Simple question for Christians.

[Catholic_Lady]

From an objective/scientific standpoint, yes. Looking out for each other is a good way of making a good society, which is then good for all of us. That is what has worked, and how we've evolved to be.

On an individual level, the motives may vary wildly. Some people may simply treat people well in order to curry favour and to avoid being arrested. Personally, I treat not only people but animals well (animal welfare is fucking disgraceful). There's not a lot I personally get back from treating animals well. I actually make life much harder for myself. I would think most people go above what is needed just to keep society going, and genuinely care. For example, I stop people on the street and ask for directions. Most of the time, they help me. They don't know me, or get anything particular out of helping me. We're just wired that way, on the whole. We help.

Of course there are exceptions, and societies can become hideously corrupted when someone evil gets in charge by force.

Oh yes, we're also quite prone to follow others as well. This can be good or bad depending on who we follow.

Let's do a quick run down here, because unfortunately I'm getting kinda lost. I feel like I may not be understanding your answers correctly.

Me: "You think the corner stone of morality is to treat others the way you want to be treated. Right?"

You: "Yes"

Me: "Why is it moral to treat others the way they want to be treated? Why can't it be moral for me to treat them however I want, if it makes me feel good?"

You: "Why should I treat others as I want to be treated (or as they want to be)? Because I care about them. We only have one life that we're sure of, and I want us all to have the best life we can have. Scientifically, this is a product of evolution. Personally, I care. People matter to me. Animals matter to me."

Me: "So what If the people who don't care about every person they encounter? Why should they treat those people as they would want to be treated?
Also, what do you mean by "scientifically this is the process of evolution?"

You: "People who don't care? Well, it can still be pragmatic. If you keep screwing people over you'll be short on allies, and also we have the law so we can lock those people up. Such people are fairly rare, who have no sense of morality (sociopaths). As for "should", well there's not much we can do. We'd like them to care about people, but if they don't, we can only give them reasons to care or deterrents not to hurt people.

We evolved as a cooperative species. We work well in groups, better than individuals. So natural selection has made us tend more and more towards people who care about society and not just themselves. It's not uniform, but it's a big trend. Society just wouldn't work otherwise! That is essentially where morality comes from. (Morality as in valueing wellbeing of others)."

Me: "You're saying that it is ultimately in our best interest to "treat people as they want to be treated", because it is better for society. And if something is better for society, it is ultimately better for us personally... and that is why we should follow the golden rule. It all comes back to ourselves personally. Correct?"

It seems the part of your answer that addressed my question was this part: "From an objective/scientific standpoint, yes. Looking out for each other is a good way of making a good society, which is then good for all of us. That is what has worked, and how we've evolved to be."

So basically, since some people just don't care about every single person they interact with, it doesn't make much sense to say "people ought to follow the golden rule because they care about every person they are interacting with." Since many of them don't. We have established that. So then, to explain why we ought to follow the golden rule, you use science and evolution. You say that the golden rule should be followed by all, regardless of whether or not they care about everyone, simply because it is best for society and therefore best for themselves.

Does this rundown all look correct to you?

[Catholic_Lady]

Sorry Rob, I need to jump in on this one more time.  I have a difficult time with the morality from evolution argument.  

If I ask the question "Why ought anyone be unselfish in the future?" I'm looking for a justification here.

The answer is going to be that when we're selfish, it hurts the group.  But you see, that answer isn't enough of an answer because that answer itself presumes another moral value that we ought to be concerned about the health of the group.  So, I'm going to ask the question, "Why ought we be concerned about the health of the group?"  The answer is going to be because if the groups don't survive, then the species doesn't survive.  Then you can imagine the next question.  "Why ought I care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?"  You see, the problem with all of these responses that purport to be justifications or explanations for the moral rule, is that all of these things that are meant to explain the moral rule really depend themselves upon a moral rule before they can even be uttered. Therefore, it can't be the explanation of morality.  When I ask the question "Why ought I be concerned with the species?", the next answer ends the series.  The answer is, "I ought to be concerned with the species because if the species dies out, then I will not survive.  If the species is in jeopardy, then my own personal self interests would be in jeopardy."

So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this:  I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me.  So why ought I be unselfish?  Because it is better for me.  But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness.  So all of this so-called description of where morality comes down to, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement:  I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.  That is silly.  Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness.  Why do we know that?  Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism.  They are against selfishness and for the opposite.  When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish.  Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that.  Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job.  It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain.  It doesn't explain morality.

^This is exactly where I was going to take it.

[dyresand]

From an objective/scientific standpoint, yes. Looking out for each other is a good way of making a good society, which is then good for all of us. That is what has worked, and how we've evolved to be.

On an individual level, the motives may vary wildly. Some people may simply treat people well in order to curry favour and to avoid being arrested. Personally, I treat not only people but animals well (animal welfare is fucking disgraceful). There's not a lot I personally get back from treating animals well. I actually make life much harder for myself. I would think most people go above what is needed just to keep society going, and genuinely care. For example, I stop people on the street and ask for directions. Most of the time, they help me. They don't know me, or get anything particular out of helping me. We're just wired that way, on the whole. We help.

Of course there are exceptions, and societies can become hideously corrupted when someone evil gets in charge by force.

Oh yes, we're also quite prone to follow others as well. This can be good or bad depending on who we follow.

Let's do a quick run down here, because unfortunately I'm getting kinda lost. I feel like I may not be understanding your answers correctly.

Me: "You think the corner stone of morality is to treat others the way you want to be treated. Right?"

You: "Yes"

Me: "Why is it moral to treat others the way they want to be treated? Why can't it be moral for me to treat them however I want, if it makes me feel good?"

You: "Why should I treat others as I want to be treated (or as they want to be)? Because I care about them. We only have one life that we're sure of, and I want us all to have the best life we can have. Scientifically, this is a product of evolution. Personally, I care. People matter to me. Animals matter to me."

Me: "So what If the people who don't care about every person they encounter? Why should they treat those people as they would want to be treated?
Also, what do you mean by "scientifically this is the process of evolution?"

You: "People who don't care? Well, it can still be pragmatic. If you keep screwing people over you'll be short on allies, and also we have the law so we can lock those people up. Such people are fairly rare, who have no sense of morality (sociopaths). As for "should", well there's not much we can do. We'd like them to care about people, but if they don't, we can only give them reasons to care or deterrents not to hurt people.

We evolved as a cooperative species. We work well in groups, better than individuals. So natural selection has made us tend more and more towards people who care about society and not just themselves. It's not uniform, but it's a big trend. Society just wouldn't work otherwise! That is essentially where morality comes from. (Morality as in valueing wellbeing of others)."

Me: "You're saying that it is ultimately in our best interest to "treat people as they want to be treated", because it is better for society. And if something is better for society, it is ultimately better for us personally... and that is why we should follow the golden rule. It all comes back to ourselves personally. Correct?"

It seems the part of your answer that addressed my question was this part: "From an objective/scientific standpoint, yes. Looking out for each other is a good way of making a good society, which is then good for all of us. That is what has worked, and how we've evolved to be."

So basically, since some people just don't care about every single person they interact with, it doesn't make much sense to say "people ought to follow the golden rule because they care about every person they are interacting with." Since many of them don't. We have established that. So then, to explain why we ought to follow the golden rule, you use science and evolution. You say that the golden rule should be followed by all, regardless of whether or not they care about everyone, simply because it is best for society and therefore best for themselves.

Does this rundown all look correct to you?

What Rob is saying we should be good to our fellow man. Scientifically speaking we are programmed to be nice to one another and its just not even that there is actual health benefits to being nice and kind to people. Given that you do not care for others outright  Ugh... let me say it like this

There is 7.125 billion people in this world even the smallest thing such as opening a door a friendly smile or a hello and good morning does make a difference not over all. It's like a good gesture and or hello or even a smile has a affect on other people. SO to put it this way someone looks at you in a unfreindly malevolent way or flips you the middle finger its not good for anyone because chances are you will say something or walk away frustrated. And its just not even that more countries themselves even the N. Korea could learn something like forgive and forget but they wont. The biggest thing is if people were more friendlier to one another we wouldn't have the conflicts like to do have now i.e. race, sex, religion, etc

[The Grand Nudger]

So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this:  I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me.  So why ought I be unselfish?  Because it is better for me.  But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness.  So all of this so-called description of where morality comes down to, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement:  I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.  That is silly.  Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness.  Why do we know that?  Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism.  They are against selfishness and for the opposite.  When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish.  Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that.  Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job.  It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain.  It doesn't explain morality.

[color=#333333]It seems absurd in that you insist on using the word unselfish and selfish (and in that you've built a straw effigy to focus on).  The notion itself is fairly well constructed - and so some comments regarding whether or not the terms selfish and unselfish fit are resolved by simply not using those terms -yourself-, nothing about the justification itself needs to be changed, voila, appeal to ridicule unpacked and explained.  Perhaps you shouldn;t be unselfish, but there's no avoiding the fact that within our social groups being "unselfish" has demonstrable benefits. Perhaps you aren't being "unselfish" in order to get them, but you'll get them all the same. So...no, no ones saying "be unselfish so that you can more thouroughly be selfish" - except for you.....

Evolution provided us with a moral utility, this is inarguable, it manifests itself across many species and can be perused at length anytime you are interested in doing so.  That moral utility involves considerations of selfishness, regardless of whether or not you find them to be distasteful, and if it bothers you this much, again..just stop using the word?  

Morality is most definitely -not- about "being unselfish".....but I can see why you keep at it, since your "point" hinges on trying to find as many ways to comment upon the terms selfish and unselfish as possible before that final, hilarious, transference to evolution, as though it followed. It doesn't.

If you ask why a person should not be selfish, the answer -can- simply be that a person -should- be selfish. The morality of social creatures -does- provide opportunity to pursue own's selfish desires whilst simultaneously adding to the survival of the group and the individual beyond that which could be gained -by- an individual. That's one of the reasons that the moral utility provided by evolutionary development is so useful - it doesn't demand that we be something we're not. It's achievable. That's not the only reason to be moral, and I don't think that anyone has ever suggested so in any case. Evolution isn't meant to be an explanation of the entire moral field and every permutation thereof, it's use here is an explanation of how morality can come to be. Evolution explains this in a straightforward way, even if it doesn;t explain to you, some other, strange and unclaimed thing regarding a specific moral precept. You're a big boy, figure it out.

[robvalue]

Thanks Rhythm, I think you've done a better job than me explaining things.

King: you talk of internal compulsion. Yes, exactly. That is from evolution, I expect. It's the part of us that wants to naturally cooperate and care for others. It's nothing magic. It explains why we care for others, because our bodies make it easier and more pleasant for us to do that.

As for guilt, sure, it's probably a way of getting people back to being honest and caring about their society. It's like an error message. "You did bad! Don't do it again. I'll make you feel bad again if you do!"

I'm no science expert, I've just tried my best to put it across. Science simply creates models. It models how members of our species tend towards generally caring about each other. That's as far as it goes.

CL:

When we talk about what we "ought" to do, we're talking now on an individual level. The golden rule is more of an observation of how cooperative behaviour works, it isn't the thing that creates morality itself. We all have different ideas about what people "ought" to do, but it doesn't mean they will do them. We can teach someone the basics of morality in abstract terms, but this is an add-on to how we naturally are, and may not even take at all.

I'm not too sure what else to say...

There is no alternative to subjective morality. Even if you find it unsatisfactory, it can be no other way. We have millions of theists who claim to have the one true objective morality, but they all have slightly different ideas about what it is. So which one do we use, exactly? If no one knows what this objective standard is, what use is it to any of us?

Attributing morality to an outside agency is either having things totally backwards, or an appeal to magic because the science doesn't sound convincing.

I can write loads of reasons why "God morality" does not work and makes no sense, if that would be helpful. For example, if God wanted us to all have the same morality, then he has hideously failed. We're all different, and some have no morality at all. So he either wants us to be subjective, or he's screwed it up. Either way, he has not created a standard that means anything.

If anyone wants to continue this, maybe we should make a new thread and let this one get back on topic

[downbeatplumb]

I think it's funny that some believers insist we must have a fully articulated ontology and metaphysics to justify something as simple and easy to understand as the so-called Silver Rule (which I prefer to the positively worded Golden Rule).

If we ever get to the point where overpopulation becomes a problem and we no longer have any reason to try to keep everyone  alive, do you think this golden rule would still stand?

(honest question btw, please don't respond back with snark/etc)

These things already are a problem. The problem specifically is that we have too many Americans.
Americans by head consume more of the worlds resources than any other nationality.

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.
[*]On average, one American consumes as much energy as

• 2 Japanese
  
• 6 Mexicans
  
• 13 Chinese
  
• 31 Indians
  
• 128 Bangladeshis
  
• 307 Tanzanians
  
• 370 Ethiopians
  

[*]


http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/...ercent.htm

[robvalue]

Maybe someone can post a link to a really good site that explains the link between morality and evolution? I'm trying to find one.

Of course evolution gives us only our starting point, when we are born. We're rigged a certain way, in general. But then all our experiences will have an affect on what we perceive as moral and immoral. It makes sense to me that what we perceive is generally going to reflect the evolutionary traits. Anyone better versed than me is welcome to correct me. I'm no expert, all I'm giving is my primitive understanding.

[ignoramus]

Evolution got us this far.
Morals are neither good or bad. They are dynamic and depend entirely on their context.
Our legal system has the juggling act of tweaking and modifying what society considers is right (acceptable) and wrong (unacceptable) constantly ...daily!
Our laws dictate our morals.
Killing someone is wrong, Killing someone as a last resort because he was going to kill you is fine! They've always been a dynamic variable.
The rough basic universal laws of modern western societies is: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Compromises must always be made.
We are brought up by our parents who teach us the basics of morality.
Sometimes we know something is wrong but we do it anyway (steal a cookie?)
Personal moral guilt (as opposed to legal guilt) is just our internal conflict for going against our own internal current "programming".
People can say our morals come from God, maybe, but we can and do function as an evolved species without this intervention.

In closing.
You either believe we were created by "something" with intelligence or you don't.
If you believe in a "god", then everything's possible, isn't it?
If you don't, then everything must have a "natural" answer?

[Kingpin]

Ignoramus that is a great response and I agree with your definition completely in the confines of morality engrained in evolution. If morality evolves we cannot judge any act accept within the confines of the social construct in which they are perpetrated. Agree? But even you state the issue. Morals are not good or bad. If you hold to moral relativism NOTHING is good or bad because the definition of good and bad are fluid and subject to change.

If I say that the holocaust was an atrocity by which standard could I make that statement? Is it my own current standard or my societies current standard? Or do I judge it by the societal views of the Third Reich in which it was not viewed as an atrocity but a necessary and just action? Same with slavery. How do I judge slavery in the past? Based on current societal views or within the construct of the accepted norm of that time?

I completely agree with your last statement. If there is no God then everything must have a natural answer but that opens itself up to a completely new discussion

[The Grand Nudger]

Judge any of those things by whatever standard you wish, we might agree with your standard and summary, or impeach it.  Nothing about moral relativism prevents a person from holding the opinion that their own standard is superior to anothers, and nothing prevents anyone from mounting such a case, and nothing prevents such a case from being justifiable or true.  Your claim is nonsense on it's face, if there was no good or bad in moral relativism, there would be no moral relativism. Learn what the big words mean, and what they do or don't imply...before you try to use them.

Now...-regardless- of whether or not there is a god, everything either does or does not have a natural answer, the actual presence of a god would not be capable of settling that question, because, you see...god may -also- have a natural answer, it's already part of the question of everything. You -believe- that the god clause answers the question not because you believe in god, but because you believe that god is "supernatural". That's the important bit, with regards to that question, not god. A supernatural toaster fits the bill equally well. The god clause, as usual, is useless.

@Rob, here you go buddy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/