Why be Moral?

[lehighguy]

The pledge post got me thinking about something. If there is no higher being/something beyond man/put anything you want here, why should someone act in a "moral" way. Do morals even exist in such a framework. Or are we simply all acting the way we do out of fear of retribution should we break the rules. What is to stop someone that can get rid of that fear from acting however they want.

Are we all just little Stalins and Napoleans without the power they had. Would we all act "as we pleased" with absolute power.

[dr_venkman]

Why not act in a moral way?


Now that this has been settled, can we scrap religions now?

[Zygote]

i act in consequentially benefital ways. sometimes morals indirectly correlate, but often they also don't. The morals i abide by are only the result of me acting in consequentially benefital ways.

[lehighguy]

Morals, which we have yet to define, may conflict with personal interest. Hence to reason not to act moral.

[PhatTBoll]

Your question has been at the heart of political and jurisprudential philosophy for thousands of years. I recommend you read up on Aristotle. For something a little more modern, you might want to read Oliver Wendell Holmes' views on shaping law from a "bad man's" perspective. Also take a look at H.L.A. Hart's analysis of obligation, duty, and the difference between external and internal attitudes toward the law.

I think you would especially appreciate Hart. Internal personalities tend to look at law as a fundamentally good thing, which should be followed because to do so means we live in a good society. External personalities tend to look at law as a predictor; like a stoplight which tells you which direction the traffic will be coming from. It's not good or bad in itself, it's just a tool to be used to get something you want or keep you out of jail.

Society needs both types of individuals. A world full of externalists would constantly be trying to skirt around the law, and there would be no order. A world full of internalists would constantly perpetuate injustices because the law wouldn't grow with society.

[slickpoppa]

Most poeple act in ways that they think will make them happy, and then conform their moral beliefs to their actions.

[NotReady]

There has never been a justification for morality on any non-theistic basis that I've been able to find. The fundamental nature of morality is "ought". You can't get an "ought" from an "is". The philosophy professor at Boston University, Michael Martin, has written several books on atheism. In a response to a criticism of one of his books on the web(by Lowder, who I believe is a fellow atheist and so sympathetic to Martin's goals), he said:

[ QUOTE ]


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/on_two_reviews.shtml


Lowder also maintains that I did not consider the justification of morality in my book. This issue is usually formulated by the question: Why should I be moral in those cases where being moral is not in my self-interest? Perhaps I should have said something about this, but I don't think there is much to say. If the justification of morality is in terms of self-interest and if self-interest sometimes diverges from morality, then by definition there is no justification in those cases where it diverges. For atheists it is true that there is divergence but the amount of divergence is an empirical matter. However, even if God exists, insofar as Heaven is a reward for faith and not for moral behavior, it is also true for Christians: being moral would not be correlated to heavenly reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

He basically admits he can't justify morality. If that's the case, how can you avoid the concept "might makes right"?

He's also correct when he says that being moral would not be correlated to heavenly reward. I don't see any relevance to this and the question of an ultimate or absolute moral code. But he is right, salvation is by grace, not by works.

[Cyrus]

I can get you equally compelling arguments for both sides.

Depends which pays me the best.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[cielo]

I agree with the previous poster who said to read Aristotle, the Nicomachean Ethics. Don't just read any translation though. Joe Sachs' translation published by Focus Publishing is very good. I took a class last year solely devoted to this book. I really don't think you can understand this text w/out taking a class on it &/or learning Ancient Greek. Aristotle didn't speak English, of course.

Anyway, for an English book on "Why be Moral" I would suggest Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" particularly the essay, "The objectivist ethics". I think she does a really good job of advocating for an ethics w/out God, and I'm pretty sure she covers the is...ought problem, (I'll read through it later and post agian if I find it elsewhere in her work). Plus her writing is super easy to read, unlike most philosophical books.


Here's some from the begining of her ethics...

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions - the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code" (The Virtue of Selfishness, 13).


Anyway, google search her, and check out that book, "The virtue of selfishness", it was terribly difficult for me to accept for a while, but I do find it compelling.

cielo

[bholdr]

Spinoza: "I'm a big pussy that can't live without god! I must find some way to reconcile nature's harsh determinism with my othodox upbringing! waaaa. /images/graemlins/frown.gif"

man, i'm drunk. sry.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Why don't you try living you whole life immorally and let us know how it works out....

[InchoateHand]

'tis true. Though the Deleuze book about Spinoza is fascinating, the dude himself is a bit of a whiner.

[zaxx19]

Well so far its been ok....

Pretty fortunate on that statutory rape thing but hey.........




Yes, this is a joke.

[The once and future king]

Your saying we should only be moral as a consequance of the existence of an external authority (God) and that we should take no resposibililty for our actions as humans beings if this authority is absent.

It is acting moraly in the absence of a god that is the challenge of being human. To behave immoraly is to fail that challenge.

Its up to you to decide. Thats the whole point.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The pledge post got me thinking about something. If there is no higher being/something beyond man/put anything you want here, why should someone act in a "moral" way. Do morals even exist in such a framework. Or are we simply all acting the way we do out of fear of retribution should we break the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which in my mind isn't enough to motivate one to adopt a set of morals. My experience is that a person acquires a basic moral viewpoint at a very young age and as their life progresses that viewpoint is challenged in many ways and often. The most important moral concepts that the parents pass on to and emphasize to a child are the most deeply ingrained. My experience is that the "hays gets put in the barn" with children at quite an early age.

[ QUOTE ]
What is to stop someone that can get rid of that fear from acting however they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conscience for the most part IMO. Yes fear of retribution comes into play but IMO it's just one factor and conscinece is far more important.

[lehighguy]

Is conscience just fear in another guise. A subconscious fear drilled into us be society.

[lehighguy]

Whos challenge? Why is that the challenge? Why does that make you human? Your just making statements, I can make unsubstantiated statements too. The burden of proof doesn't lie on my side in this debate.

[lehighguy]

It works well for many people.

If what your saying is that people will treat you badly if you treat them badly, that is just another type of fear. Fear of the law, fear of what people will think of you. If you eliminate the fear of those reprecutions, why does one act morally.

[zagosh]

Morals are very important to some people and utterly useless to others. I for one, fall somewhere in between. Although from a scientific standpoint, they only exist as temporary human constructs, many people derive a sense of well being and self esteem from following a certain code of conduct, as artificial as it may seem to others. If in doing so, one lives a more fulfilling life, than who am I to question their beliefs. I myself have developed quite a nhilistic and deterministic view towards life, but am still very much controled by my conditioning. So, although I realize that morals, laws, and most beliefs have evolved as a means of control for the "embetterment" of the whole(or atleast for our handlers), at a cost sometimes to the individual, I still would have a hard time not telling an old lady she just dropped $1000 on the ground. And although I wouldn't conciously feel "fearful" about not telling her, I'm sure that on some level I am "fearing" not being able to live with myself if I didn't.

[lehighguy]

That was a very well thought out response. I agree entirely.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is that the challenge?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are suggesting it is easier to be immoral than moral? The challenge of being moral is intuitively obvious.

You have the choice of being moral or immoral. There is no trascensent truth or authority. That is the challenge of being human. Do I need to prove there is no God ?

In essence the question "why be moral?" is one only you can answer. You must come to your own conclusions and live by them. Great men given this option chose to be moral whilst lesser beings chose short sighted self intrest and selfishness.

Let me be clear, it is the challenge of being moral that makes one great, meeting difficulty and overcoming it.

Why be moral? answer: because you can be.

[Girchuck]

A better question is "Why try to act moral at all times?"
Humans are a cooperative species. Cooperation is important. People tend to cooperate with others who appear to be highly cooperative.
Appearing to act moral/cooperative at all times is most likely beneficial to an individual.
If one to get rid of fear of retribution, and act in obviously selfish manner, exploiting others, retribution is more likely. Society will try and keep its uncooperative members from obtaining opportunities to exploit others as long as this failure to cooperate can be detected. The more one behaves against societies morals, the greater is a chance to be detected. Therefore, getting rid of fear of retribution is counter-productive in most cases.
Fortunately, no one has absolute power.

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is that the challenge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why be moral? answer: because you can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured I'd cut out all that filler to show how circular your logic is. Your simply making a statement, based on your believes. Your not presenting evidence that your correct. I can state that gravity makes things float away from the earth, but if I can't prove it its a worthless statement.

Your assuming morality is inherintly good without defining "good" and why good is good.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Your assuming morality is inherintly good without defining "good" and why good is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a funny thing for someone who asserts that there is no God or Trascendent truth and that man is alone in a meaningless universe to say.

You need to refer back to the "filler" of my post as it is obvious that you have missed my arguement.

My arguement put SIMPLY, is that men who CHOOSE to face and overcome challenges and difficulty are better then men who take the easy and commonly tread road.

What makes morality "inherently good" is its difficulty not its rightness or wrongness as is in the final anlaysis there is no such thing as right or wrong, those are just labels.

Why climb a mountain, for the experiece of climbing a mountain, the challenge, because it is there, because you can.

It is the process of being moral that makes you a better human being not the morality itself. Just as it is climbing the mountain that makes you a better human being, not the mountain itself.

[lehighguy]

My arguement put SIMPLY, is that men who CHOOSE to face and overcome challenges and difficulty are better then men who take the easy and commonly tread road.


[/ QUOTE ]

I draw your attention to the use of the phrase "better then men". Define better. Why are they better. Simply saying, they are better because they do "x" is not proof.

I could say that men who wear chicked suits are better then men who don't. If you ask me why I can say "because the chicked suits are there". That isn't much prove, but it is basically what your saying to me.

[BillUCF]

Devout religous people are some of the most immoral people I know.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
My arguement put SIMPLY, is that men who CHOOSE to face and overcome challenges and difficulty are better then men who take the easy and commonly tread road.


[/ QUOTE ]

I draw your attention to the use of the phrase "better then men". Define better. Why are they better. Simply saying, they are better because they do "x" is not proof.

I could say that men who wear chicked suits are better then men who don't. If you ask me why I can say "because the chicked suits are there". That isn't much prove, but it is basically what your saying to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is coincidence that men who overcome challenges, adversity and difficulty are celebrated in every cuture as heroes, decorated with medals have streets and biuldings named after them and are the stuff of myth and lengend, whilst the chiken suit wearers are forgoten.

Without men prepard to face challenge and adversity mankind would never have advanced to the point where there would be chicken suits to wear. In fact we wouldnt probably exist as a species.

I cannot quantify a mans charachter, integrity and strenghth of will as these are qualities not quantaties.

However I dont know why I am bothering to argue with you as your replies merely consist of ignoring the majority of my rational and quoting my conclusions without refering to the arguement that gave them meaning or context.

For example you quote me as saying that men who face adversity are better, yet ignore the rational that supports and defines what I mean by better. I will repeat my arguement and expand on it so we can end the confusion.

To overcome adversity face challenges and confront difficulty requires the qualities I mentioned above. (what qualities does it require to wear a chicken suit?)

The ACT of facing difficulty will improve these qualities.

The act of being moral will improve your human qualities.

I cannot prove scientificaly that being strong is better than being weak and that being brave is better than being cowardly just as I cannot prove that a 20yr old malt whiskey tastes better than a blend. That does not mean to say that I dont consider a 20yr old Malt better than a blend. Your reply to this would be, "well I could say that a glass of urine is better than a 20Yr old Malt because you cant prove otherwise."

My answer would be, what would you rather drink?

So when I say it is better to be strong than weak to be brave rather than a coward and you say prove it, my answer is: what would you rather be?

Again I reassert it is the process of being moral and its effect on the quality of being that is important, not any trascnedent idea of right or wrong.

The absence of God and meaning provides man with an excellent opportunity.

If one choses to be moral because there is a God there is only one quality this demonstrates, the quality of obedience. Which is also true for those that are moral merley due to the fear of retribution.

[lehighguy]

There are those that overcome diffuculty without being motivated by moral guise.

Napolean was strong, Mao was strong, Ceaser was strong, etc.

Being strong and being moral are not the same. Let me create a theoretical example.

A mob boss. He is physically strong, a leader capable of running a complex and large operation, there are few men who could do the things he does. He is brave enough to face death and danger. Every day is a challege which he must muster all of his abilities to overcome. Yet, would we consider him moral.

P.S. Being liked by other people is not a criterea for greatness. Some of histories greatest villians were once its greatest heroes. Popularity is objective, changing with the times.

[lastchance]

Ditto. Explained my views much better than I could have.

[lehighguy]

BTW Zagosh had an excellent post on this topic.

[zagosh]

"Morals", when broken down to their most basic element, are entirely subjective, and completely contradictive in terms. Simply because everything that exits in the physical universe is neutral by definition. Anything that exists only within the fabric of our own conciousness (ie; morals, laws, beliefs,the concept of "good" and "evil", etc.), is entirly created by us, and is therefore ultimately an illusion. And all illusions are enitrely dependent upon the perspective from which they are being viewed. Most people who feel that they have high moral values are conradicting themselves virtually every minute of the day.

Some of these so called "heroes that are decorated with medals, have streets and biuldings named after them, and are the stuff of myth and lengend", are, in all likelyhood, viewed as villians of the most "evil" nature by someone somewhere else in the world. I'm sure the wive's and families of the crew of the Enola Gay view them as being of the utmost moral fortitude, yet there are millions of people around the globe who are convinced that they commited the most horrific act in the history of mankind. Remember, Hitler was considered a hero by some, and I'm sure he too overcame all kinds of adversity and "challenges" in his lifetime.

Many people feel that they are of high moral fiber simply because they go to church on Sundays, have a lovely wife that they haven't (yet) cheated on, have never commited a felony, and help their landlady carry out her garbage(sorry, Matrix reference). But, either conciously or unconciously, simply choose to ignore the fact that their S.U.V. only gets 12 miles per gallon, or the fact that some 9 year old girl in indoniesia stitched together their son's $200 designer running shoes.

The only point I am trying to make is this; If you decide to abide by a certain set of "moral" guidelines, and that you are going to consider yourself a "good" person for doing so, you should know that for every action you take in your lifetime(whether you believe it to be "moral" or "immoral"), somewhere in the world, somebody is going to experience the direct effect of that action, and also lable it either "moral" or "immoral" depending on if it effects them either positively or negatively in their view.

This is the paradox of morality. It simply cannot be escaped.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The only point I am trying to make is this; If you decide to abide by a certain set of "moral" guidelines, and that you are going to consider yourself a "good" person for doing so, you should know that for every action you take in your lifetime(whether you believe it to be "moral" or "immoral"), somewhere in the world, somebody is going to experience the direct effect of that action, and also lable it either "moral" or "immoral" depending on if it effects them either positively or negatively in their view.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just because someone perceives an action of yours as moral or immoral doesnt preclude it from being clearly bad or clearly good.

[jokerswild]

I believe that a declared war was wrought and won to answer your question. Apparenly, the current American regime beliwves that the wrong side lost. Grandpappy Bush must still be turning over in his grave for having had property seized for trading with the enenmy in 1943.

[The once and future king]

What takes greater strenght then to put the good of others above the good of yourself?

A mobster is strong but only to satisfy his weakness, his selfishness. In reality he is not strong, only willfull. His weakness is so great that he will go to any lenghts to satisfy it.

[lehighguy]

But herin lies the problem. Prove to me that selfishness is bad. And let us dispense with the idea that it will have reprecutions life people not liking you, someone getting back at you, etc.

If I'm selfish my whole life, and nothing bad happens to me, I can't see how I'm worse off then anyone else. Why am I morally inferior. And what does morally inferior mean. What does it get me. What does it take away from me. Why do I have a conscience at all. Is it just a set of societal constructs people made up to control me for thier own ends.

[lehighguy]

But why is something good or bad. What does good mean? What does bad mean? Try to define them without using comparitives.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
But why is something good or bad. What does good mean? What does bad mean? Try to define them without using comparitives.

[/ QUOTE ]

For fecks sake do you even read my posts. At the risk of repeating myself for the gajilionth time:


[ QUOTE ]
I cannot prove scientificaly that being strong is better than being weak and that being brave is better than being cowardly just as I cannot prove that a 20yr old malt whiskey tastes better than a blend. That does not mean to say that I dont consider a 20yr old Malt better than a blend. Your reply to this would be, "well I could say that a glass of urine is better than a 20Yr old Malt because you cant prove otherwise."

My answer would be, what would you rather drink?

So when I say it is better to be strong than weak to be brave rather than a coward and you say prove it, my answer is: what would you rather be?

Again I reassert it is the process of being moral and its effect on the quality of being that is important, not any trascnedent idea of right or wrong.

The absence of God and meaning provides man with an excellent opportunity.

If one choses to be moral because there is a God there is only one quality this demonstrates, the quality of obedience. Which is also true for those that are moral merley due to the fear of retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

As simply as I can put it.

What is it best for a man to do: answer = That which requires the most strenght, why: Because that has the most positive effect on the quality of his being. What then requires the most strength: Answer= the act of putting the needs of others before youre own.

So when I say good I quite clearly mean and via a rational I have expressed and you have ignored several times; that which requires the most strenght.

You can of course ask me what I mean by strenght because I dont mean how much you can bench press. By strength I mean the charachteristics that allow a man to achieve and want to achieve difficult things. Again I reasert to do something that appears difficult to achieve material gain etc is not difficult it is merely necesity.

In the final analysis this is all talk.

You must choose how you wish to live, this choice will effect the quality of your being.

If you want to be a 20yr old Malt then attempt to be moral, if you want to be a glass of urine then feel free to ignore my arguements.

[zagosh]

"Why Mr. Anderson?.......Why?.....Why?..Why?....Why do you do it?...Why?....Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe your fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace. Could it be for love? Illusions Mr.Anderson. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as incipid as love."


Sorry, I had to. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[The once and future king]

The answer to this is a simple one:

I fight for the sake of fighting.

[zagosh]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to this is a simple one:

I fight for the sake of fighting.

[/ QUOTE ]
A noble and valid response. No argument.