Morality without the righteous. What is right and wrong?

[Tranquility]

The detriment and advantage to the individual is implied in both the golden rule and Kant's more refined version of it.

It's called empathy. Maybe some people can put their own selfish motivations into even that, but it certainly isn't necessary.

I can't argue with that. I do many things out of the care I have for others rather any sense of it being the right or wrong thing to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't the care of others fall under the remit of your reaction to a given thing if you were placed in their shoes? Or does this care spring, source unknown or difficult to pin down, without such a consideration? I'd call that projecting self interest, personally. I wouldn't argue that this is the entirety of empathy, but it would seem to my mind to be a core component of it (and it at least offers the beginings of an explanation for a behavior which invokes a known and extremely powerful motivator). Sometimes I think that self interest or "selfish motivations" wouldn't get such a swift taboo appraisal if it were understood as a part of those behaviors and motivations that we positively value (and that does seem to be the case, cue the altruistic chimps and their honeycombs).

[Tranquility]

I think so. I think we're just talking about different aspects of the same thing. One being empathy (understanding the effects on others). The other being concern (the motivation to act accordingly).

[Darkstar]

I'd call that projecting self interest, personally.

Well, it depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean that you hope that person will be nice to you in the future because you were nice to them, or some other thing that is difficult to desribe? (The former may happen sometimes, but I think that latter is still common).

[Tranquility]

Am I the only one who understands moral statements to mean there is a standard of dos and don'ts in behavior to which we have an obligation or duty to comply?

"It is wrong to (insert behavior of choice)." This statement means the behavior is a don't according to the standard.
"It is right to (insert behavior of choice)." This statement means the behavior is a do according to the standard.

I can't get my head around it to mean anything else, which is why I ask what the word means.

[paulpablo]

"It is wrong to cause harm to others."

What does wrong mean?

"It is right to be helpful to others."

What does right mean?

Am i getting de ja vu or is there already 2 other threads with this same sort of topic up?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17592.html

Maybe i am getting de ja vu i can only find one

[Tranquility]

Perhaps so! I'll read through the topic.

---

I notice you replied to the topic. Do you "feel" there is a standard of dos and don'ts in behavior to which we have an obligation or duty to comply? Or do you mean something else when you say that something is right or wrong, if you'd even make that kind of statement?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd call that projecting self interest, personally.

Well, it depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean that you hope that person will be nice to you in the future because you were nice to them, or some other thing that is difficult to desribe? (The former may happen sometimes, but I think that latter is still common).

Sure, reciprocation would be a form of self interest (and a widely demonstrated firmly established well documented tenet of the vast majority of cultures studied) but also the sort of "if I were in his/her shoes" assessment. Firstly by isolating the issue, then projecting the self, appraising your reaction towards the simulated event, and then transferring that conclusion to the original subject. This is selfish, self interested behavior, but almost uniformly a selfish, self interested behavior (at it's very core..though granted we project it out) that is positively valued.

[Darkstar]

Sure, reciprocation would be a form of self interest (and a widely demonstrated firmly established well documented tenet of the vast majority of cultures studied) but also the sort of "if I were in his/her shoes" assessment.

I'm not quite sure I understand how empathizing with someone is selfish, especially if you do not expect anything in return (including being treated well by that person in the fututre). Wouldn't it be the opposite of selfish if you projected selfishness onto someone else and then fulfilled the projected desire exclusively for their benefit?

[The Grand Nudger]

If the seat of your empathy is in putting yourself in the shoes of another, you are actually considering your self, not the other, and then extending the conclusions you reach out to the other (and they aren't always accurate).

If you shed the negative connotations of the word and allow yourself to analyze the process it's very easy to see why so many models of empathy as an extension of (a much simpler to explain) self interest are so prevalent.