Replacing Religious Morality

[henryp]

P2: It therefore follows that it's very likely that everyone else also has only this one chance, so we should try really hard not to interfere with anyone else's one chance, and (corollary: we should in fact, when we can, try to maximize that chance for others.

I agree with P1, sort of. Whatever metric you want to be happy, go for it. Although, in the end, it doesn't matter. I've always been fascinated with Atheists trying to break down theists arguments. I get wanting to avoid the oppressiveness of theologians, but otherwise, we know it doesn't really matter. There is no scorecard. If you are lucky enough to believe in a God that is looking out for you, more power to you. I'll be here in the corner terrified of ceasing to exist.

P2 doesn't follow. It, again, is based on universal truths rather than the fact only individual truths exist. The idea is that all men are created equal, and should be treated as such. The reality, I think, is that men have no value to even compare. There is no metric. We apply whatever subjective values to whatever we want. I give myself very high importance in my own personal system, and most other people rate very close to 0. But they are all make believe numbers that only exist because I think them.

It's another fun conundrum I'm trying to wrap my head around. If I die young, it'd devastate my daughter. So the notion is scary. But if I died, that fear would be gone because I'll no longer care about her, because I won't exist. The idea of finite subjective values, even of your own values, is definitely something new for me.

---

I dispute the notion that arbitrary behavioral precepts qualify as 'morality'. This is why I dispute the notion that religion is the source of any morals. The morals in any religion which actually do address the demonstrably positive and negative impacts of behavior on other people or society in general (such as rules regarding stealing or killing) tend to be fairly common across cultures and beliefs. All we get from religion is extraneous nonsense about eating certain foods on certain days or believing in the "correct" god, so on.

We know these rules make sense for people invested in society. What religion (and things like it) does is make these rules make sense for people who aren't invested in society.

When a person decides to kill themselves, they no longer are invested in society, for example. So if they feel like killing a bunch of other people first, there's no reason for them not to. God saying no killing is an absolute. The social contract only exists for people who want to remain in the social contract.

Morals are an evolutionary development. But poor people and powerful people tend to be able to dodge them, because they aren't as invested in the contract.