(February 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Empathy is better on the whole but empathy tempered with rationality would be better.

Exactamundo! So empathy to make you a good team player, need so you don't leave yourself out, and convenience because sometimes you just don't give enough of a shit to justify getting off the sofa. Need, empathy and convenience: the foundations of a well rounded person's morality .. because you're good enough, you're smart enough and, gosh darn it, people like you!

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: No, morality -stop me if you've already heard this- isn't the only motivation I have in life. Goodness for goodness' sake is not, in my opinion, very good.

Morality - stop me if you've already heard this - is not a motivations. It is what your motivations are judged by.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: So is there some definitional reason why you think every ambition you have in life must be based in ones morality?

Why should any ambition be based on morality? Every ambition, on the other hand, should be judged by it.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Are you asserting that in fact that is the case for absolutely everybody? If so, those of us who don't conceive of ourselves as making moral choices all the time must just be fooling ourselves by your way of thinking.

Yes. And those who think they are making amoral choices are.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: You can only reason your way from an ought. You had to have begun with some postulate oughts which you thought we'd all have to agree with. But the ought/desire/faith comes first as Chad just correctly observed. Without such a start, rationality has no toe hold.

If that is what I had done, then I wouldn't have said that I had reasoned an ought from an is. Point out which ought did I postulate as the basis and then you might have a point.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Then you no doubt have a different conception of your humanity than I do. I'm not denying that rationality is not part of the human package by the way. I just don't think it should be accepted as a bully boss.

Except, rationality cannot become a bully boss.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: You may be correct about how empathy originates. I just don't know. But there do seem to be instances of it in the behavior of other mammals and even birds. So there may be a basis for empathy that goes deeper than our human culture.

This isn't how empathy originates - this is how its conscious application works. How did you forget the argument when I laid it out so clearly?

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Regardless, I find no reason to ignore the urgings of empathy. I might just as well ignore my preferences when choosing dessert. What would be the point? But there are times when learned preferences collide and a decision must be made.

Except, by your own admission, you do find reasons to ignore the urgings of your empathy.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: In another recent post I shared the conflict I noticed in my early teens between a physical revulsion I felt toward male homosexuality and a basic sense of fairness. I deliberately desensitized myself to male homosexuality to the point where it seems as fitting and wholesome as any other kind of union to me now.

Are you going to desensitize yourself to necrophilia next?

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: As I said there .. so it must seem to you. In fact I would say I embrace both instinct and thinking. My ideas do not align with yours but that doesn't mean I don't have any. You say "opted for rationality" so that makes you a willing domesticate. I see you as willingly putting on the yoke of rationality. I get the feeling there isn't much that arises in you which you trust or embrace unless rationality approves. Hence I say you've put the faithful servant in charge and set aside the sacred gift that Einstein referred to.

Given that I don't believe in god, I wouldn't consider anything to be a sacred gift. But, if I were to consider something as such, then I would say that it is our capacity for rationality that is the sacred gift - not our intuition or animal instinct. It is rationality that has brought us this far where the instincts wouldn't have taken us beyond the hunter-gatherer stage. And given your rejection, I can only assume that you have taken your animal instincts to be your master.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Serendipity, sacred gift .. humanity, call it what you will. It is like the singing of a little bird somewhere in you which is you too but more than the rational you. Without it your humanity is seriously compromised. You will have given up way too much for the sense of control you gain by abdicating to rationality.

So, listening to this 'singing bird' inside of me - this bird that sounds like little more than my animal instincts - will make me more human? You sound more and more like a theist with every argument.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: I am truly sorry for you. I hope things improve.

Living whimsically sounds like an improvement? Don't make me laugh.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: And you realize I'm okay with all of that, right? You may call them arbitrary unless they can be shown what everyone should do but that misses the point. What unifies those seemingly arbitrary choices is that they stem from me, they're mine.

And a theist is okay with his belief in precisely for the same reason. Doesn't mean I won't point out where he's wrong if he presents those to me.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: So why would I argue that others should find what I have found?

I don't know. Why do you?

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Justification is required for general claims. Where have I made one?

Here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17345-po...#pid406367

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: I know more expect my moral choices to have justification than I do my preference for Rockyroad ice cream to have a justification. Whether to think God is hiding in the world seems a very different proposition than whether or not I truly prefer Rockyroad. I prefer it without evidence apart from the enjoyment I experience when I eat it. I have no such experience of God.

Given your use of the word apart - I'd say that you've shown the need for justification present for even the claim of your preference to Rockyroad.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: I expect my choices to resonate with who I am and to spring from me. I don't look for validation by looking to see what choices others are making. My self appointed task is to make sure that at least one of us makes an authentic choice. That is all I can do.

I find joy in whim and make room for it where I can. But being a member of a community means I have other tasks to do too. Duties I embrace out of empathy.

So, your choice of earning a living, your choice of career - all those were made out of empathy?

(February 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: You make my case. I don't claim to be free of unresolved contradictions. That is life as I find it. I resolve them where necessary and not always without regret. C'est la vie.

And that is why I consider my moral code to be superior to yours - less contradictions means less regrets.

---

(February 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Because sometimes the rational thing is not the emapthic thing.

So, what?

(February 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The US wanted to settle the interior that was occupied by the Native Americans and so set about trying to remove them.
This was rational but not moral.

It wasn't rational without both the goal and the methods to achieve it were justified.

(February 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Empathy is better on the whole but empathy tempered with rationality would be better.

Better in what sense? You seem to be presuming a moral standard before considering what its basis should be.

What is good? Cookies. Unless they are chocolate chip and you are allergic to chocolate.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:29 pm)whateverist Wrote: One sentence in a post by Frodo, who I esteem highly, has got me thinking about what we think is "good" in relation to our actions. My initial impressions are included in the reply I made there which I've also copied below. Most theists, I suspect, like Kant would consider a "good" action one that requires a deliberate intent. One has done "good" when duty and not sentiment (nor any other gratification) is the reason for ones action. Intuitively I have always balked at this notion. This sense of "good" arises out of a desire to codify what originates in empathy. But to my mind it twists our nature in a way I find unhealthy and not at all "good". I wonder what others think about what counts as good in the realm of human actions.

(February 24, 2013 at 11:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes I disagree that you can be as good as is possible with a positive world view with a neutral world view. This is quite simple to see.

I Wrote:This is a little puzzling for me. Is it good to do good? Sometimes yes. But can there be an excess of good? If someone thinks incessantly about what is good and spends every waking moment attempting to do what he has decided is good .. is that a life well spent? (Would it be for you?)

I think that I am neutral on the value of the good. Most of the actions I do which what others might describe as "good" are from empathy. I don't act on empathy for any 'pleasure' that gives me. Nor do I do it out of any desire to act in accordance with any moral code of which I am aware. I do it for its own sake. It is a natural inclination which I neither thwart nor attribute to any higher purpose.

Is it better to do good things because we have decided they are good and we do them out of a sense of duty to the good? I don't think so.

Today, what's generally considered as good, is what Jesus taught. Even though I am Atheist, I still think what Jesus essentially taught is "Good".

Jesus was a real man, according to Ancient Roman records, as he was a Roman citizen at one point. Although who he believed in I think is Bullshit, he did have good ideas.

Basically, his teachings all boil down to one thing: Treat your neighbor as yourself. Although, this does have a few flaws. One of these flaws is if one were to feel suicidal, should he go on and kill a bunch of other people?

Anyways, that is a basic rule I follow. One thing I would like to add however is, Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire. If you don't want to have your beautiful, strong, 1000 year old, hard-worked house burnt to the ground by vikings, don't do some other things that God and Jesus tell you to, beside the point.

I suppose those engaged in trying to work out a moral code for the ages will always get the last word. No one interested in living a good life will squander as many minutes on the topic. For what it is worth I have tried to make the case that what is really good is not an objective matter. I therefore offer no objective evidence since that would only undermine my position.

What is really good is not such a big deal. It's something we recognize but don't need to try and capture in a jar once and for all. We can't own it or weigh it or eat it. Those who wish to argue which objective system is best may carry on, and may the worst person win. Bored now.

(February 28, 2013 at 1:45 am)whateverist Wrote: No one interested in living a good life will squander as many minutes on the topic.

You can't live a good life without figuring out what is good first.

And you can't figure out "good" unless you view it from eagle - eye hindsight, at which point you're already dead...or close to it.

(February 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm)EGross Wrote: Good is like porn. You may not be able to describe it, but when it comes your way, you recognize it. Of course, someone looking over your shoulder might say "You call THAT porn?"

I think this settles it.

Empathy and reason are the means to a achieve a desired end, not the end in themselves.Within the naturalist paradigm both empathy and reason are happy by-products of an indifferent evolutionary process. Human reason serves as a fancy set of claws and fangs. Empathy perhaps a type of protective herd behaviour. They're about survival nothing more, nothing less. Reason and empathy are morally neutral means of survival. They do not conform to any higher moral standard.

Within naturalism that is...And if naturalism is your assumption then it is inconsistent to say that either empathy or reason allow us to rise above our animal nature. Rise above? To what? Either the answer is within naturalism, which it isn't since all that matters is survival, or they, empathy and reason, converge on a specific end, which implies that evolution is teleological, something excluded from the neo-Darwinist paradigm

The question, I think, we must ask ourselves is this. What is the ultimate goal? What is the good that we hope to attain by applying reason and listening to empathy. And what is it that makes it good? Apart from the means, empathy and reason, what is the desired end?

(March 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Empathy and reason are the means to a achieve a desired end, not the end in themselves.Within the naturalist paradigm both empathy and reason are happy by-products of an indifferent evolutionary process. Human reason serves as a fancy set of claws and fangs. Empathy perhaps a type of protective herd behaviour. They're about survival nothing more, nothing less. Reason and empathy are morally neutral means of survival. They do not conform to any higher moral standard.

Well this gets into the semantics of what we mean by "morality". What I have in mind is entirely natural with no pretense of anything 'higher'. However to say that both empathy and reason serve only survival doesn't accurately describe how either operates in the present in any one of us. Certainly it isn't for the sake of either my own or my specie's survival that those of us who act on empathy do so. It would be better to say that both have arisen for their survival value, but whether or how either figure into any of our decisions now is not something completely determined by how they have arisen. I sometimes think I am aware empathetically of what is going on with others and I reflexively give that some weight in my decisions up to some limit of sacrifice and inconvenience to myself (which almost always is decided contextually).

(March 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Within naturalism that is...And if naturalism is your assumption then it is inconsistent to say that either empathy or reason allow us to rise above our animal nature. Rise above? To what?

Here I can readily agree with you. I don't think that we ever do rise above animal nature. But I think you short change our animal nature if you assume that is entirely egotistical. Other mammals and birds demonstrate profound concern for their mates and young, even to the point of incurring great risk to defend them. No eternal reward or platonic standard is needed to make sense of altruism, love, regret, duty, or any other morally loaded word that I think of at the moment. I'm much more concerned that we live up to what is best in our animal nature than that we rise 'above' it. Excessive rationalization can disorientate us from our very natural better lights.

(March 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Either the answer is within naturalism, which it isn't since all that matters is survival, or they, empathy and reason, converge on a specific end, which implies that evolution is teleological, something excluded from the neo-Darwinist paradigm

The question, I think, we must ask ourselves is this. What is the ultimate goal? What is the good that we hope to attain by applying reason and listening to empathy. And what is it that makes it good? Apart from the means, empathy and reason, what is the desired end?

And here is where we part company, though it has been a pleasure walking with you this far. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say the "answer" is or isn't in naturalism. I wonder what you expect of such an answer. Must it explain our actual behavior, our feelings about that behavior or what our behavior should be explained only by its alignment with some absolute standard. If the latter, I don't see what justifies that hope other than what religion has led people to expect.

This deserves more consideration but my dogs (and I) deserve a walk now while there is still daylight enough. Good post though and it is good to have you back Mr. Wooters.