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/mode..._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.

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]"

man, i'm drunk. sry.