Developing systems of morality, outside of religious influence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't this entire conversation presuppose free will?

No.

How does a determinist justify a belief in moral values and duties?

The same ways anyone else does. As far as the relationship between faith and non-faith goes...this is an irrelevance, particularly in that many sects do not believe you have any "free will" when it comes to stopping all that damned sinning...or in some sects the eventual terminus of your every decision and the weight of ones soul.

[henryp]

Doesn't this entire conversation presuppose free will? But I know some of you don't believe in free will. How does a determinist justify a belief in moral values and duties?

I don't think you need free will for this.  I usually think of myself as a learning AI.  You've got some goals programmed in.  How do you achieve those goals.  I think moral values is probably a sloppy word for what's going on.  But behaviors and actions to achieve a preferred state seems reasonable.

[Angrboda]

Doesn't this entire conversation presuppose free will? But I know some of you don't believe in free will. How does a determinist justify a belief in moral values and duties?

No, it does not. Morals and internal governance via morals is all about shaping behavior for the benefit of the society of which an individual is a part. Even without free will, we would still desire the benefits to be gained from shaping individual behavior in ways that are conducive to the well being of the individual, the society, our species, and ultimately our planet. I don't see how eliminating free will renders any of these goals any less desirable. An interest in such common goals is justified by the principle that a rising tide lifts all boats, and it avoids such dangers as a behavioral tragedy of the commons. It's not hard at all to justify morals in a deterministic worldview.

Moreover, the question of morals, free will, and punishment often come up together from free will advocates who suggest that we have no basis for punishment of immoral/illegal acts if we don't have free will. I feel this view is mistaken. I have opined upon the subject before, so I'll simply paste my thoughts from a previous discussion.

I've made the argument before, but to my mind, punishment serves one of 5 possible goals: (I just added one)

1. Insuring the safety of innocents by isolating offenders from the community and depriving them of the opportunity to re-offend;
2. Deterrence;
3. Rehabilitation;
4. Compensation - the redistributing of the fruits of the offender's resources to compensate society;
5. Retribution - making someone "pay" for what they have done because they are morally deserving of punishment.

As noted, deterrence is generally not regarded as effective. And retribution is probably, from a moral and practical standpoint, one of the least compelling justifications for punishment. I'm not going to elaborate further where this suggests we head with criminal punishment except to point out two key points.

In Michel Foucault's landmark study of the history of punishment, Discipline and Punish, he points out how, with the reforms in punishment that have occurred in Europe since the 16th century, the focus of punishment has shifted away from punishing the individual for an act to one in which we largely punish and attempt to correct the person as someone who has a mind capable of committing such acts. Thus we allow insanity as a defense, because the person's inclination to commit crime is not amenable to the treatment, punishment. We adjust the punishment dependent on the goal of fixing the criminality of the mind, not on addressing the severity of the crime; three strikes and you're out is aimed at minds that can't be fixed, not crimes that have been committed. Child molesters can be given chemical or surgical castration in exchange for reduction of sentence and leniency. Prisoners are monitored for progress and paroled earlier if they "show signs of good character" — it's not the crime that determines punishment anymore, it's the predisposition to offend which is the focus of punishment. Retribution, perhaps, is a return to focus on the crime rather than on fixing the criminal mind, but I'd be hesitant to take that step without serious consideration as to whether doing so serves any legitimate purpose.

The second point is, that as a hard determinist, I don't believe in free will. The moral justification for using punishment as retribution for a crime is that the person is morally deserving of the punishment, and that requires moral culpability which doesn't exist in the required sense if free will doesn't exist. The other four aims of punishment — deterrence, isolation from society, compensation, and rehabilitation — all can be justified without recourse to the assumption of free will; retribution alone cannot. Now I recognize that relative to my peers, I hold an extreme view with regard to free will, yet I think many of us realize that, regardless of where on the continuum regarding the existence of free will you stand, most of us recognize that most crimes and criminal behavior is a consequence of both factors within the individual's control, as well as a large measure of factors totally outside their control, ranging from social class, education, intelligence, all the way to things like being born in a society or culture that encouraged certain values and not others, to being genetically fated to the development of temperament which leaves one at increased risk of criminal or violent behavior. As a personal matter, I try to remove free will from any justification for punishment; but even someone more moderate could well be persuaded to minimize the impact that situational factors such as being born black, being poor, and such have on the fairness and equity with which we address criminal behavior; I think, arguably, retribution results in unfairness because it treats moral culpability and the resources to act morally as evenly distributed resources, and they are not.

[robvalue]

Saying that we shouldn't punish people if we don't have free will commits the stolen concept fallacy. If we don't have free will, then neither do the people doing the judging. They can't "choose" to depart from their method of judging any more than those committing crimes can "choose" not to do so.

We're so used to the idea of choice that we continue to use its language, even when supposing we don't have it.

Even putting that aside, the argument fails because punishment is (hopefully) secondary to protecting society, so it's still important to put people in prison if they murder people, and so on.

[chimp3]

Most people don't wrack their brains with complicated "systems" of morality. They just do what they are taught by their society to be good or bad actions. I came up with a simple system when I became a grandfather: What kind of world do I want my grandkids to grow up in?

---

What is wrong with using ethical teachings from religious sources? They are all of human origin anyway. Pick and choose what matches your own world view.

---

I recommend a book by Gerald Messadie "A History of the Devil". He chronicles the evolution of devils/ gods from sometimes flawed or trickster personalities into the pure embodiment of evil some call Satan. Conversely, he also chronicles the evolution of these same gods into the one called Yahweh. Good read! It is a wonder anyone takes this shit seriously, knowing what we know about the human origins of all gods and devils.

[VanessaUSA]

I don't follow any system or derive my moral value system from anyone else. I simply try to be clear about what I value and what I am striving for by knowing what makes me happy and at peace with what I have thought, said, and done. I like to look in the mirror and like who and I see, like who and what I am. I simply do my best to try to do what I think is right and constructive and if I am wrong, then I do my best to remedy my mistake. I do my best to simply be a good and evolving human being in my oh so limited time to journey through some minute portion of an ever evolving grand reality that goes so far beyond me and my conscious experience.

For those who prefer the short version, in a nutshell: I just try to do my best.

[Aegon]

My thoughts on this are rather complicated and I don't have time to lay it all out, but I legitimately believe that we, as humans, have an obligation to treat other humans with sincere kindness and respect. Since I don't believe in much beyond the physical world, and that this is the only life any of us lead, it's incredibly important to me for as many people as possible to have the best life possible. I believe we are all interconnected in SO many ways, one of many being the butterfly effect of our interactions with one another. How one is treated and respected is usually how they treat and respect others around them. Creating a positive vibe not only makes you more desirable as a friend and prospective partner but makes everybody's day brighter. It can be difficult to always be that person and nobody expects you to be, but I've found that in trying to be that person I've ceased trying and just... became that person. I have no interest in debating whether I practice this because it brings pleasure to others or because it brings pleasure to myself to bring pleasure to others because I really don't think that matters. Positivity has been spread, the deed is done.

When it comes to treatment of life outside of our human community, I absolutely do believe in the humane treatment of animals but I don't do anything to really support that. I eat meat regularly and I own no pets. But I like petting dogs. Such good boys yes they are.

This broad philosophy is also what I consider to be the driving force behind my left-wing political views. Universal healthcare being the most important issue to me by FAR. I also think we have a moral duty to donate our bodies after we die, because the impact it can have on one or several lives is amazing; your belief about what happens after we die is just that, a belief. The reality, however, is that the organs inside of you can save people's lives. So I very passionately believe that is what one has an obligation to do.

[Simon Moon]

Wasn’t sure if this should go here or in the philosophy section, but here goes.

Basically, one of the biggest things I’ve had trouble with since leaving Christianity is justifying my actions.  Before, when I needed to make an ethical decision, I would rely on the bible to tell me what to do.  Or, if that failed, I’d ask someone more educated in the bible than me, and they’d tell me the “best” interpretation.

Now, I’m aware that the bible isn’t any better of an ethical system than anything else humans have come up with - probably worse, in a number of ways, seeing as it allows all kinds of things I would, at least in a gut response, see as atrocities.  However, at least from the point of view of the people inside of their religion, they have a rock solid starting point.

I guess I’ve got my “shoulds” mixed up nowadays.  I come to an argument on whether or not someone should do something or not do something(abortion, animal rights, lgbtq rights, racism, etc), and it seems like the best I have to contribute is “I personally like/don’t like that idea”.  I’m aware that there are a number of different moral systems that aren’t necessarily religious(hedonism, utilitarianism, Kant’s theory, etc.), but I don’t feel at all qualified to just pick one arbitrarily and run with it.  Would it ultimately be an emotion-based decision, going with the one that just makes me feel better about myself?

So anyways, for a TL;DR: how do each of you, personally, approach ethics?  Do you adopt a certain system, or do you use a more cobbled together way of approaching things?  How does one feel justified in applying their belief system to the world, if there’s no divine objectivity backing them up?

I recommend you watch this talk given by Matt Dillahunty called "The Superiority of Secular Morality".







Matt's talk basically describes a moral system that is based on the objective facts about the universe, and the consequences of our actions based on those objective facts.

[haig]

Morality does not need religion.
Religion needs morality.