RE: Morality without God
April 4, 2021 at 9:51 am
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2021 at 9:52 am by polymath257.)
The problem with moral questions is that they ALL depend on there being a goal. Once we know the goal, science can help us determine the most efficient way of achieving it. But you have to select the goal first.
So, if the goal is one that 'should' be attempted, then we *ought* to do things making that goal achievable.
The question then becomes whether there are goals that can be said to be universal. If there are, then we can legitimately say that those actions leading to those goals are moral and those that lead away are not. Those that do neither are morally neutral.
One goal that most people can agree to is the continued existence of our species. Another could be the goal of having a stable society that functions over the long term and allows intellectual and artistic development.
Now, we can debate the appropriateness of those goals, but I think that most people do agree that those are, at least, minimal ones.
But those already tell us a great deal of moral behavior. To even have a stable society requires that there be rules of interaction between people. Societies where people are not happy tend to not be stable in the long run, for example. Those that ignore threats also don't tend to last long. To allow for artistic and intellectual development requires both tolerance and honesty. To now allow self-criticism means that needed responses won't be done, leading to instability.
But we can go further. To pollute our environment, poisoning our water and air, is not in keeping with long term survival. But to not allow for economic development also leads to instabilities, so there is a balance to be made.
Anyway, I don't have a well thought out system, clearly, but I do think that deciding on a few basic goals can lead to a lot of what we tend to think of as moral principles.
So, if the goal is one that 'should' be attempted, then we *ought* to do things making that goal achievable.
The question then becomes whether there are goals that can be said to be universal. If there are, then we can legitimately say that those actions leading to those goals are moral and those that lead away are not. Those that do neither are morally neutral.
One goal that most people can agree to is the continued existence of our species. Another could be the goal of having a stable society that functions over the long term and allows intellectual and artistic development.
Now, we can debate the appropriateness of those goals, but I think that most people do agree that those are, at least, minimal ones.
But those already tell us a great deal of moral behavior. To even have a stable society requires that there be rules of interaction between people. Societies where people are not happy tend to not be stable in the long run, for example. Those that ignore threats also don't tend to last long. To allow for artistic and intellectual development requires both tolerance and honesty. To now allow self-criticism means that needed responses won't be done, leading to instability.
But we can go further. To pollute our environment, poisoning our water and air, is not in keeping with long term survival. But to not allow for economic development also leads to instabilities, so there is a balance to be made.
Anyway, I don't have a well thought out system, clearly, but I do think that deciding on a few basic goals can lead to a lot of what we tend to think of as moral principles.
