Humans are social animals, like wolves and bees and ants...

Given that we need to live together, we have developed some rules that make it better, on the whole; or better for the majority.
Such rules as "do not kill another human being" are for the betterment of the group.... but this tends to be forgotten on human beings of other groups.
Today, with all this interconnected world, some people find it easy to realize that we're just one large group... some people still have a hard time grasping this concept. Genetically, we've evolved in relatively small groups, each trying to survive, even if that meant annihilating a neighboring group.
And then people came up with this morality concept.
Morality as the set of rules which tell right from wrong.
What is right? Whatever makes the group better.
What is wrong? Whatever makes the group worse.

Apply this to the group of "humans on the face of the Earth" and you should arrive at some general notion of morality for the whole of humankind.

Can one individual uphold a set of rules which hold for the whole of humanity?

I hate questions like the one posed in the title of the thread. Philosophy is dead and to me is totally meaningless. Atheism is a position, specifically the "off" position on ONE claim. Atheism is not a worldview or a philosophy and our human behaviors as a species, are NOT label dependent.

There is only one NATURAL reality in "morals" which can only be individual and subjective. That is that which seeks benefit and reduces harm. Reality is fluid and ever changing so to attempt to make it stagnant and never moving by saying we need a "system" is absurd.

The reality of nature is that it is BOTH good and bad. It is both constructive and destructive. Evolution does not care how you get to the point of reproduction, it merely has to work, moral or not. Now, having said that, ALL humans can if they seek to CAN lean to the positive side of nature in our ability to be compassionate. But again, neither our ability to be kind or cruel to each other is not, nor has ever been a philosophy or religion or worldview.

(December 13, 2012 at 6:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: Humans are social animals, like wolves and bees and ants...

Given that we need to live together, we have developed some rules that make it better, on the whole; or better for the majority.
Such rules as "do not kill another human being" are for the betterment of the group.... but this tends to be forgotten on human beings of other groups.
Today, with all this interconnected world, some people find it easy to realize that we're just one large group... some people still have a hard time grasping this concept. Genetically, we've evolved in relatively small groups, each trying to survive, even if that meant annihilating a neighboring group.
And then people came up with this morality concept.
Morality as the set of rules which tell right from wrong.
What is right? Whatever makes the group better.
What is wrong? Whatever makes the group worse.

Apply this to the group of "humans on the face of the Earth" and you should arrive at some general notion of morality for the whole of humankind.

Can one individual uphold a set of rules which hold for the whole of humanity?

Where does this idea that morality applies only in a social context comes from? If my actions don't affect anyone other than myself, then are those actions beyond moral judgment? Do you really mean to say that a day I spend binge drinking and watching TV is morally equivalent to learning something new?

Morality is something more basic than our social behavior.

Humans are rational animals, unlike wolves, bees and ants.

Given that our actions are no longer bound by our instincts and immediate perceptions alone, we have the ability to develop concepts regarding how we should live our lives. The concepts or rules regarding how we should act are what constitute morality.

Such rules as "living in a group" are for our betterment and therefore, other rules for the betterment of the group itself can be devised. Morality distinguishes between right and wrong as distinction between actions we should or should not undertake. Apply the individual level principles to the group and you get morality at the social level and apply it to the world and you get morality of the whole humankind.

---

(December 13, 2012 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: I hate questions like the one posed in the title of the thread. Philosophy is dead and to me is totally meaningless. Atheism is a position, specifically the "off" position on ONE claim. Atheism is not a worldview or a philosophy and our human behaviors as a species, are NOT label dependent.

I hate it when people doggedly commit to a position without examining its philosophical underpinnings. Yes, atheism is a position regarding a singular claim, but it is position taken as a consequence of a particular philosophy or worldview. Human behavior, as an individual and a group, depends upon the the philosophy or worldview one accepts - whether one consciously acknowledges it or not.

(December 13, 2012 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: There is only one NATURAL reality in "morals" which can only be individual and subjective. That is that which seeks benefit and reduces harm.

If there is only ONE natural reality regarding morals, then it is neither individual nor subjective. By the nature of reality it'd be universal and objective. So, go ahead and justify that that one reality is "seeking benefit and reducing harm".

(December 13, 2012 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: Reality is fluid and ever changing so to attempt to make it stagnant and never moving by saying we need a "system" is absurd.

On the other hand, the concepts governing reality and those changes have been consistent and logical - therefore, specifying a system of morals without fixing its application sounds like the rational choice to make.

(December 13, 2012 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: The reality of nature is that it is BOTH good and bad. It is both constructive and destructive. Evolution does not care how you get to the point of reproduction, it merely has to work, moral or not.

On the contrary, reality of nature is NEITHER good or bad - it is amoral. The concept of caring or not cannot be applied to evolution. The constructive and destructive forces of nature are not conscious and therefore not subject ot moral judgment.

(December 13, 2012 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: Now, having said that, ALL humans can if they seek to CAN lean to the positive side of nature in our ability to be compassionate.

Nature does not have a positive or negative side - it just is. Those concepts are devised by humans and applicable only to them.

(December 13, 2012 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: But again, neither our ability to be kind or cruel to each other is not, nor has ever been a philosophy or religion or worldview.

No, simply the consequence of one that we consciously or unconsciously accept.

(December 13, 2012 at 9:05 am)genkaus Wrote: Where does this idea that morality applies only in a social context comes from? If my actions don't affect anyone other than myself, then are those actions beyond moral judgment? Do you really mean to say that a day I spend binge drinking and watching TV is morally equivalent to learning something new?

Morality is something more basic than our social behavior.

I guess we've come to the definition of the word: morality, morals...
As far as I see it, it's the right thing to do. Right in the light of better for the world.
If you do something that is of no consequence for the world, then morality doesn't apply.

If you kill yourself, you reduce the human capacity in the world, and force some one else to handle your carcass.... someone would have to do it eventually...
If you drink and watch tv, instead of learning something new, you're just doing some temporary harm to yourself... postponing your potential contribution to the rest of the world.
It's almost impossible to find a situation where anything you do affects you and only you.

(December 13, 2012 at 9:55 am)pocaracas Wrote: I guess we've come to the definition of the word: morality, morals...
As far as I see it, it's the right thing to do. Right in the light of better for the world.
If you do something that is of no consequence for the world, then morality doesn't apply.

If you kill yourself, you reduce the human capacity in the world, and force some one else to handle your carcass.... someone would have to do it eventually...
If you drink and watch tv, instead of learning something new, you're just doing some temporary harm to yourself... postponing your potential contribution to the rest of the world.
It's almost impossible to find a situation where anything you do affects you and only you.

You're wrong on multiple counts.

There is no requirement for morality to be considered in light of betterment of the world. That is just your personal assertion without any justification.

Secondly, almost everything you'd do in life would be of so little consequence to the world that it might as well be inconsequential. By that standard, hardly anything you do in your life would be of any moral consequence.

And thirdly, try to take this line of thought to its logical conclusion of having "betterment of the world" as the criteria for morality. Currently there is are huge sections of human population - the elderly, the unemployed poor, the disabled or sick - who are currently suffering, are not contributing to the world and whose any potential contribution is easily outweighed by the drain on resources they are causing currently. By your criteria of reducing suffering - both current and future - and maximizing benefit, the most significant moral thing to do would be to exterminate them.

I see... well then, please define morality for me.
What does it mean to "be moral"?
I am apparently completely off the real mark... Maybe I've been doing it wrong... :-s

You could have copied just the relevant part:

Quote:I think that morality is a collection of concepts like mathematics, but one that addresses our actions.
[...]
Morality: Code of conduct based on the knowledge of good and bad. By itself, the definition of morality does not encompass any goals nor does it specify any actions that are exempt from its purview. Like mathematics, it is a tool of evaluation. Where math helps us evaluate physical objects, morality helps us evaluate actions of moral agents.

We then need to know what is good and what is bad... that was sadly missing in the long text concerning objective morality... and I didn't read it all

Let's forget the word "moral" exists, and focus on good and bad.
Is it good to spend a day drinking in front of the tv, instead of learning something new?
Is it good to kill of all those "who are currently suffering, are not contributing to the world and whose any potential contribution is easily outweighed by the drain on resources they are causing currently"?

What is good?
- Minimize suffering of all individuals? Even if that means increase the suffering of a few? (as in more taxes to pay for the caring of elderly and sick or wiping out these elderly and sick to decrease taxes on the remaining)
- Minimize suffering of each and every individual?
- Maximize pleasant feelings in each and every individual?
- Other?
- All of the above?

Intellectually, I have no answer to this.
I just spend my days doing what experience has led me into assuming that the best course of action is to disturb the minimum of people and please as many as possible, where the main recipients of such pleasing are my closest family and friends.

What is good.....well....


apparently..."that is good".