Moral standards

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean where do moral standards come from in this world? They "come from" people, where else?

So what happens when people disagree about something based on moral grounds?

The get online and bitch about it and/or make angry signs? Really, it depends on what the disagreement is, and what part of the world we're talking about. That's far too general a question to answer. Sometimes nothing happens, sometimes something definitely does happen.

@Badwolf

Just so you know, Bonobos are one of the most peaceful apes ever. I don't think they ever actually fight at all.

They organize little cannibal hunting trips (even the females enjoy the sport...which is rare for chimps, or so we think thusfar)- but we don't have to call that fighting, I suppose.

[downbeatplumb]

In an atheist world, where do the standards by which moral actions are measured come from?

From the society we live in.

In some parts of Pakistan it is "moral" to kill your daughter for looking at a boy.

It was Moral to burn the wives of dead men.

It is moral in some backwards communities for women to keep completely covered at all times so men aren't inflamed and wont rape them.

Secular societies tend to be less repressive and generally nicer places to live.

Oh and Hi by the way, I think this is our first dance.

[Brian37]

In an atheist world, where do the standards by which moral actions are measured come from?

Not this shit again.

You think morals are exclusive to only those who believe in invisible sky heros? I can show you animals protecting their young, and even a CAT protecting a kid from a dog attacking her.

Our behavior as humans is in us, for the same reason a lioness will protect her cubs.

If you need a god to threaten or bribe you to do the right thing then you mentally really are not any better than a kid behaving to get presents under a Christmas tree.

Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not our human invented religions, borders or politics. We have never been a separate species because of those things. There are hospitals and prisons in every nation on the face of the planet.

---

Assuming nature needs a magical puppeteer is as stupid as believing a hurricane needs Poseidon to cause it.

[RobbyPants]

When people say things like "right" or "wrong" in these situations, they're referring to their own sensibilities.

As weird as it may be for people to wrap their head around, there's no indication that any absolute right and wrong, or good and evil exist. In absence of it, morality is subjective, and "right and wrong" are going to be left up to individuals to decide.

That being said, culture and upbringing have a lot to do with putting people in a similar location on pretty close to the same page. Sure, you'll end up with some disagreements and you'll even end up with people going against things they'd nominally describe as "moral", but that doesn't mean that the system doesn't work, by and large.


Or, to put it another way: society exists (given), and we by and large find a way to coexist (given). There's no proof objective morality exists, let alone is required for such a system to work.

[GodsRevolt]

The question isn't why life is preferable to death, but why the value on conscious entities, as you put it. Where does that value come from, because you seem to throw it in without much basis.

I would have thought this obvious: without conscious entities there are no moral actors, and hence no moral actions. A world without conscious entities has nobody to consider morality at all, making the entire exercise moot.

Meanwhile, consciousness, sentience and intelligence allow us to consider and construct moral frameworks, and to foster those things we would consider moral goods. Along with... well, everything else that we as sentient entities have managed to build. I submit to you that these are things worth preserving, and that complex life has inherent worth based on its abilities to accomplish all this.

You submit to me? Am I standard? Why does complex life have inherent worth? Just because we can reason? What about simple life?

Is this the standard you present? To begin by maintaining life and then go from there down a hierarchy of values?

It's a general rule, based on the observation that the sentient entities that construct moral frames and act in moral ways generally like being alive. It doesn't preclude, say, euthanasia in situations where your life becomes so painful that its continuance causes you more harm than good, for example. But it's a good start in keeping with our status as biological organisms.

If morals are merely constructs of sentient entities, then what happens when there are no sentient entities? Is torture still wrong even if there is no one to torture?

And you mention euthanasia as an exception to your system. Who draws that line to where what you have said is the first parameter of maintaining life suddenly becomes moot?

---

@GodsRevolt
-You wait.
Justification?
And, sir, I find it quite amusing how you are refusing to tell me your moral standard.

I'm just trying to stay on topic with the thread I have presented. If you are honestly asking what my moral standards are you have only to look at my profile.

If you are just trying to avoid answering the question because it is more difficult that you had previously thought then I hope you would reconsider your stance, or at least stay open to that which you have previously rejected with the idea that even ideas outside of your own standards deserve to be entertained.

---

Unless there is an experiment that shows how bonobos react when placed against a separate community of bonobos and only enough resources for one?

The full length doco I watched was a controlled experiment where some food was between 2 cages with rope to each cage.

1 monkey grabbed it and started eating while the other watch.
Then the other decided try to get the food by tugging on the rope which he did. As soon as the other monkey started eating, the first one went completely ape shit.

They then tried the same experiment but this time, as soon as the first monkey started eating, a "human" moved the tray of food to the other monkey to eat. The first monkey was emotionless, like before the experiment had started. He showed no signs of anger or resentment towards the other monkey.
(he basically knew the other monkey was innocent and was therefore not angry at him)

I'm not sure this is grounds for bonobo ambassadorship quite yet. Like I said, the Alphas or the dominate (in this case human) doles out the justice and the rest submit. This is only keeping order.

---

You name acts done by Christians and seem to be labeling them as wrong, would it be different if an atheist was doing these things?

Or is the problem that Christians say things are wrong and then do them?

No it wouldn't be any different if an atheist was exploiting old people to the point where they had to make do with too little to eat or without all their meds.

Same goes for anyone, theist or atheist, who makes it a point to talk down homosexuality, sexual promiscuity or drugs when they themselves are indulging what they call a vice. Religious or not, it is a good idea to have your own house in order if you want to chide others on their behavior.

(You haven't addressed my chief point: that morality is like so many other phenomena in which we find our sensibilities align quite nicely with the vast majority of our peers.)

Your point here seems to be that morality is "practicing what you preach" but if one professes that killing anyone who stands in the way of a goal and gaining power at all costs is a moral action, when they practice what they preach are they being moral?

And as for me addressing your point where the vast majority of peers agree upon morality, this idea is quite questionable. Should morality be put to a vote? Mob mentality? I think that you and I would both agree that a Nazis society is an immoral one even if the majority supports it. Or that slavery in the early United states was wrong even though the south fought to keep it.

Morality cannot be just a vote because even the vast majority can come to terms with an immoral. So I might ask you from here, when you are in the minority, what do you base your morals on?

---

In an atheist world, where do the standards by which moral actions are measured come from?

From the society we live in.

In some parts of Pakistan it is "moral" to kill your daughter for looking at a boy.

It was Moral to burn the wives of dead men.

It is moral in some backwards communities for women to keep completely covered at all times so men aren't inflamed and wont rape them.

Secular societies tend to be less repressive and generally nicer places to live.

Oh and Hi by the way, I think this is our first dance.

Are you saying that those things are moral based on the location and time in which they occurred?

Surely, you and I would disagree with such a relativistic stance and would look to a standard that carries through time and can be applied to all situations equally.

and also - Hi!

---

So what happens when people disagree about something based on moral grounds?

The get online and bitch about it and/or make angry signs? Really, it depends on what the disagreement is, and what part of the world we're talking about. That's far too general a question to answer. Sometimes nothing happens, sometimes something definitely does happen.

You bring up location.

Is torture for fun ok in one country and not ok in another?

And if not, what about what one might consider a lesser crime, like stealing or lying when someone has the right to the truth?

---

In an atheist world, where do the standards by which moral actions are measured come from?

In a nutshell, individuals who work well with others have a higher level of survivability. This has resulted in human development of behavioural frameworks which we call morality or ethics. There are 4 main sources, regularly documented, which provide a naturalistic (i.e. non-supernatural) basis for these:

1. Instincts for social behaviour. These are evolutionary traits which results from thousands of generations of interaction. Over time, brains which are more adept at particular types of social behaviour have been selected for which has resulted in an innate propensity towards commonly beneficial behaviour.

2. Education. We are taught values by our parents/guardians which they believe (or have evidence for) will provide us with a greater level of survivability and/or success as we develop. The social aspects of this education are integrated with our instinctive social behaviour to form moral/ethical value-systems. These systems tend to be more successful at coping with complex human interactions because they can cope with a greater level of variety/variation and still provide value-adding outcomes.

3. Experience. We tend to layer personal experiences over the top of our instincts and education as we receive real-world feedback on our actions. This facility allows us to tailor our value-systems to our situations, generally providing more successful results in their application. This increases the sophistication of our systems, catering for a greater level of variety/variation.

4. Authority (some see this as a subset of Education). We tend to develop behavioural role-models. This can save us time as we don't need to rethink every situation/dilemma, we can just apply our role-models approach. We can also be our own Authority because humans are habit-forming creatures. This is a fairly unsophisticated approach, requiring little labour which makes it successful though it doesn't cater very well with variety/variation.


The rabbit-hole goes far deeper than that but this is a reasonable overview. By comparing value-systems, we can see that religious-style morals fall heavily under category 4 while non-religious ones tend towards category 3.

You seem to break down morality to the idea of survival. Those who work together tend to survive longer? But aren't there situations where survival of one means conflict between and death of another? Cooperation fizzles into might is right. Is this to be considered moral?

Of course, you mentioned different aspects of this but this what your "nutshell" if I understand you right.

[Bad Wolf]

I'm not sure this is grounds for bonobo ambassadorship quite yet. Like I said, the Alphas or the dominate (in this case human) doles out the justice and the rest submit. This is only keeping order.

Exactly like your god.

[Esquilax]

You submit to me? Am I standard?

Submit as in, present for your appraisal.

Why does complex life have inherent worth? Just because we can reason? What about simple life?

Complex life has worth because it's the life that considers morality and acts upon it. The reason sentient life has moral worth is because without it the entire concept of morality becomes meaningless. There'd be nobody to discuss it, and no actors to perform moral deeds. The conversation would be over.

Morality comes from life; our nature as evolved organisms sculpts the values we use to come to moral conclusions. Our ecological niche, the thing that allows us to succeed, is cooperation and social grouping; it's no coincidence that the traits that made us the dominant species on the planet also happen to be the things we prize as moral goods, like romantic love, self sacrifice, and so on. It's just a function of how the moral conversation takes place: we need to frame morality in terms of benefit to ourselves and others because without us- without life,- there would be no conversation to have.

If morals are merely constructs of sentient entities, then what happens when there are no sentient entities? Is torture still wrong even if there is no one to torture?

At the point at which there are no beings, who is there to perform the act of torture, and who is to have it performed upon them? What you're asking is akin to asking me if, without any rocks, would the concept of rocks still exist? If there's nothing around, then evidently neither are we to be talking about it. All I can really say is that torture would be morally wrong when there are beings around that would have the same reactions to it that we do.

If another life form were present that somehow benefited from torture, then the morality of the act would change for them, as there would be no harm being inflicted. But that's a much larger issue that's just hypothetical.

And you mention euthanasia as an exception to your system. Who draws that line to where what you have said is the first parameter of maintaining life suddenly becomes moot?

Well, the reason that life is the first parameter is because we, generally speaking, enjoy life. There is potential in life, happiness and success to be had, and so on. When I brought up euthanasia I was speaking in the context of people with incurable diseases or injuries that rob them of that potential and leave them in irreversible pain for the rest of their life. It's still their choice, but at that point the benefits of living might be outweighed by the pain- aversion to pain being another parameter, for obvious reasons- to the point where they might find ending that life to be preferable.

I feel like you're trying to look for easy, blanket answers, and taking the fact that other people are factoring in contexts as a sign of weakness. Could you just get to the point you were trying to make?

[Ryantology]

In an atheist world, where do the standards by which moral actions are measured come from?

You're asking this expecting a single source to be cited, since morality has a single source in your belief system.

That's not how it works in the real world. The standards by which moral actions are measured come ultimately from personal preference. Social standards of morality are merely those which have the support of enough individuals.

The morality of Nazis is, in an objective sense, every bit as valid as the moral system I live by. That does not mean that I have to tolerate Nazi morality if faced with it. It means I can't offer any arguments against it that are free of personal bias.

The thing is, you can't, either.

[Whateverist]

No it wouldn't be any different if an atheist was exploiting old people to the point where they had to make do with too little to eat or without all their meds.

Same goes for anyone, theist or atheist, who makes it a point to talk down homosexuality, sexual promiscuity or drugs when they themselves are indulging what they call a vice. Religious or not, it is a good idea to have your own house in order if you want to chide others on their behavior.

(You haven't addressed my chief point: that morality is like so many other phenomena in which we find our sensibilities align quite nicely with the vast majority of our peers.)

Your point here seems to be that morality is "practicing what you preach" but if one professes that killing anyone who stands in the way of a goal and gaining power at all costs is a moral action, when they practice what they preach are they being moral?

My suggestion was that you won't find this kind of variation. No one who kills anyone who stands in their way is not going to stop to contemplate whether or not doing so is moral. If you see it differently perhaps you can name some famous people who have acted this way and also argued that they are good people.

And as for me addressing your point where the vast majority of peers agree upon morality, this idea is quite questionable. Should morality be put to a vote? Mob mentality? I think that you and I would both agree that a Nazis society is an immoral one even if the majority supports it. Or that slavery in the early United states was wrong even though the south fought to keep it.

Morality cannot be just a vote because even the vast majority can come to terms with an immoral. So I might ask you from here, when you are in the minority, what do you base your morals on?

Swing and a miss. Did I say anything about putting it to a vote? My claim is that people's sensibilities regarding what is pro- and anti-social are largely compatible. As a separate matter, we do in a sense put it to a vote to determine what shall be the law of the land. That determines what agreements are in place and what the enforcement shall be, even though we can go on talking about whether a particular law is a "just" one or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

The get online and bitch about it and/or make angry signs? Really, it depends on what the disagreement is, and what part of the world we're talking about. That's far too general a question to answer. Sometimes nothing happens, sometimes something definitely does happen.

You bring up location.

Is torture for fun ok in one country and not ok in another?

And if not, what about what one might consider a lesser crime, like stealing or lying when someone has the right to the truth?

Well, I'd like to think that some things cross all kinds of boundaries, but truth be told, yeah - it's clearly been morally "okay" to torture this or that person or group of people at particular points in time or location(sometimes based upon a difference in moral frameworks-no less). That's the changing face of humanity, and our evolving "moral sense". Doesn't mean that you or I have to consider it as such (even they[the torturer]could change their minds in that regard).

There have been societies with no concept of property ownership - thus there is no "stealing" moral, immoral, amoral. Things that you and I assign a moral value to aren't always up for consideration. That's how diverse it is, it's not just different answers to a common list, the lists aren't even the same. Obviously this applies to lying, the "truth" and whatever rights you may or may not have in regards to the same.