Is There a Point To Living a Moral Life?

[genkaus]

Biological imperatives would apply in terms of the species - these are the qualities the species might need to survive.

Are you going for equivocation here? Because not all qualities that a species needs to survive are biological or imperative in nature nor do all biological imperatives aid in survival.

Wiggle room, if you like, is provided by "naturally inclined to" for the individual.

If that was the case then it'd be the wiggle-room that's the concern for morality - not the naturally inclined part. However, as I said, the natural inclination may have nothing to do with the biological imperative at all.

Further you have ignored my allowance for higher centres of the brain to over-ride programming - which covers all of your examples of how you might assess a given individual.

What your biological programming should be overridden with is the concern of morality - not the programming itself. I thought I had made that point clear in my argument.

No problem with the summary so we got to the same point. I expressed it as "At its most basal level its going to be very hard to differentiate ethics and morality from instinct."

That's the opposite of the point I was making. At its most basic level ethics and morality are fundamentally different from instinct.

What you haven't addressed, however is my last statement "If we accept that instinct is pre-programming then fundamentals of ethics morality may well be too."

Note the use of the word - fundamentals.

Did you not read the argument or did you simply not understand it?

My description of how your emotions and rationality determine your inclinations was to show that we don't have any pre-programing that could serve as a fundamental basis for our ethics and morality. The role our capacity for self-reflection plays in determining our morality indicates that its fundamentals are not pre-programed.

---

You and Genkaus can both agree that the quality of being considered sets human morality apart from mammalian pro-social behavior generally. But as you say, all that does is add a capacity to over-ride. It remains however deeply rooted in mammalian pro-social behavior. We haven't become angels or something entirely different than what we were when we started out.

"All it does"? Do you not get the gravity of change here? The quality of being considered is what results in the capacity to override. It effects a fundamental change in human morality. The "mammalian pro-social" behavior no longer serves as the adequate root for human morality - it has to be found elsewhere. It has made us into something entirely different than what we were when we started out.

[Norfolk And Chance]

...for an Atheist that is?

I see the mods have been busy!! Well.... I've been busy myself! Converting Atheists, and godless peeps in general is hard work! Plus... I figured you'd all want to wish me a Happy Anniversary!! Especially those who said I'd be run outta Dodge within a month! Really though... no cudos necessary! I know you all love me!

I don't love you, if the truth be told.

Back to the subject at hand! Given the natural cynicism and nastiness of Atheists [here] in general... is there any reason to live a "Moral" life?

Define "moral". But yes, there is a reason, that reason being if you have a good personal moral code, you are less likely to end up in conflict, hurt others etc. Survival of the species depends on being able to live alongside each other.

"Moral", in terms of [Good, Honest] deemed by traditions through time. Maybe to include a few slightly general commandments: Lies, stealing, adultery, etc.

I see you just defined it. See my answer above.

I mean... if there is no one or nothing to [say you are wrong, but you] about; a little swing w/ your buddies wife, or that $10 the acne faced kid gave you extra w/ your change at the Walmart; or telling your wife you were out w/ your buddy instead of his wife... How do you keep it in check? Or do you?

You're either honest or you're not. You either have a conscience or you don't. There are people in between as well. The thing is, whether you are honest or care about others, is not dependent on religion. There are just as many theists who use and abuse others as there are atheists who do that.

As for keeping stuff in check, well it's simple for me...put myself in the other persons shoes and ask myself whether I would like *whatever* done to me.

Yeah, yeah....I know you would say that Christians are doing the same thing....And they are! But, they do have a conviction in the Lord Jesus. and they know that they will answer to their words and deeds.

But the don't know that they will answer to their words and deeds. If they knew it, they'd not risk doing anything out of line.

What do you have to answer to? Is there a point to living any kind of "honest" life?

I answer to myself, my family and peers. The point of living an honest life is the respect you gain from others. So on a personal level, there is a point to living an honest life. We give our own life meaning.

On a grander scale, I actually don't think there is any actual point or meaning to life - life just is there. If life has a point, it is to replicate, but life doesn't know that.

As an observation as a Christian... Your words are pretty mean spirited to any religious. And I've witnessed a lot of hate here. Maybe you feel you have that right? But also people are individuals, and deserve at least to be heard for their ideas, and concepts relating to just about anything.... religious or otherwise.

Anyway... what do you as an atheists feel is your moral compass. And what is the gauge set at? Honesty in general... where is the line drawn, and how?

I hope you take this thread seriously! Thanks for your answers. As a Christian I have a guide/threat (if you will) in my life. I'm just curious how a person acts w/o what many here would call an "obstacle"?

Again! Good to be back celebrating ONE YEAR w/ all my A-team buddies!

Yes we can be mean to theists. But put yourself in our shoes for a minute...we all think you're all deluded. We get sick of being told about made up stuff that is going to happen for not believing in made up stuff. You get irritated after a while.

[freedomfromforum]

I just found $300 cash on the floor in the supermarket - what should I do next?

[Norfolk And Chance]

I don't want you to fuck my partner, so I won't fuck yours. I don't want you to steal my goods, so I won't steal yours.

But if you wanted to fuck and steal and you knew you could get away with it what's stopping you?

The victims left behind.

Fucking hell, it's not hard!

[Jackalope]

I just found $300 cash on the floor in the supermarket - what should I do next?

Push an old lady down the stairs, duh.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I just found $300 cash on the floor in the supermarket - what should I do next?

Cry, because if you're picking dollars up you must be American.

[max-greece]

"My description of how your emotions and rationality determine your inclinations was to show that we don't have any pre-programing that could serve as a fundamental basis for our ethics and morality. "

I am dying to know why you are so against this at a conceptual level.

In the meantime I have started to do a bit of research on the subject and there is a lot to follow up on:

Try this one : http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c.../819.short - (Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest)

This one makes passing reference from what I can see : http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/...secure.pdf

But I haven't had time to read the whole thing.

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v6/n10...n1768.html "Here, we propose a cognitive neuroscience view of how cultural and context-dependent knowledge, semantic social knowledge and motivational states can be integrated to explain complex aspects of human moral cognition."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...5082920693

"Morality may be defined as the problem solving activities of a moral community, a primary group which uses a wide range of sanctions directly to reduce conflict, which also sanctions perceived causes of conflict, and defines and controls other deviances judged to be antisocial. So defined, morality is a precondition for law. In comparing human with non-human primates, conflict management is one of the most impressive parallels. This empirical parallel is built upon, to construct an evolutionary scenario for the development of morality and law in their proto-forms."

OK - I'm getting bored cutting and pasting. I Googled "evolutionary basis for morality." Knock yourself out.

[Angrboda]

Biological imperatives would apply in terms of the species - these are the qualities the species might need to survive.

Are you going for equivocation here? Because not all qualities that a species needs to survive are biological or imperative in nature nor do all biological imperatives aid in survival.

Are you suggesting there are qualities that humans possess that aren't biological? Whether they are needed to survive or not, or are imperative, if the only qualities which exist are biological, then the set of non-biological qualities is empty, and your assertion is empty and false.

What qualities are you suggesting are not biological? Your statement seems to imply a dualism, whether property or substance. Are you a property or substance dualist?

[genkaus]

I am dying to know why you are so against this at a conceptual level.

I thought I had been clear on that. Subscribing to a fundamentally biological view of human morality ignores the actual evolution of morality through the ages and dismisses its current role in our lives. Further, if the position was true, all the debates about human morality would be pointless. If we had such a fundamental, biological basis for morality, then that morality - in the truest sense - would be the objective moral code that should be universally adhered to.

In the meantime I have started to do a bit of research on the subject and there is a lot to follow up on:

Try this one : http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c.../819.short - (Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest)

The Westermarck effect, which this study is about, says nothing about the actual morality of incest. While strong sense of disgust - whatever its source - is often confused with a sense of moral condemnation, it is demonstrably not so.

This one makes passing reference from what I can see : http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/...secure.pdf

But I haven't had time to read the whole thing.

Neither have I.

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v6/n10...n1768.html "Here, we propose a cognitive neuroscience view of how cultural and context-dependent knowledge, semantic social knowledge and motivational states can be integrated to explain complex aspects of human moral cognition."

I don't see any mention of biological pre-programing here. In fact, this supports my explanation of how your rationality and emotional states affect your moral cognition.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...5082920693

"Morality may be defined as the problem solving activities of a moral community, a primary group which uses a wide range of sanctions directly to reduce conflict, which also sanctions perceived causes of conflict, and defines and controls other deviances judged to be antisocial. So defined, morality is a precondition for law. In comparing human with non-human primates, conflict management is one of the most impressive parallels. This empirical parallel is built upon, to construct an evolutionary scenario for the development of morality and law in their proto-forms."

Consider the italicized portion of the abstract. Redefining morality and finding parallels for it in non-human societies does not make for a convincing evolutionary basis for human morality.

OK - I'm getting bored cutting and pasting. I Googled "evolutionary basis for morality." Knock yourself out.

I have. A long time ago. And you are not throwing anything at me that hasn't been considered before. And all those arguments fail for one reason and one reason alone - they are not explaining morality or ethics as the question has be posed philosophically.

[max-greece]

Before I reply please understand I have no horse in this race. What I have written thus far is purely on the basis of my own logical deductions and therefore may well be wrong:

"Subscribing to a fundamentally biological view of human morality ignores the actual evolution of morality through the ages and dismisses its current role in our lives. "

But this is not what I am arguing at all. I keep talking about the fundamental and that is not coming through. What I mean by fundamental is the basis, however, simple, that would lead to constant development with culture as the primary influence.

As a creature with higher brain centres we have (for whatever reason) an ability to decide things on a moral basis. This does not reference the morality itself but the capacity for morality. The actual moral decision would be determined by the culture but the recognition that there is a moral issue to be decided is probably encoded genetically. Hell there are now earnest discussions about a genetic disposition towards religion. Why there couldn't be one for morality is beyond me.

Just to clarify - we have a moral decision faced by 2 individuals in different societies. Even when one goes one way and the other does the opposite that does not mean that there is no biological input - even if that is merely the flagging up of "moral decision ahead."

Now we know that even humanity has instinctual behaviours - a baby knows to look its mother in the eyes, automatically turns its head towards the mother's breast to suckle and so on. These are clearly identifiable as instinct as opposed to morality. The question remains, however, are there simple moral values that are pre-programmed to start the process. I still am yet to see a reason you think not.