Ethics
Offline Religious people often like to make a lot of "Where do we get our morals from?" This is such a remarkably simple question to answer yet this arguement continues permeate from the faithful side. I think it is because the answer simply hasn't been articulated quite enough. For me it a simple matter of understanding the consequences of my actions, a utilitarian understanding. The degree of suffering an action inflicts determines how immoral it is. It is clearly religion that distorts these moral premises being that it is an unverifyable interpretation of god's will. And since there are severeal different interpretations of this will, there will never be any moral absolutes so long as religion flourishes. Somehow I never see answers like this offered from our side though.
I would greatly appreciate any other answers that you may have used yourself. Because I am frankly beyond sick of hearing this fucking arguement spouted from the faithful ones.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
- Login to post comments
To me, morals are the hardwired rules of social behaviour that we have gained as evolved social animals. You know those crazy dances the stocks do when they mate? Well, it's the same thing, only complicated by our higher level of complexity and reason.
They certainly are utilitarian in the sense that without a common code of decency and correct behaviour in the community, chaos would ensue.
Theists like to blow up morals to some universal standard of right and wrong that transcends humanity, but it's pretty clear empirically that the rest of the universe doesn't share our morals. Right here on earth we have animals that eat their own young, kill each other, copulate freely with multiple partners and steal stuff as a matter of regular behaviour. Give it up, theists. Morals are in our heads. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to them - if anything it makes them more relevant than if we think that they were handed down ad hoc by God.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I think that the reason it hasn't been clearly articulated is because it actually isn't a simple problem.
Yes, for the most party everyone agrees that killing someone is wrong, but there are a lot of other questions.
In your own example: "The degree of suffering an action inflicts determines how immoral it is."
So, if you're hungry (starving!) is it moral to steal bread from someone who has enough for himself? What if you'll get bread tomorrow? Your suffering from having none is greater than his suffering from having only one loaf instead of two, but you won't die becuase of it. Is it immoral for him not to give you some, since his inaction causes you suffering?
I don't necessarily want you to answer all these questions, mainly because I'm sure you could formulate quite valid responses. My point, however, is that morality isn't a simple problem. I persoally don't believe that it requires an absolute authority, as in many religions, but at the same time it's not a simple task.
I think that the answers to this predicament are actually contained within the some of the questions you posed, particularly "Your suffering from having none is greater than his suffering from having only one loaf instead of two" and "immoral for him not to give you some, since his inaction causes you suffering".
You're example is indeed a more complex matter than most situations. So I suppose I would conceed it is a bit more complex in certain situations than I had made it seem in my initial post, but the principle of utilitarianism still stands I think.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
First, let me say that I'm going to try to poke holes in your morality only because I can't resist poking. I don't necessarily have anything against utilitarianism, or you, I just want to know what you think about it.
So here goes:
Are you suggesting it would be morally correct for the hungry person to steal? Would it be more morally correct for him to work for the bread? Wouldn't that cause him to suffer if the only availiable work is something he hates?
How many people is the "breaded" person obliged to feed? Should the bread be divided until all people are equally content (or discontent)? What about the suffering the person went through to get the bread in the first place (let's say he toiled in the field for the grain, etc)?
What exactly do you mean by "the principle of utilitarianism stands"? Do you mean it is possible to construct a moral philosophy from utilitarianism? That I am gladly willing to concede.
However, if you're suggesting that utilitarianism yields the best moral philosophy, I would have to ask you to defend that statement, which would of course require that you first create some method of determining how to determine the best moral code. (for example, is it the greatest amount of happy people? the least amount of unhappy people? the least amount of conflict between people? etc etc)
It would seem my original thesis is not as all-encompassing as I had thought it to be, seeing as I'm not sure it can fully answer this question. I would contend however that it is inherently wrong to steal because that would then violate the basic principal of an action inflicting a degree of suffering to the one who is being stolen from. The one stealing is not experiencing suffering from any direct action another may have taken. I suppose the more pressing question would be: does the affluence of the person who is being stolen from determine the degree of immorality of the theft, since a wealthier person will likely suffer less than one who isn't so affluent.
The rest of the questions you pose do entail a degree of economic policy though I think; capitalism, socialism, role of government, ect. This is something that I admittedly am rather unsure of and have been struggling with for quite some time. I had never thought of it as an ethical matter before either."We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry