive society outweigh the costs so the individual, by stemming urges of first order self interest, gains a greater return in second order benefits. Being moral is selfish at one remove by offering better odds of reproductive success.
WLB

Together we're alone together (if you like your Fry)

[eclectic]

The only way to be truly moral is to live naked in a jungle and be a vegan. Although I do remember Neil from the "Young Ones" wanting more rights for vegetables. What to do...:D

You could be a fruitarian, http://www.fruitarian.com/ or better yet a breath-arian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia.

An astrologer I used to be a fan of (when I was into that stuff), Linda Goodman, lost me with her 'star signs' book all about eating the right coloured food for weight loss, and how we should be breatharians but our air is too polluted so the best we can do is part-time fruitarian, part-time breatharian. She also believed we could live forever if we teach our cells to regenerate... she has since died, so she was either very bad at it or it's a load of hoey.

[Caio]

As always very enlightening and interesting. I also love how most of us are active way past midnight. :)
Whilst its important more than ever to "step lightly on the Earth" the truth is what ever we do, someone is paying for it. Look at how sweat shops are flourishing because of our demand for clothing, shoes etc. Where does the plastic go when finished. Food, water, medication: someone and/or something suffered. We are a cancer. All we can do is "our best". Thats when religion comes in handy because "God will forgive us" so we can keep go and ring up the ever accumulating credit card of life because God wil pay it all out for us when we get to meet him.
The only way to be truly moral is to live naked in a jungle and be a vegan. Although I do remember Neil from the "Young Ones" wanting more rights for vegetables. What to do...:D

Maybe the truly moral thing would be for us to just go and die. The world would probable be a much better place, and who knows maybe the next “intelligent” species will do a better job…

[rainbowings15]

You could be a fruitarian, http://www.fruitarian.com/ or better yet a breath-arian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia.

An astrologer I used to be a fan of (when I was into that stuff), Linda Goodman, lost me with her 'star signs' book all about eating the right coloured food for weight loss, and how we should be breatharians but our air is too polluted so the best we can do is part-time fruitarian, part-time breatharian. She also believed we could live forever if we teach our cells to regenerate... she has since died, so she was either very bad at it or it's a load of hoey.

Or she just ate a bad apple?

[Seamus]

Linda Goodman died?

What a pity.

In terms of veracity and credibility (even amongst astrologers) she was the Alison DuBois of her day.:p

[Buddhish]

Really interested in this - thanks for the Being Good reference Eclectic - I will look that one up and add to my list. Do you find your morality and ethics set you apart from the mainstream society you are in?

I am in Brisbubble in Oz, and have found that the more I focus on viewing the world in an empirical manner and thinking ethically about my actions, the more alone I feel. Have others experienced this?

I've also found that, when I was "their friend the Buddhist" that was OK. Now I publically say "I'm atheist", it results in a much colder reception. Have others found that too?

Sorry - if that's too far from the topic, just ignore. I havent' had enough coffee yet to be very discerning this morning.