What is GOOD?

[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.