What is GOOD?

[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.