What am I missing? Morality 101
Offline What am I missing?
I'm one of those people who thinks.. "I believe/feel there is a moral, so I act consistent with what I believe/feel is moral."
Circular, indeed, perhaps. However, I am a simpleton. 
I was, however, challenged today regarding this position.. and now, after some thinking, I'm still confused with the person's position that "what is moral" is "rational" or "has rationale." In other words.. there has to be a basis for it, otherwise it's just "faith" and "faith" is meaningless in a discussion regarding morality.
So.. let me present my thoughts after some thinking.
What is morality?
If morality is derived from what is best for me, then why should I not steal a few bucks when no one is watching?
If morality is derived from what is best for humanity, upon what basis is "best for humanity" moral?
If it is based upon utility? Utility for what? Happiness? Or species propogation? something else?
If happiness, then upon what basis is happiness moral? (i.e. moral = max happiness, why?
If species propogation? Then upon what grounds do we say it's not okay to kill one person to save (through organ donation) two others?
In other words, I can't see how a concept of "morality" of any real meaning comes down to anything but some non-self-evident assertion-- in otherwords, "feeling."
"Morality," of course, can merely be an illusion-- pluralistic nonsense which basically saps all meaning from the word. Or, it can be based upon "purely rational basis" (utility for x) and will almost always lead to absurd hypothetical conclusions (e.g. kill one for five)-- which, no one would usually agree is "moral," in the ineffable, feeling, faith based, sense. Or, of course, it is based upon that non-self-evident-assumption.
So.. let me know.. what am I missing. :/
- Login to post comments
Offline Not exactly. Whether or not an act is 'good' or 'bad' for a society is not necessarily dependant on the society agreeing, or even knowing, what we will term the acts moral value. But, because it is an act that effects the social group, it is an act that has a moral value. This value is dependant on the acts actual effect on the group and not simply the acts perceived effect on the group.
So if someone intentionally did something 'immoral' but it had a positive effect on society in the long run, that act would have positive moral value, and could be considered a moral act? How many tales have we heard about the best intentions leading to unforseen consequences? What you are talking about is Consequentialism and it would be a good stance if we were omniscient, and had perfect information about any given situation and how that situation interacted with the system as a whole (the universe, or at least earth). What you're left with is only having the ability to judge after the fact.
Not only sustain but I would say not detract from more than it contributes to.
But if there is a group there is necessarily some form of social order and thus some moral value. Actually social order is probably not the right wording. Let's say that when a group exists acts of individuals affect the group. Therefor for any act there is a moral value. I used social order not in the sense of heirarchy or even agreement but as in entities living as individual pieces of an overall group. Wipe the terminology social order from your memory. That was bad, bad wordage.
And exactly how do you quantify this value? By the effects on society? And how do you know the long term effects? A 'bad' cause could have a 'good' effect 20 years from now, does that make it moral? Sounds like you need omniscience.
But all these things act upon one another and influence each other. Happiness aids in the cohesiveness of the social group and the social group benefits the individuals happiness. If one super concept is required then the only possible one is existence.
So if some act causes one person unhappeness but causes 2 people happeness, this is a moral act? You are talking about utilitarianism, the problem of which is it is indiscriminent. Is it worth doing some act that causes 5 people happeness and one person unhappiness? What if those 5 people are homeless people, while the one person is a contributing member to society?
Ah. As I stated above. So yes, morality is merely elements of a "social contract."
Which would suggest that morality is limited to individual societies.. since there is no "society as a whole."
Moral questions can be limited to individual societies. Some are, some aren't. Since we are all basically the same type of organisms what is good for the goose is usually good for the other goose. Moral categories however are always constant. An act can be good or bad but the actual moral values of good and bad themselves are unchanging.
Acts arent good or bad, they are just causes in a world of cause and effect.
But if the group exists then the act is either moral or not regardless of what the group, or any individual within, thinks the act to be. It has some effect and that effect determines an acts moral value.
How does killing ever stabilize a society? Killing is about the most destabilizing act that can occur within a society. When it starts it becomes difficult to determine where the lines are drawn and who is deserving of life and who is not. It usually requires very special circumstances for it to ever be something that is actually beneficial for the stability of a society.
If a plague killed off a whole city, sure, it'd be a 'bad' thing to the people and their families, as well as the city itself. But you can also just as easily say that we're overcrowded and need less people around. Those people and their potential descendents will no longer exist, and as a result everyone else has more to themselves.
We do not have any real way to say that one action is 'good' and another 'evil', regardless of consequences. The results of actions mean different things to different people, as well as on the social scale. The essential statement is: things aren't 'good' or 'evil', they just are.
Of course this is all merely my opinion. not that I need to say that but I don't want people thinking I am stating anything as undeniable fact. Simply giving my thoughts from my perspective.
Opinions make for good conversation. Moral faith (yes faith) is one of my favourite discussion topics, so keep it coming.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
- Login to post comments
Offline So if someone intentionally did something 'immoral' but it had a positive effect on society in the long run, that act would have positive moral value, and could be considered a moral act?
You are begging the question. You say "if someone did something immoral but it had a positive effect on society", which, by the definition of morality offered, would be moral not immoral. Do you mean, 'if they thought what they were doing was immoral'or 'if they did something with ill intent'?
Well, for the members of a society to commit acts with ill intent is not something that is beneficial for society, as more often than not we would expect these acts to not only be perceived as bad for society, but to actually be bad for society. So, in this situation the act itself could be a beneficial act, but the actor would not be moral due to his/her intent.
How many tales have we heard about the best intentions leading to unforseen consequences?
Yes, but we can see that beneficial intentions are in themselves moral as they would be performed with the intent of benefiting society. If their actual effect is not beneficial, or even harmful, then, though the intentions were moral, the act itself is not. With this type of occurence we gain moral insight through empirical observation and can apply the principles in the future. So in that way it could be seen as moral as well. There can be many moral values attached to any one act dependant on perspective.
What you are talking about is Consequentialism and it would be a good stance if we were omniscient, and had perfect information about any given situation and how that situation interacted with the system as a whole (the universe, or at least earth). What you're left with is only having the ability to judge after the fact.
We don't need to be omniscient we just need to remember what we have learned from past acts and engage in acts we think will be beneficial. Evolution has even aided us in this by programming answers to some moral questions into our nature. As with any question, we can only know the answer as it is possible to know it from our perspective. Human morality affects human beings and this is the only way in which we can consider moral questions. If our acts negatively effect a planet many light years away this is not an issue that affects the answer to human moral question.
What makes contribution to society more important than say, contribution to humanity?
How is this not a distinction without a difference?
Would it be moral to sterilize the unintelligent and unhealthy in a society if it made the human species stronger, smarter and healthier as a whole?
Where is the intelligent/unintelligent line? Where is the healthy/unhealthy line? Do the benefits of best intelligence and best health outweigh the benefits of compassion and love for fellow human beings? A society that sterilizes people against their will does not seem like it would be a very stable society to me.
This is why we consider all people to have equal rights. Because their is no non-arbitrary line at which we can say these people should have this right and these not. When you draw arbitrary lines of distinction they can be moved any which way and the rights of all are always in jeopardy.
And this would eventually lead to less poverty, crime, unemployment etc...?
What would?
You are saying something is moral in the context of society, but why only society?
Because it is only in the social group, the society, that moral questions apply. In isolation there are no moral questions.
And exactly how do you quantify this value?
The only way you quantify anything, in distinction to something else.
By the effects on society?
Yes.
And how do you know the long term effects?
You don't. It requires reasoning to the best of ability. An act can only be performed with a moral intent. The actor can only be assigned a moral value based in intent. The act itself carries the actual moral value of the acts effect on society.
A 'bad' cause could have a 'good' effect 20 years from now, does that make it moral?
Yes it could. At which point the next generation would have empirical evidence of the apparent answer to a moral question, which of course is always subject to change at a later time with more information. But, we can only perform acts with intent based on what we presently know.
Sounds like you need omniscience.
You would to know the actual moral value of any act, but why worry with what you can not possibly know? It can have no affect on the moral value of your intent.
So if some act causes one person unhappeness but causes 2 people happeness, this is a moral act?
If you could limit the variables to only happiness then yes, but that is not the case.
You are talking about utilitarianism, the problem of which is it is indiscriminent. Is it worth doing some act that causes 5 people happeness and one person unhappiness?
As I said happiness does not equal morality. To many moral questions there are thousands of other variables. But, if you perform such an act with the intent of doing moral good then yes you are being moral even though your act may not be moral.
What if those 5 people are homeless people, while the one person is a contributing member to society?
Why would that matter?
Why are moral values based on society and not just family, or humanity as a whole. If it would benefit society to invade another society and take their resources so that society could have a higher standard of living moral?
Society is the totality of social relationships among humans. We can divide society into subgroups such as families, tribes, nations, religions, whatever and each of these can be considered individual societies but the effect of any moral act must be considered as it affects the totality of society as there is no line that can be drawn as to where the moral value of a given act no longer applies
Acts arent good or bad, they are just causes in a world of cause and effect.
Every act has an effect and that effect is either beneficial or detrimental, or some compilation of the two, for society. This is the acts moral value.
And how would you determine these effects? Donating clothes to a 3rd world country may seem like a good idea, but all its doing is putting their tailors out of work and making them even more reliant on charity. Like I said above consequentialism would be a good stance if we were omniscient, and had perfect information about any given situation and how that situation interacted with the system as a whole (the universe, or at least earth).
Answered above.
If a plague killed off a whole city, sure, it'd be a 'bad' thing to the people and their families, as well as the city itself. But you can also just as easily say that we're overcrowded and need less people around. Those people and their potential descendents will no longer exist, and as a result everyone else has more to themselves.
Yes, there can be many variables. This does not change the fact that there is an effect and that effect has a moral value.
We do not have any real way to say that one action is 'good' and another 'evil', regardless of consequences. The results of actions mean different things to different people, as well as on the social scale. The essential statement is: things aren't 'good' or 'evil', they just are.
I disagree as I have stated above.
Opinions make for good conversation. Moral faith (yes faith) is one of my favourite discussion topics, so keep it coming.
Yeah. I had to add the disclaimer as alot of times people seem to think that if someone states something then they are dogmatically married to that idea/philosophy/ideology which is rarely, if ever, the case for me with a topic such as this. Attemtping to defend the ideas is always fun and sometimes insightful though.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:
Morality is like evolution. It's the result of non-random selection involving literally hundreds of thousands of variables in the simplest incedences. To expect there to be a single basis is, um... a little naive, I think.Um.. no it's not Hammy. I to expect there to be many basis and saying that those who expect there to be a single basis, is, um... a little arrogant, I think.
There is a single basis for evolution. Propogation. While there are many variables.. many entites trying different things in order to propogate itself.. this does not change that evolution is based upon "natural selection" or "propogation."
I think you're taking my "basis" argument to literally.. and.. definitely.. depending on how one defines morality.. there may be an infinite amount of "basis"s for morality..
In anycase.. I must move on.
Well, I'm not the one who just said there are many basis for evolution, and then in the next paragraph said there's only one.
I get what you're saying. I'm just trying to help you say it better. I know you're not a sociopath, etc... that was all rhetorical, of course.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline I get what you're saying. I'm just trying to help you say it better.
Heh.. yesyes. Sometimes the typos and my general unclarity create problems.
I know you're not a sociopath, etc... that was all rhetorical, of course.
Heh. Of course of course. Thanks for the responses Hammy & Others.
Here are some edits of my horribly written responses. Which.. may be considered cheating now.
Um.. no it's not Hammy. I expect [that ] there [might be] many basis [for morality] [yet still believe that] saying that those who expect there to be a single basis are naive, is, um... a little arrogant, I think.
[On the issue of evolution, however, I think, arguably] There is a single basis for evolution. Propogation. While there are many variables.. many entites trying different things in order to propogate itself.. this does not change that evolution is based upon "natural selection" or "propogation."
- Login to post comments
Offline Um.. no it's not Hammy. I expect [that ] there [might be] many basis [for morality] [yet still believe that] saying that those who expect there to be a single basis are naive, is, um... a little arrogant, I think.
Well, on a complete tangent, I don't think it's arrogant. It seems accurate. Sometimes, pointing out things that ought to be obvious can seem arrogant if you're one of the ones that didn't notice...
If you've studied history or philosophy at all, you'd certainly notice that there are a lot of different ways of approaching morality. I suppose I could be expecting too much. I am dumbfounded that everyone can't see that it's obvious there's no god, after all.
[On the issue of evolution, however, I think, arguably] There is a single basis for evolution. Propogation. While there are many variables.. many entites trying different things in order to propogate itself.. this does not change that evolution is based upon "natural selection" or "propogation."
Hmm... if you mean to say:
Evolution is only a small part of the construct of morality. This part of the construct is based entirely on the drive to reproduce.
... then I agree. Granted, there are things that may seem more complex (like not having sex with your daughter) but they all boil down to reproductive success and the viability of the offspring, so yeah. It's all about the babies.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline If you've studied history or philosophy at all, you'd certainly notice that there are a lot of different ways of approaching morality. I suppose I could be expecting too much. I am dumbfounded that everyone can't see that it's obvious there's no god, after all.
Heh. Tis true.
Evolution is only a small part of the construct of morality. This part of the construct is based entirely on the drive to reproduce.
... then I agree. Granted, there are things that may seem more complex (like not having sex with your daughter) but they all boil down to reproductive success and the viability of the offspring, so yeah. It's all about the babies.
Heh. I see. So noted.
- Login to post comments
Offline Which is just another way of saying morality is derived from what is best for me.
Yes. But it also refutes common notions of 'what is best for me' by showing that immoral acts are not 'best for me' even if I can get away with them in the eyes of society, i.e. without punishment.
the premises seem still to suggest morality is developed from a society, based upon the value to that society, until such time as it becomes so inherent in a person that the person doesn't think about the value anymore. The conclusion would be cultural relativism though, correct?
Not quite. Some social standards would be down to cultural relativism, like 'no spitting' and 'no nudity in public' - things like that. There are some morals that rather than being relative to specific cultures will apply to all social beings regardless of culture. Morals like not murdering and being altruistic. In this way we can measure cultures against each other, as some cultures being out the best while others not.
- Login to post comments
Morality is a concept that philosophers are still getting their heads around. My thoughts at the moment find that morality mostly about sociality. One could point out that we require co-operation to survive but that would be merely scratching the surface. Our relationships are an integral part of our lives and morality, as I understand it, is doing what is good for society. I don't merely mean our closest relationships either. Altruism to strangers is also important, although clearly not as important as closer friends, still important.
I think what you're missing is that there isn't a single answer to your question, "What is morality?"
There are several things that morality is.
1) We are evolutionarily hard wired towards some behaviors, or avoidance of some behaviors. This is why having sex with your daughter is pretty much wrong everywhere. It's evolution, baby! (Not that it can't be overcome, but it's not easy.)
2) Laws are created for "the greater good." People decide how everyone should act so that everyone benefits the most, in theory. This kind of morality is one of the middle developments in the Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development. It's a system based on reward and punishment, not necessarily on an innate sense of what is good. I don't sell pot because it's illegal, not because I think it's wrong, for instance.
3) There is internal morality, as well. This is when a person has lived long enough to internalize their own idea of what is important, and usually goes beyond utilitarianism or instant happiness. Individuals then make their own determinations about what is right and wrong. The really smart ones recognize that this determination is largely based on variables that are unique to their own life, such that other people can come up with other ideas. This is where the idea of acceptance of other people's morality comes into play, even when it disagrees. It is what allows me, for instance, to watch in silence while friends buy an SUV, even though I am appalled by the horrible immorality of it. I recognize that other people don't hold the environment as high in their morality system as I do, and that they won't be appalled by their actions.
For your enjoyment, here's Wikipedia's summary of the Kohlberg Stages. Note that most religions stop somewhere in the middle, and that even just using this one model, you can see clearly that morality is different things to different people.
Kohlberg's six stages were grouped into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.[7][8][9] Following Piaget's constructivist requirements for a stage model (see his theory of cognitive development), it is extremely rare to regress backward in stages - to lose functionality of higher stage abilities.[10][11] Even so, no one functions at their highest stage at all times.[citation needed] It is also not possible to 'jump' forward stages; each stage provides a new yet necessary perspective, and is more comprehensive, differentiated, and integrated than its predecessors.[10][11]
[edit] Pre-Conventional
The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner.
In Stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'bad' the act is perceived to be.[12] In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.
Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position, right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.[3] In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspective of society in the pre-conventional level, this should not be confused with social contract (stage five), as all actions are performed to serve one's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the perspective of the world is often seen as morally relative.
[edit] Conventional
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development.
In Stage three, the self enters society by filling social roles. Individuals are receptive of approval or disapproval from other people as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a good boy or good girl to live up to these expectations,[3] having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the 'golden rule'. Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only to further support these stereotypical social roles. The intentions of actions play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; 'they mean well...'.[3]
In Stage four, it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones.
[edit] Post-Conventional
The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral development. Realization that individuals are separate entities from society now becomes salient. One's own perspective should be viewed before the society's. It is due to this 'nature of self before others' that the post-conventional level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken for pre-conventional behaviors.
In Stage five, individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values. Along a similar vein, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid dictums. Those that do not promote general social welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people.[8] This is attained through majority decision, and inevitably compromise. In this way democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.
In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not met hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way (see Immanuel Kant's 'categorical imperative'[13]). This can be done by imagining what one would do being in anyone's shoes, who imagined what anyone would do thinking the same (see John Rawls's 'veil of ignorance'[14]). The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; one acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal or previously agreed upon. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.[11]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Who says that this is wrong? I don't.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Stage six:
That basically states what I did.. it's circular. "I do what is right because it is right, not because it is a means to an end."
Which, if our concept of "morality" is based upon this, then it morality is an illusionary concept that is useful only in propogations of our own genetics.
Bacteria would not be moral, IMO-- because we are sentient, we like to describe our actions as "moral" as opposed to merely "doing what's best to propogate my genetic pool."
If morality is justified through this, then in essence we are saying that morality is utilitarian because if morality is based on laws, and laws are based upon what it best for society, then morality is based upon what is best for society.
Still, the question remains, best in what sense? In happiness? or in propogation of the human species as a whole?
Accepted. However, once it becomes "internalized" as you say.. what is its basis then? Either it was "internalized" always and you foudn it or it was "interalized" through your societal upbringing (since, at least according to the stages, each level is based upon society upbringing).
If the latter.. the "morality" is meaningless.. to me, it would seem pluralistic, to each his own, in the exteme sense.
Not only, "fine, he can get an SUV" but "fine, he can kill his daughter because she was seen kissing another man" or "fine, they can be killed because they are not christian."
Societally formed "internal ethics."
Indeed. I realize what morality would lead to. But that doesn't say upon what rationale it is based upon. If it is "best for society" or "requirement of co-operation"-- that is fine, rationale, but like I said.. I think it would lead to some absurd conclusions if that is really the rationale.
I realize it's a complicated issue.. I'm just wondering whether or not it can be made simpler.
Society? Me? Someone else?
I don't know. If you don't think it is, fine, but then you must base your morality on something (whether it be intrinsic belief, societal benefit, personal benefit, or not existing at all.. just an illusion).
I'm looking for consistancy.
1.) It's fine if someone says "there is no such thing as morality"-- it's an illusion.
2.) It's fine if someone says "there is such thing as morality, just no rationale basis other than I feel it to be right."
3.) It's fine if someone says "there is such thing as morality but it is not anything other than something based in utility."
.. what I see as inconsistent is when someone says 1 and yet wishes to use the word "moral" as if it as any meaning whatsoever.
or
if someone uses 3 and yet justifies something which is not utilitarian as moral.
The way human beings interact with each other, within social groups, that allows the social group to exist.
Because then others would be equally moral in stealing from you and it becomes a free for all. The group can not hold together as it becomes intrinsically unstable.
Morality is not derived from what is best for humanity. It comes about because social order is what is necessary for humans to live in social groups. The environment in which humans evolved determined that they are social animals. When they congregate ingroups there are behaviors which, by their nature, allow them to exist in a social group and behaviors which make it difficult or impossible to live as a group.
There is no need to choose between the two, or three, or four etc.. In fact, it wouldn't make sense to do so. Wouldn't you consider happiness an important part of species propogation and both an important part of humans being able to live together in a society? All these things play parts in morality.
Happiness does not equal morality anymore than a seat belt equals a car.
There is no goal. Killing one to save two makes no sense without a goal of having the greatest number of living individuals. Morality is merely a natural part of animal behavior found in animals that live in social groups. It is not some principle enforced by nature, but merely the way animals behave in social groups if they are to be able to live in social groups. If they weren't living in social groups then there would be no morality.
No matter what you feel moral acts are moral acts and immoral acts are immoral. Feeling can not support morality.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Not quite. Hamby is describing the psychological motivation here rather than the reasoning. They have develloped their sense of right and wrong by reasoning out the consequences, they no longer need to consciously think things out. It's like how once you have develloped a recipie you can blindly follow it rather than having to re-invent it every time you cook.
The idea is that what's best for society is what's best for you.
By this reasoning I must be claiming that stealing those few bucks is not in your best interests, even if you get away with it. However, I'm certain you can think of situations where it would be in their best interests.
To argue my point, we have to recognise the importance that our psychology plays in our moral practice. To become motivated to do what's best for society (so what is usually best for us) we have to come to value society because we are motivated to do for what we value. Once we value society, we will do it for the sake of doing what we value. So to break it down:
Premise 1) It is in my best interests to devellop a value for society
Premise 2) Once I have develloped a value for society I will do what is good for it out of this value, not needing to justify actions by selfish reasons
Conclusion) If I go by my selfish interests I will eventually find myself compelled to selfless acts.
I think that the conclusion follows from the premises.
Do you disagree with any of the premises?
There's a subtle difference. This is "I do what's right because I can understand that it's good, and I believe consistent good behavior is also good" as opposed to "I do what's right because I don't want to be punished," or "I do what's right because I want to be liked."
I think your hang up is that there's a chain here that ultimately leads to a subjective end. It's not circular, exactly. I have very strong logic behind what I believe is right. It's just that many of my premises are not empirical data, but conclusions derived from empirical data. Those conclusions, while convincing to me, are not necessarily the only conclusions people can reach. Therefore, there really are multiple correct answers to the question, "What is good?" simply because there are multiple social groups, and multiple individuals with multiple interests.
Very few, if any. Again, it's all a matter of what perspective you wish to start with. Utilitarianism, propogation of the species, survival of the fittest, these are all perspectives on which to build a system of morality. Is one better than another? Depends on your perspective.
Even taking evolutionary programming as a base is risky. After all, we've proven that we don't like to leave things up to evolution. Medicine was invented to beat evolution.
I believe I just addressed this. Let me know if the previous answer doesn't cover this for you.
Social morality (laws) is essentially utilitarian, yes.
Again, in the sense that has been decided on by the majority, or the most powerful, or on drawing straws. That's the whole point. There isn't one answer. That's the answer.
It was internalized through my own empirical observations, which, you understand, are vastly different than say, someone who grew up in an inner city housing project, or who lived through a concentration camp, or who was born an emperor. So, it would make sense that the values I hold to are different than the values of someone in a vastly different circumstance. Some things are more important to me, others to you.
Again, that's the point.
There is not a single answer. No, there is not a universal moral constant. No, there is not a single yardstick by which we can define or judge morality.
But!!! And this is very important.... this does not mean that morality is entirely subjective, and that any system of morality could exist. The consistency of certain laws through history, and the ubiquitous nature of some cultural norms demonstrates that humans are slanted towards certain ideas about morality. Notice the word slanted... not inexorably drawn towards... just a tendency. In large groups, tendencies become nearly universal if they are strong enough.
If it is meaningless to you, then you are a sociopath. I'm not saying that flippantly. You are ignoring the fact that there are other people, who all tend to view some basic ethics the same way. You are also ignoring the fact that there are evolutionary hard wires in your brain that twinge when you consider some things.
This argument only works on paper. It ignores reality. That's what sociopaths do. They are incapable of understanding the broader implications of society in their own internalizations.
Well, notice that throughout history, many women have been killed for kissing other men, and many people have been killed because they were not part of the group.
This is a hard reality to swallow, but it's true. If something is socially acceptable, then it is socially acceptable. To us, someone who performs an honor killing is morally reprehensible. The person doing it feels righteous fury. This is because morality IS internalized based on empirical data from a person's own life experience.
IF you choose to defy social norms THEN you are immoral within those norms. This says nothing about other norms.
As has been pointed out previously, this is something that philosophers have been trying to wrap their brains around for a long time. Everybody really really wants to find an objective, set standard of morality so that we can say that people who do things we think are bad can be called bad objectively.
Fact is, this standard has not been found, and it probably won't because there are simply too many variables in human existence for such a thing to be likely.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The social contract idea, correct?
So moral is whatever can be practiced on an individual level as well as a universal level and yet still sustain social cohesiveness.
Got it.
Ergo, no social order, no morality.
Ergo, social order, morality for social animals.
You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
If morality is based upon utility.. then it must be utility for something not everything or multiple things.
If one says "utility based upon a balance between happiness and social cohesion" then there must be some higher concept upon which they are meant to be balanced in.. and if there is no balance and they are "one in the same"-- then they must be "one in the same" of something.. such as.. "propogation of the species."
Your analogy suggests happiness is a part of morality.. how so? obviously we are not speaking of concrete objects.. so are you meaning to suggestion that morality leads to happiness? or that happiness leads, in part, to morality?
I'd expect the former. Or perhaps something else.
Ah. As I stated above. So yes, morality is merely elements of a "social contract."
Which would suggest that morality is limited to individual societies.. since there is no "society as a whole."
Circular. Moral is moral because of a societal group. There is no "moral because its moral."
If a societal group finds it useful and efficient to kill adulterous women for the sake of societal stability... or kill non-believers.. so be it.. it is moral.
?
It would seem.
These will be my last responses since I need to get back to studying.. here we go.
Indeed. I realized that this was stage six of a development. Yet since the development was based off of personal or societal utility, it still would lead to the same problem of person or societal pluralism. Dependant upon the society, is the moral dependant on.
Which is just another way of saying morality is derived from what is best for me.
I don't disagree with anything you guys are saying per se. Merely wondering as to what there conclusions are.. the premises seem still to suggest morality is developed from a society, based upon the value to that society, until such time as it becomes so inherent in a person that the person doesn't think about the value anymore.
The conclusion would be cultural relativism though, correct?
I'm jumping into this response because you seem to be hung on all-or-nothing thinking.
Consider evolution for a second. "Survival of the fittest" is not nearly as simple as it sounds. In any particular lake, the fittest fish may be two different fish... the one that hunts the best, and the one that hides the best. Both are quite fit, and will survive quite nicely.
In morality, happiness is something that often results from not being in jail -- i.e. following laws, i.e. being a utilitarian. Furthermore, the person who bases his own morality on happiness will come to the same conclusion as the utilitarian -- killing innocent people is wrong. Though the paths will be very different, the results will be the same. Therefore, you can have people with different moral compasses living together with similar, albeit slightly different sets of morality, all utilizing happiness, utilitarianism, and at least a half a dozen other foundations for their own conceptions.
Morality is like evolution. It's the result of non-random selection involving literally hundreds of thousands of variables in the simplest incedences. To expect there to be a single basis is, um... a little naive, I think.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Heh. I realize there are other people. No worries. My meaning was, that within the construct, I was understanding that morality is societally based on what is best for that society.. therefore.. each society has it's own basis.. not one any better than the other since morality cannot be "better" per se.
Alright.. well sorry I couldn't get more into this.. but I've been contemplating on this for awhile.. and definitely reading/writing to much. I gotta study..
Thanks for the aid. 
I think the problem here is that we are trying to define morality as something all agree on. It isn't. There are times one person may see an action as moral, while another views it as immoral.
So what is morality? Really, there are two types here - society's and yours. Society's, I believe, is a balence between concern for the greater good and the individual. As to your morality - that is for you to decide.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Society created morality. In the first stages of development, killing innocent people is wrong because I will be punished because society has deemed it appropiate to punish something which they find will not serve the purpose of that society in it's purpose.
But what is society's purpose? This is what I meant by "happiness".. as in.. max societal happiness. Not necessarily individual. Or is there some other purpose?
Um.. no it's not Hammy. I to expect there to be many basis and saying that those who expect there to be a single basis, is, um... a little arrogant, I think.
There is a single basis for evolution. Propogation. While there are many variables.. many entites trying different things in order to propogate itself.. this does not change that evolution is based upon "natural selection" or "propogation."
I think you're taking my "basis" argument to literally.. and.. definitely.. depending on how one defines morality.. there may be an infinite amount of "basis"s for morality..
Not exactly. Whether or not an act is 'good' or 'bad' for a society is not necessarily dependant on the society agreeing, or even knowing, what we will term the acts moral value. But, because it is an act that effects the social group, it is an act that has a moral value. This value is dependant on the acts actual effect on the group and not simply the acts perceived effect on the group.
Not only sustain but I would say not detract from more than it contributes to.
But if there is a group there is necessarily some form of social order and thus some moral value. Actually social order is probably not the right wording. Let's say that when a group exists acts of individuals affect the group. Therefor for any act there is a moral value. I used social order not in the sense of heirarchy or even agreement but as in entities living as individual pieces of an overall group. Wipe the terminology social order from your memory. That was bad, bad wordage.
But all these things act upon one another and influence each other. Happiness aids in the cohesiveness of the social group and the social group benefits the individuals happiness. If one super concept is required then the only possible one is existence.
Happiness aids in the cohesiveness of the social group as a happy individual is a stronger piece of the group. What makes one happy helps to build strong social groups. What makes the group happy helps to sustain social cohesion and in turn often makes the individual happy. However, what makes the group happy may not always make one happy and what makes one happy may not do so for the group. Either way a certain act has a moral value and all factors of the acts effects on society are values in the overall moral value.
Ah. As I stated above. So yes, morality is merely elements of a "social contract."
Which would suggest that morality is limited to individual societies.. since there is no "society as a whole."
Moral questions can be limited to individual societies. Some are, some aren't. Since we are all basically the same type of organisms what is good for the goose is usually good for the other goose. Moral categories however are always constant. An act can be good or bad but the actual moral values of good and bad themselves are unchanging.
But if the group exists then the act is either moral or not regardless of what the group, or any individual within, thinks the act to be. It has some effect and that effect determines an acts moral value.
How does killing ever stabilize a society? Killing is about the most destabilizing act that can occur within a society. When it starts it becomes difficult to determine where the lines are drawn and who is deserving of life and who is not. It usually requires very special circumstances for it to ever be something that is actually beneficial for the stability of a society.
Of course this is all merely my opinion. not that I need to say that but I don't want people thinking I am stating anything as undeniable fact. Simply giving my thoughts from my perspective.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins