What is GOOD?

[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.