What is GOOD?

[downbeatplumb]

If we are talking morality then good would be the attitudes and actions that a well adjusted person would consider reasonable.
By well adjusted I mean having a strong sense of empathy and no mental disorders that would alter their opinions/actions.

[Whateverist]

Nor would I want it to. Isn't it enough to spell out what the agreed upon consequences are for transgressions of the group agreements. Why would we want to have our actions prescribed by some moral code?

How else would you determine what actions you should take?

That isn't a reasonable response to my question. Don't you suppose there are other motivations in life besides concern for morality? It is hard to think you seriously want morality to prescribe your actions anymore than I do given what you say below.

This position is the result of presupposition - in this case, that of empathy. You start by assuming that empathy is the basis for morality,

Obviously. What other basis could there be? If our human nature was more like that of a cat, morality would make no sense at all. It is only because of empathy that morality is something we talk about apart from law and decorum.

..pretty much the same way theists start by assuming that what god wants is the basis for morality.

Seriously? The existence of empathy in human beings is as spurious a notion as the existence of a divine rule maker? If you truly think that we agree on too little to have a meaningful discussion.

Conscious application of empathy would require you to ask yourself why you should be empathetic even if it is not in your interest and the only way one would be consistently and consciously empathetic is if they receive some form of emotional gratification from doing the right thing.

That is a whole lot of assuming. I don't agree and you offer no justification for your conclusions.

If that form of self-interest is present in the motivation, that dilutes the requirement for empathy as a moral basis and you are aware of that. Which is why, the highest form of "goodness" with respect to your empathy-based moral code, would be achieved by someone who has internalized that trait - someone who does good not because he has consciously thought it through and concluded that it is the right thing to do, but he does it because that has become a part of his nature.

I wonder what you mean exactly by a "moral basis"? Apart from empathy I can't see what else there would be. I don't think there is anything I can say to someone who is indifferent to the well being of others. That is why we have laws. There certainly isn't any rational basis for 'morality'. What outcome is better only enters into it once you've agreed you care to some degree about the well being of others.

As you may suspect, I reject this notion by rejecting empathy as the basis of morality.

Well then, what basis do you find for morality?

I cannot live my life always considering the wants and needs of others and if I start going so unconsciously, I would simply become the ultimate doormat whose every action is automatically determined by what others would want from him. I recognize that empathy is a character trait within me, but what role it plays in my moral decisions and how much is up to me.

You say you recognize empathy in yourself and yet somehow you've managed to go through life without constantly considering the wants and needs of others. Guess what? Me too.

In another recent thread someone asked what was the basis for your morality. I responded there: need, empathy and convenience. I do not look for a unified moral theory which will always dictate my action anymore than apparently you do. I placed need ahead of empathy on purpose and convenience last but in truth there are plenty of times when convenience will outweigh considerations for others. There are also times when empathy will out weight personal need, at least if war stories are to believed. (Thankfully I've never been put in such a position.)

[genkaus]

If we are talking morality then good would be the attitudes and actions that a well adjusted person would consider reasonable.
By well adjusted I mean having a strong sense of empathy and no mental disorders that would alter their opinions/actions.

Why is a strong sense of empathy that is the qualification and not a strong sense of rationality?

[genkaus]

That isn't a reasonable response to my question. Don't you suppose there are other motivations in life besides concern for morality? It is hard to think you seriously want morality to prescribe your actions anymore than I do given what you say below.

Your actions aren't prescribed by concern for morality - they are prescribed by morality. See the difference?

Obviously. What other basis could there be? If our human nature was more like that of a cat, morality would make no sense at all. It is only because of empathy that morality is something we talk about apart from law and decorum.

How about your rational capacity? Cats and other animals have empathy too, but they don't go around discussing morality because they have their instincts to guide their actions. They don't need a conceptual guide. We humans are no longer bound to act only according to our instincts and therefore we need something else.

Seriously? The existence of empathy in human beings is as spurious a notion as the existence of a divine rule maker? If you truly think that we agree on too little to have a meaningful discussion.

Not its existence, but its acceptance as a basis for morality. See the difference?

That is a whole lot of assuming. I don't agree and you offer no justification for your conclusions.

The justification for that statement is found in the very common moral lesson that even you must have heard of - "doing good feels good".

I wonder what you mean exactly by a "moral basis"? Apart from empathy I can't see what else there would be. I don't think there is anything I can say to someone who is indifferent to the well being of others. That is why we have laws. There certainly isn't any rational basis for 'morality'. What outcome is better only enters into it once you've agreed you care to some degree about the well being of others.

Just because you can't think of a rational basis for morality doesn't mean there isn't one. Morality tells you how you should live your life, what you ought to do. Ought - as opposed to is - would require a justification - as in why you ought to do that. Given that, any moral theory would need to have a set of central principles or goals from which the moral tenets would derive. That set would form the "moral basis", i.e. the basis of your morality.

I say 'rationality' should be the basis of morality, but that is not completely accurate. Rather, a better way to put it would be that the basis of morality should be chosen rationally, i.e. those principles must be justifiable themselves. Your choice of empathy has not been justified so far. So why should I accept it? And why should I accept that the outcome which is reached after taking into consideration the well being of others is 'better'?

Well then, what basis do you find for morality?

Here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12271-po...#pid271447

You will find my answer in there.

You say you recognize empathy in yourself and yet somehow you've managed to go through life without constantly considering the wants and needs of others. Guess what? Me too.

But in doing so, I'm acting consistently with my moral code - you are not.

In another recent thread someone asked what was the basis for your morality. I responded there: need, empathy and convenience. I do not look for a unified moral theory which will always dictate my action anymore than apparently you do. I placed need ahead of empathy on purpose and convenience last but in truth there are plenty of times when convenience will outweigh considerations for others. There are also times when empathy will out weight personal need, at least if war stories are to believed. (Thankfully I've never been put in such a position.)

I do look for a unified moral theory. You, on the other hand, have chosen need, empathy and convenience as the basis of your morality. You have not justified why these three should be the basis - that makes your choice arbitrary. Further, the consequences of these principles, as you apparently accept, would often come in conflict with one another giving rise to contradictions in your moral theory. You excuse this by saying that you are not looking for a unified moral theory so that you can deviate from your own moral code without feeling guilty. I, on the other hand, cannot lie to myself like that.

[Whateverist]

Your actions aren't prescribed by concern for morality - they are prescribed by morality. See the difference?

Oh I see the difference alright, I'm just not buying it. The real difference is you want your rational deliberations on morality to steer not just your actions but your objectives as well -perhaps even your life's purpose? I'm only willing to consider the effects of my actions on others as a possible limitation on my actions. In no way do I look to empathy to inform the larger goals, projects I undertake let alone my purposes in life.

It is only because of empathy that morality is something we talk about apart from law and decorum.

How about your rational capacity? Cats and other animals have empathy too, but they don't go around discussing morality because they have their instincts to guide their actions. They don't need a conceptual guide. We humans are no longer bound to act only according to our instincts and therefore we need something else.

I don't despise rationality. I prefer to see rationality kept in its proper place. Like Einstein I think that "the intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant."

You cannot reason your way to an ought and you do yourself a disservice by trying. You're all too eager to constrain your humanity with your rationality for my liking. We're all adults here so knock yourself out if this is what floats your boat.

The justification for that statement is found in the very common moral lesson that even you must have heard of - "doing good feels good".

Lots of things feel good. You can't get where you're trying to go from here.

Just because you can't think of a rational basis for morality doesn't mean there isn't one. Morality tells you how you should live your life, what you ought to do. Ought - as opposed to is - would require a justification - as in why you ought to do that. Given that, any moral theory would need to have a set of central principles or goals from which the moral tenets would derive. That set would form the "moral basis", i.e. the basis of your morality.

I think we are both shrinking from the other in horror, aren't we? You must think I am a kind of moral monster who insists on living by unthinking instinct while I think you wish to abandon your humanity to your rationality rendering you pretty much a prig.

But I must not completely understand your position since earlier you said:

I cannot live my life always considering the wants and needs of others and if I start going so unconsciously, I would simply become the ultimate doormat whose every action is automatically determined by what others would want from him.

For a guy who doesn't want to wind up a doormat you sure seem eager to figure out what you should do. Will you leave any room at all for serendipity?

I say 'rationality' should be the basis of morality, but that is not completely accurate. Rather, a better way to put it would be that the basis of morality should be chosen rationally, i.e. those principles must be justifiable themselves. Your choice of empathy has not been justified so far. So why should I accept it? And why should I accept that the outcome which is reached after taking into consideration the well being of others is 'better'?

And this is what I don't think you can do in the final and universal manner you seem intent on. Oh, and it is a false dichotomy to try and distinguish this pushy 'ought' of yours from "taking into consideration the well being of others". If it isn't for others, why exactly are you seeking an 'ought' instead of a whim?

Here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12271-po...#pid271447

You will find my answer in there.

Sorry but I don't think your project has any real chance of success and nothing I've read so far shows me you even understand what my objections are.

I do look for a unified moral theory. You, on the other hand, have chosen need, empathy and convenience as the basis of your morality. You have not justified why these three should be the basis - that makes your choice arbitrary.

That's just it. I don't argue that one should adopt my approach. When I gave the basis for my morality I was confessing an entirely personal truth, not arguing for any ought. Whether anyone approaches morality the same way is for them to say. However, I don't seek the 'ought' which you seek and I don't think it exists.

Further, the consequences of these principles, as you apparently accept, would often come in conflict with one another giving rise to contradictions in your moral theory. You excuse this by saying that you are not looking for a unified moral theory so that you can deviate from your own moral code without feeling guilty. I, on the other hand, cannot lie to myself like that.

You'll have to show me where I've lied to myself. I don't see it. I've merely have not given morality the paramount position in my motivations that you have. I think you fool yourself to think you even can do so - but if I'm wrong and you actually succeed in allowing your moral code to dictate your life, then I would not want to trade places with you.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't despise rationality. I prefer to see rationality kept in its proper place. Like Einstein I think that "the intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant."

The religious corollary to this idea is as follows: faith is a position you reason from not one you reason to.

[Whateverist]

I don't despise rationality. I prefer to see rationality kept in its proper place. Like Einstein I think that "the intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant."

The religious corollary to this idea is as follows: faith is a position you reason from not one you reason to.

I can't argue with that. Then it is just a matter of how one understands what it is they have faith in and how generally they think they are justified to apply it to others. There must be something here we can disagree on.

[genkaus]

Oh I see the difference alright, I'm just not buying it. The real difference is you want your rational deliberations on morality to steer not just your actions but your objectives as well -perhaps even your life's purpose?

Correct.

I'm only willing to consider the effects of my actions on others as a possible limitation on my actions. In no way do I look to empathy to inform the larger goals, projects I undertake let alone my purposes in life.

Then empathy must not be the only basis for your morality.

I don't despise rationality. I prefer to see rationality kept in its proper place. Like Einstein I think that "the intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant."

You cannot reason your way to an ought and you do yourself a disservice by trying. You're all too eager to constrain your humanity with your rationality for my liking. We're all adults here so knock yourself out if this is what floats your boat.

a) I thunk I did just reason my way to an ought - and you didn't give me a reason why that was wrong.
and b) I'm not constraining humanity with 'my' rationality - that would go against my morality.

Lots of things feel good. You can't get where you're trying to go from here.

Did you miss the point or did you simply forget the argument? The fact that a lot of children are taught to act consciously upon their empathetic instincts with expectation of emotional gratification shows that that reward is a significant factor in someone consciously choosing to act out of empathy - a point that I made before and which you asserted had no justification.

I think we are both shrinking from the other in horror, aren't we? You must think I am a kind of moral monster who insists on living by unthinking instinct while I think you wish to abandon your humanity to your rationality rendering you pretty much a prig.

Given your assumption that you are the one opting to live by unthinking instinct and I'm the one opting for rationality - that would make you the one who has abandoned his humanity and me the one who has embraced it.

But I must not completely understand your position since earlier you said:

I cannot live my life always considering the wants and needs of others and if I start going so unconsciously, I would simply become the ultimate doormat whose every action is automatically determined by what others would want from him.

For a guy who doesn't want to wind up a doormat you sure seem eager to figure out what you should do. Will you leave any room at all for serendipity?

How is that relevant?

And this is what I don't think you can do in the final and universal manner you seem intent on.

Your thoughts are irrelevant unless you can back them up.

Oh, and it is a false dichotomy to try and distinguish this pushy 'ought' of yours from "taking into consideration the well being of others". If it isn't for others, why exactly are you seeking an 'ought' instead of a whim?

Because my life cannot be lived on a whim.

Sorry but I don't think your project has any real chance of success and nothing I've read so far shows me you even understand what my objections are.

Bare assertion. Provide justification.

That's just it. I don't argue that one should adopt my approach. When I gave the basis for my morality I was confessing an entirely personal truth, not arguing for any ought. Whether anyone approaches morality the same way is for them to say. However, I don't seek the 'ought' which you seek and I don't think it exists.

Thank you for proving my point. Saying that the choice of your moral basis is a 'personal truth' not necessarily applicable to anyone else is the same as saying that those choices are arbitrary and whimsical. Since you cannot provide a justification for them nor do you expect there to be such a justification, you cannot expect anyone else to accept them.

As it is, this statement raises a few more interesting questions about you:

a) Given that you do not consider your morality to be applicable to others and you seem unwilling to correct any flaws and contradictions in your own - what is the point of this discussion to begin with? Why would you start a debate when no argument is going to change anyone's mind?

b) I'm assuming this, but given that you are an atheist, I'd expect that you'd want your own beliefs to have justification. How do you reconcile disbelieving in god because there is no justification for one with your beliefs in morality which are also without justification?

You'll have to show me where I've lied to myself. I don't see it. I've merely have not given morality the paramount position in my motivations that you have. I think you fool yourself to think you even can do so - but if I'm wrong and you actually succeed in allowing your moral code to dictate your life, then I would not want to trade places with you.

Right here, actually. I'm assuming this stuff, I'd say that you haven't killed anyone even if you wanted to, you tend to buy things rather that just take what you want, you don't go about attacking people who make you angry, you avoid acting whimsically and think about your future - I'd say that its because your morality plays a significant role in which motivations you choose to act upon and which you don't that all this is true. But, the fact that you deny it to yourself would mean that you are lying to yourself.

Another example, as given above, would be that if your position as an atheist is based on absence of justification for a theist's position then why isn't the same standard applicable to your moral beliefs? Contradictions within a worldview cannot be resolved without a degree of self-deception.

[Whateverist]

I'm only willing to consider the effects of my actions on others as a possible limitation on my actions. In no way do I look to empathy to inform the larger goals, projects I undertake let alone my purposes in life.

Then empathy must not be the only basis for your morality.

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.

So is there some definitional reason why you think every ambition you have in life must be based in ones morality? 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.

a) I thunk I did just reason my way to an ought - and you didn't give me a reason why that was wrong.

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.

..and b) I'm not constraining humanity with 'my' rationality - that would go against my morality.

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.

Did you miss the point or did you simply forget the argument? The fact that a lot of children are taught to act consciously upon their empathetic instincts with expectation of emotional gratification shows that that reward is a significant factor in someone consciously choosing to act out of empathy - a point that I made before and which you asserted had no justification.

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.

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.

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.

Given your assumption that you are the one opting to live by unthinking instinct and I'm the one opting for rationality - that would make you the one who has abandoned his humanity and me the one who has embraced it.

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.

Will you leave any room at all for serendipity?

How is that relevant?[/quote]

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.

Oh, and it is a false dichotomy to try and distinguish this pushy 'ought' of yours from "taking into consideration the well being of others". If it isn't for others, why exactly are you seeking an 'ought' instead of a whim?

Because my life cannot be lived on a whim.

I am truly sorry for you. I hope things improve.

Thank you for proving my point. Saying that the choice of your moral basis is a 'personal truth' not necessarily applicable to anyone else is the same as saying that those choices are arbitrary and whimsical. Since you cannot provide a justification for them nor do you expect there to be such a justification, you cannot expect anyone else to accept them.

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. So why would I argue that others should find what I have found?

I'm assuming this, but given that you are an atheist, I'd expect that you'd want your own beliefs to have justification. How do you reconcile disbelieving in god because there is no justification for one with your beliefs in morality which are also without justification?

Justification is required for general claims. Where have I made one? 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.

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.

Another example, as given above, would be that if your position as an atheist is based on absence of justification for a theist's position then why isn't the same standard applicable to your moral beliefs? Contradictions within a worldview cannot be resolved without a degree of self-deception.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

If we are talking morality then good would be the attitudes and actions that a well adjusted person would consider reasonable.
By well adjusted I mean having a strong sense of empathy and no mental disorders that would alter their opinions/actions.

Why is a strong sense of empathy that is the qualification and not a strong sense of rationality?

Because sometimes the rational thing is not the emapthic thing.

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.

Empathy is better on the whole but empathy tempered with rationality would be better.