Morals

[Panatheist]

I read this piece and thought it was okay, although I am not fully convinced: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/phi..._morality/

I understand how morals come from the basic desire we have to preserve ourselves and our wellbeing.  Society could not exist without morals, and ideally morals protect and enhance our flourishing physically and psychologically.

But what is the basis for valuing life at all?  Certainly society will prevent a serial killer from murdering anymore people if (s)he is restrained.  But what makes her killing wrong?  Why should anyone value life and wellbeing?

[robvalue]

"Should" is morality, the question is circular. "Wrong" is a human construct. Nothing is inherently wrong.

We can easily construct a criteria for "wrong" which could include such things as "bad for society in general" or "bad for individuals". It's then easy to see why a serial killler's actions are "wrong". If you and I don't agree on what "wrong" means, then we can go no further. These are the fundamentals of morality.

But if you don't care about something, you don't care. Ethical decisions are either driven by an internal desire to act a certain way (morality) or in accordance with the consequences (pragmatism). Religious "morality" is often actually the latter.

[Jesster]

I agree with what rob said. On top of that, we construct morals because we are a social species. One human by themselves has no reason to construct morality because it simply does not matter. Once there are multiple people living together in a society, they have to decide how to work together or their society will fail. A society is much more likely to succeed when more people are able to work together.

This is why we see a large variety of moral values across different nations. The differences also have some impact on how well these societies work and how happy the individuals are within them.

[robvalue]

People generally have morals. We evolved that way. Asking "why" is rather misguided. A better question is "how did it come about", which is answered pretty simply by the fact that we prospered as a cooperative species.

Religion of course replaces this explanation with "magic", instead of accepting straightforward scientific models.

[Panatheist]

People generally have morals. We evolved that way. Asking "why" is rather misguided. A better question is "how did it come about", which is answered pretty simply by the fact that we prospered as a cooperative species.

Religion of course replaces this explanation with "magic", instead of accepting straightforward scientific models.

Well I am not really concerned with religious explanations here.

But my thoughts are tending in the same direction. There is no reason external to ourselves as we have come to exist that morals would exist: a universe void of any life or any social constructs for that matter would be entirely without morals, and the "ought" can only come into play if there is already value placed on life and the flourishing thereof on physical, psychological, and social dimensions. If for whatever reason that isn't valued, then it simply isn't.

But is this reasoning the same as moral nihilism?

[Jesster]

People generally have morals. We evolved that way. Asking "why" is rather misguided. A better question is "how did it come about", which is answered pretty simply by the fact that we prospered as a cooperative species.

Religion of course replaces this explanation with "magic", instead of accepting straightforward scientific models.

Well I am not really concerned with religious explanations here.

But my thoughts are tending in the same direction.  There is no reason external to ourselves as we have come to exist that morals would exist: a universe void of any life or any social constructs for that matter would be entirely without morals, and the "ought" can only come into play if there is already value placed on life and the flourishing thereof on physical, psychological, and social dimensions.  If for whatever reason that isn't valued, then it simply isn't.

But is this reasoning the same as moral nihilism?

No. Nihilism is the belief that nothing matters. While morals would not exist if we weren't here to put value into them, they do matter once we are here to define them. There's just no grand morality behind it all.

Think of it like an economic system. If society didn't exist, would economics exist? No. They only come into play once there is a society to apply them to. It's not a force that actually exists in the universe. It's a concept that we create. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter once we have a reason to use it.

[bennyboy]

But what is the basis for valuing life at all?

It's all instinct, baby.

Certainly society will prevent a serial killer from murdering anymore people if (s)he is restrained.  But what makes her killing wrong?

It's wrong because people prefer that she'd not done it.

Why should anyone value life and wellbeing?

The value is the basis of the "should," and trying to flip it around leads to a nasty circle.

[robvalue]

People generally have morals. We evolved that way. Asking "why" is rather misguided. A better question is "how did it come about", which is answered pretty simply by the fact that we prospered as a cooperative species.

Religion of course replaces this explanation with "magic", instead of accepting straightforward scientific models.

Well I am not really concerned with religious explanations here.

But my thoughts are tending in the same direction.  There is no reason external to ourselves as we have come to exist that morals would exist: a universe void of any life or any social constructs for that matter would be entirely without morals, and the "ought" can only come into play if there is already value placed on life and the flourishing thereof on physical, psychological, and social dimensions.  If for whatever reason that isn't valued, then it simply isn't.

But is this reasoning the same as moral nihilism?

No reason external to ourselves? Sure there is. Our environment. It shaped our evolution. Our natural selection favoured those who cared about other group members, not just themselves. These are facts. I'm not sure what more you are looking for. Morals aren't some entity floating around on their own, they are simply a code of behaviour for individuals or society. And they are shaped by the environment, ultimately. There's nothing magical about them, nor do they need powering or creating by something.

Yes, if a particular person doesn't value something, then they don't value it. If society doesn't value something, then they don't value it. All value is subjective. But the reality is that people do value each other, on the whole. Again, there are scientific explanations. It's not a matter of reasoning them into or out of existence.

Moral nihilism, like any particular ethical code, is a system that can be used to model the behaviour of an individual. Ultimately, it's descriptive. People don't program their own morality from scratch. Of course, peoples' morality changes over their lifetime, so they may be drawn towards one system or another; or more likely a mix of many.

[Panatheist]

Well I am not really concerned with religious explanations here.

But my thoughts are tending in the same direction.  There is no reason external to ourselves as we have come to exist that morals would exist: a universe void of any life or any social constructs for that matter would be entirely without morals, and the "ought" can only come into play if there is already value placed on life and the flourishing thereof on physical, psychological, and social dimensions.  If for whatever reason that isn't valued, then it simply isn't.

But is this reasoning the same as moral nihilism?

No reason external to ourselves? Sure there is. Our environment. It shaped our evolution. Our natural selection favoured those who cared about other group members, not just themselves. These are facts. I'm not sure what more you are looking for. Morals aren't some entity floating around on their own, they are simply a code of behaviour for individuals or society. And they are shaped by the environment, ultimately. There's nothing magical about them, nor do they need powering or creating by something.

Yes, if a particular person doesn't value something, then they don't value it. If society doesn't value something, then they don't value it. All value is subjective. But the reality is that people do value each other, on the whole. Again, there are scientific explanations. It's not a matter of reasoning them into or out of existence.

Moral nihilism, like any particular ethical code, is a system that can be used to model the behaviour of an individual. Ultimately, it's descriptive. People don't program their own morality from scratch. Of course, peoples' morality changes over their lifetime, so they may be drawn towards one system or another; or more likely a mix of many.

I understand that morals are shaped by our evolutionary history although my phrasing may not have been clear. I meant that morals come from us, taking it for granted that we humans owe our existence to external forces, and those forces having shaped us also influence our morals.

What you are saying then is that morals are a social product of what we value. But there is no reason we "should" value life - we simply do on the whole because of our nature. Is that correct?

[Panatheist]

Well I am not really concerned with religious explanations here.

But my thoughts are tending in the same direction.  There is no reason external to ourselves as we have come to exist that morals would exist: a universe void of any life or any social constructs for that matter would be entirely without morals, and the "ought" can only come into play if there is already value placed on life and the flourishing thereof on physical, psychological, and social dimensions.  If for whatever reason that isn't valued, then it simply isn't.

But is this reasoning the same as moral nihilism?

No. Nihilism is the belief that nothing matters. While morals would not exist if we weren't here to put value into them, they do matter once we are here to define them. There's just no grand morality behind it all.

Think of it like an economic system. If society didn't exist, would economics exist? No. They only come into play once there is a society to apply them to. It's not a force that actually exists in the universe. It's a concept that we create. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter once we have a reason to use it.

Morals only matter in that they protect what we value, right? Why does a nihilist think that doesn't matter?