(December 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I believe he's asking a higher level question. Where does the moral dimension of moral questions come from in an atheist world? I may choose to eat that extra slice of pie, and I shouldn't because I don't like the consequences of eating it, but consequences alone don't make the should of not eating a piece of pie into a moral 'should'. No matter the consequences of eating that piece of pie, it doesn't become a matter for morals. Now if I choose to steal something, that shouldn't has a moral dimension that eating the pie does not, even though I may suffer just as much from both. The question I think he's asking is where does this 'moral dimension' come from?
I really think it comes simply from empathy and identifying with the other person's feelings. How would I feel if they did that to me? What would they think of me? Do I want to be that guy?
It isn't clear to me why it should have to be anything more than this. The value of having a concern for one's reputation in such a social species seems pretty self-evident.
The difference between stealing from others and sabotaging ones diet gets at a hierarchal difference in the degree to which a faux pas can affect ones self respect in different settings. Here are a few from least to most impactful:
fashion sense
table manners
maintaining appropriate distance
amount of eye contact
avoiding causing needless harm to animals
avoiding causing needless harm to strangers and foreigners
avoiding causing needless harm to tribe and countrymen
avoiding causing harm to friends and family
Self awareness and an inborn sociableness are not entirely arbitrary intellectual considerations. They are facts about the way we experience the world. It isn't likely that we could comfortably reason our way to becoming a sociopath. Not every choice is equal to our entire being, even if it is when considered only intellectually.
