This is a reply to Daniel's blog entry about the problem athiests face with any moral framework in the absence of God as moral foundation.
On facebook and his blog
Which is his follow-up to this entry: facebook, blog
---
I hope I am addressing your questions in this what could be described as a ramble...
Taking murder as an illustrative moral issue, we have...
1. Rational selfishness leading to social conscience / social pragmatism:
If murder were socially accepted, we ourselves would live with much greater fear, loss and danger. Therefore it's wrong to murder because it is socially unacceptable/impractical/irrational. Hence some laws.
2. Compassion leading to utilitatianism:
People cherish life and don't want to be murdered or have those they love murdered. I don't wish to cause that suffering. Therefore it is wrong to murder because it goes against the will and happiness of others in the most extreme way.
Being rational, practical and self-interested also gives grounds to a utilitarian morality - "if others do this/follow these rules, it benefits us all".
I believe that there is in human nature this capacity for compassion and reason. I believe my moral framework is a result of what I have been taught; what I have learned; what I have observed; what I have felt; my evolved and inherited biological/genetic nature; and what I have reasoned. I endeavour to remain open to relative moral opinions on topics that have basis only in thoughtless tradition or inappropriately transferred rules accross contexts.
I do believe that people who are brought into a caring and morally conscious family environment, have a good education and who do take time to consider the views and feelings of others, will form for themselves a basic moral conscience; one that is roughly in line many others'. That's what I would call the morality in human nature. That reason, compassion and conscience can be lost, mistaken, and it can be almost entirely absent - there are undoubtedly people with very little conscience. People do bad things because they don't care for others (lack of compassion when people are just selfish) or because they are making a mistake between what they feel/value and how they should behave with these (lack of understanding and good reason - the cases where we can sympathise with the person's mistakes and situation).
Arguments about what is good/right for society are very interesting and hugely complicated. As yet, I don't know if I could argue with one system of society as the 'right way' over another with any success, I'm not so knowledgeble on political issues, but I'd say the ones who could say what was right or wrong would be those who knew what the heck they were talking about while retaining rationality and human compassion.
I don't see the problem of obligation as being a great one in a practical sense. Why should we do what is right? Because it is right. To equate this with an obligation and then to ask to whom are we obligated is forcing a subject, a 'whom', by use of language. I see this as an unnecessary linguistic move.
What is right and how do we justify saying something is right is the real question. My answer is 'what a compassionate, reasonable, fair, understanding and enlightened human would choose it to be'. So, not far from what God might say, I suppose. We do our best through our own ideas and by appeal to our society to help us know what that is. If we still can't be sure, then I'll be happy to say that in that instance there really may be no moral right and wrong to the matter.
My moral values are:
For the happiness and well-being of conscious beings (people)
For the development of humanity's understanding and appreciation of the universe and life itself
Why do I have these values? I don't know if I can tackle that question right now. Let's talk some time. ;o)
1 comments:
(Also posted on my blog)
I haven't replied at once, partly because I've been away, but partly because I'm a little nervous. I know that discussions like this can easily be friendship-disrupting, especially at a distance. After all, we are essentially saying a very offensive thing to one another, namely, "your fundamental beliefs about the world are wrong". And I suspect that I am being the more offensive. Since in your post you indicate that you think our ethical systems are fairly compatible, I suppose that you think that I am mistaken in matters of fact (like whether God exists) but not necessarily in how I live much of life. I am necessarily saying, however, that you are mistaken in those same matters of fact, and therefore in every aspect of how you live - because if the Christian God exists, any aspect of life that is not directed toward him is morally wrong. Ouch.
Understand I only say this to make it really really clear how huge an issue we're discussing.
I wish to suggest that your post does not so much answer my concerns as illustrate them, and that at several points. For example, you assert that someone should simply do what is right because it is right. But how do you answer someone who doesn't care about that, or who disagrees with you about what is right? Or your statement that you believe that ethics can be constructed from what reasonable and enlightened people think - but what sort of enlightenment? Doesn't this boil down to "people with the same education, culture and moral opinions as me"? And your final admission that you don't know why you have some ultimate values rather than others must surely bother you...
It boils down to the big question: what is good? (What is the good life, what is a good person, what is a good course of action...) I am not sure you can give me an answer I will find satisfatory...
Post a Comment