To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

It is NOT "completely subjective"; the rules of society are grounded in natural selection and are a natural outcome of evolution. They arose because those rules were beneficial to the maintenance of the social unit and the breeding and survival of our species.

Oh stop Tass, even our survival is not an objective good. And of course Jim's idea of what is best for the community as a whole, rather than what is best for the powerful elite, or what is in the best interests of the majority at the expense of the minority, is subjective.

The rules of baseball are devised in order to provide the best possible game. They may be arbitrary but must be observed nevertheless; otherwise the game will fall apart. If it is believed that changing the rules will make the game better then they can be changed.

The same applies to the rules of society.

Glad you agree that the rules of baseball are arbitrary.

[carpedm9587]

This is an old question, but still an important one. I cannot speak for others, but I can explain my approach. When I look within, I find that I value happiness and well being, and I eschew unhappiness and sickliness. So, my ethical core is based on promoting a world where happiness and well being are optimized. To be consistent, I must recognize that a world in which all only seek for their OWN happiness and well being is a world in which I am unlikely to realize mine - so I generalize the philosophy to include those around me as well as myself. So when I make a choice, I ask myself if it will enhance my happiness and well being and that of those around me - or not, and act accordingly. Sometimes, that even leads me to make the choice to prioritize the happiness of another over my own in the short term, because of the long term (perceived) consequences.

Aquinas had a similar approach.

[seer]

This is an old question, but still an important one. I cannot speak for others, but I can explain my approach. When I look within, I find that I value happiness and well being, and I eschew unhappiness and sickliness. So, my ethical core is based on promoting a world where happiness and well being are optimized. To be consistent, I must recognize that a world in which all only seek for their OWN happiness and well being is a world in which I am unlikely to realize mine - so I generalize the philosophy to include those around me as well as myself. So when I make a choice, I ask myself if it will enhance my happiness and well being and that of those around me - or not, and act accordingly. Sometimes, that even leads me to make the choice to prioritize the happiness of another over my own in the short term, because of the long term (perceived) consequences.

Aquinas had a similar approach.

Well that may work for you, but not for the Nazi, Maoist, Stalinist, ISIS, Hutu, or North Korean Dictators. And I think Aquinas believed that ultimate happiness or well being would be grounded in our connection to God.

It is impossible for any created good to constitute man's happiness. For happiness is the perfect good, which lulls the appetite altogether; else it would not be the last end, if something yet remained to be desired. Now the object of the will, i.e. of man's appetite, is the universal good; just as the object of the intellect is the universal true. Hence it is evident that naught can lull man's will, save the universal good. This is to be found, not in any creature, but in God alone; because every creature has goodness by participation. Wherefore God alone can satisfy the will of man, according to the words of Psalm 102:5: "Who satisfieth thy desire with good things." Therefore God alone constitutes man's happiness. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm

BTW carpedm, welcome to Tweb...

[carpedm9587]

Well that may work for you, but not for the Nazi, Maoist, Stalinist, ISIS, Hutu, or North Korean Dictators. And I think Aquinas believed that ultimate happiness or well being would be grounded in our connection to God.

I actually wasn't asked what would work for those other groups. I was asked for the rational/reasoned basis for ethics in my (atheist?) worldview. So that was the question I answered.

BTW carpedm, welcome to Tweb...

Thanks. It's "welcome back," actually. I was here years ago, but the crash a few years ago wiped out all sign of me, so I'm apparently new and fresh. I'm also trying to figure out how to customize my profile to provide just a bit more info and maybe an image.

[carpedm9587]

And I think Aquinas believed that ultimate happiness or well being would be grounded in our connection to God.

P.S. You're right about Aquinas. As an atheist, of course, that last bit has no meaning for me. But the first part does.

[seer]

I actually wasn't asked what would work for those other groups. I was asked for the rational/reasoned basis for ethics in my (atheist?) worldview. So that was the question I answered.

OK, but you would agree that your ethics are no more valid or correct than their?

Thanks. It's "welcome back," actually. I was here years ago, but the crash a few years ago wiped out all sign of me, so I'm apparently new and fresh. I'm also trying to figure out how to customize my profile to provide just a bit more info and maybe an image.

Cool...

[carpedm9587]

OK, but you would agree that your ethics are no more valid or correct than their?

Your question hinges on the word "valid." I believe that this "reasoned" approach generalizes and is reflected by the vast majority of people, and it is individuals and societies that establish moral codes and values. Ignoring the reasoned principal I proposed leads to personal and species harm as surely as ignoring the "law of gravity" leads to painful falls, or ignoring the principal that "a species grows to consume the available food supply" leads to over-population. So if someone ignores or denies the "law of gravity," is their view valid? It may be valid to them, but it does not alter the outcome of their choices.

As an atheist, I cannot but conclude that religiously-based moral codes are simply codes created by people but projected on an all-powerful being to give them authority.

[seer]

Your question hinges on the word "valid." I believe that this "reasoned" approach generalizes and is reflected by the vast majority of people, and it is individuals and societies that establish moral codes and values. Ignoring the reasoned principal I proposed leads to personal and species harm as surely as ignoring the "law of gravity" leads to painful falls, or ignoring the principal that "a species grows to consume the available food supply" leads to over-population. So if someone ignores or denies the "law of gravity," is their view valid? It may be valid to them, but it does not alter the outcome of their choices.

And the survival of our species is a moral good why? And I'm not sure how this makes the view of the Maoist invalid?

As an atheist, I cannot but conclude that religiously-based moral codes are simply codes created by people but projected on an all-powerful being to give them authority.

Did you ever think that a lot of people need to believe in a god to be good? And what would you replace that with.

[carpedm9587]

And the survival of our species is a moral good why?

Even Aquinas got this right, when he noted that existence is a higher good than nonexistence for the thing in question. It is a priori true, and (as such) there is no "explanation" for it. It is better for any given thing for it to exist rather than to not exist.

And I'm not sure how this makes the view of the Maoist invalid?

I cannot claim to be an expert on Maoism, but generally I would hold that a moral view is invalid if it cannot generalize without contradiction. Nothing I have proposed has that problem: if we all work to ensure our happiness and well being and that of those around us, we end up with a happier world. If my view that what will ensure my happiness is "killing anyone I want," I cannot generalize that perspective without contradiction.

Did you ever think that a lot of people need to believe in a god to be good? And what would you replace that with.

I am not sure "need" could be shown to be true. That a lot of people DO depend on their belief in god to be good is a statement I would accept. I do not recommend replacing it with anything else. If that is how they function, and it leads to good moral choices, so be it. Most religions adopt moral codes that I would evaluate as "morally positive," so there is no harm if people use that as their measure. The problem comes when people justify actions that would evaluate as "immoral" by myself or society at large. Then we have a conflict that needs to be resolved in one manner or another.

[seer]

Even Aquinas got this right, when he noted that existence is a higher good than nonexistence for the thing in question. It is a priori true, and (as such) there is no "explanation" for it. It is better for any given thing for it to exist rather than to not exist.

Did he also get it right that our highest good or happiness is our union with God? It seems that you accept one of his 'opinions' and not others. And I'm not sure what you mean, if humanity was wiped out tomorrow - what difference would it make?

I cannot claim to be an expert on Maoism, but generally I would hold that a moral view is invalid if it cannot generalize without contradiction. Nothing I have proposed has that problem: if we all work to ensure our happiness and well being and that of those around us, we end up with a happier world. If my view that what will ensure my happiness is "killing anyone I want," I cannot generalize that perspective without contradiction.

Well Communists murdered millions of dissenters to ensure political and social cohesion. And it worked. And I don't follow your logic, even if you didn't go around killing anyone you wanted to, that would not prevent someone else from killing or harming you. And why would a contradiction matter if a powerful elite could control and take advantage of the population. Like the Maoists or Stalinist or Hutus?

I am not sure "need" could be shown to be true. That a lot of people DO depend on their belief in god to be good is a statement I would accept. I do not recommend replacing it with anything else. If that is how they function, and it leads to good moral choices, so be it. Most religions adopt moral codes that I would evaluate as "morally positive," so there is no harm if people use that as their measure. The problem comes when people justify actions that would evaluate as "immoral" by myself or society at large. Then we have a conflict that needs to be resolved in one manner or another.

Again, who gets to define "good moral choices?" But you think it is OK to have religious moral beliefs as long as they don't impinge on you? So you would not want to foist your moral beliefs on others - correct?

[carpedm9587]

Did he also get it right that our highest good or happiness is our union with God?

Given that I believe god does not exist, I would say no.

It seems that you accept one of his 'opinions' and not others.

That is true.

And I'm not sure what you mean, if humanity was wiped out tomorrow - what difference would it make?

The species would cease to exist, which is not "good" for the species (see statement about existence being more "good" than nonexistence in previous post). I also would cease to exist, which I would accept, a priori, as "not good" for me.

Well Communists murdered millions of dissenters to ensure political and social cohesion. And it worked.

"Generalized" was perhaps not the best choice of words - I meant "universalized." If everyone adopts the approach "I can kill anyone who disagrees with me," the result is the nonexistence of the species (since we all disagree in some form on some thing). I would take that as a "non good" a priori.

And I don't follow your logic, even if you didn't go around killing anyone you wanted to, that would not prevent someone else from killing or harming you.

You didn't ask about enforcing morality - you asked about logical/reasoned approach to a moral code, which is what I provided.

And why would a contradiction matter if a powerful elite could control and take advantage of the population. Like the Maoists or Stalinist or Hutus?

Same answer.

Again, who gets to define "good moral choices?"

I do for me, you do for you, etc. People with common moral frameworks tend to aggregate into common communities or religions. Sometimes it happens the other way - people aggregate into a community and adopt the moral code of that community.

But you think it is OK to have religious moral beliefs as long as they don't impinge on you?

I think people have moral beliefs - regardless of whether they impinge on me. OK is irrelevant. It's like asking, "is it OK for there to be gravity?"

So you would not want to foist your moral beliefs on others - correct?

I am not capable of foisting my moral beliefs on anyone. A person's moral framework is an internal construct. I cannot alter someone else's moral framework. I think, again, you are confusing with enforcement of a moral code with having one. I was answering the question asked in the original post.

[seer]

The species would cease to exist, which is not "good" for the species (see statement about existence being more "good" than nonexistence in previous post). I also would cease to exist, which I would accept, a priori, as "not good" for me.

Again, what difference would it make? Sure personally you would like to survive, but I'm sure other extinct species would feel the same - if they could articulate a preference.

"Generalized" was perhaps not the best choice of words - I meant "universalized." If everyone adopts the approach "I can kill anyone who disagrees with me," the result is the nonexistence of the species (since we all disagree in some form on some thing). I would take that as a "non good" a priori.

Well ultimately our extinction wouldn't matter, except subjectively to us. And if we all actually did die it won't matter to us.

You didn't ask about enforcing morality - you asked about logical/reasoned approach to a moral code, which is what I provided.

Same answer.

But there is the rub, you are suggesting something along the lines of the golden rule. But most cultures, going back centuries, have had some form of the rule. The problem is a lot of men don't follow it. If one could gain power and wealth at the expense of their fellow man why would it be illogical do do so? I mean this has largely been the history of mankind - and we still seem to survive.

I do for me, you do for you, etc. People with common moral frameworks tend to aggregate into common communities or religions. Sometimes it happens the other way - people aggregate into a community and adopt the moral code of that community.

Right, but that could take a lot of different forms. Secular totalitarianism, religious totalitarianism, political totalitarianism.

I am not capable of foisting my moral beliefs on anyone. A person's moral framework is an internal construct. I cannot alter someone else's moral framework. I think, again, you are confusing with enforcement of a moral code with having one. I was answering the question asked in the original post.

Of what use is a moral code without enforcement, besides having your personal moral beliefs?

[carpedm9587]

Again, what difference would it make? Sure personally you would like to survive, but I'm sure other extinct species would feel the same - if they could articulate a preference.

I have no way to respond to this, Seer. I accept, a priori, that existence is a good and non-existence is not. For any given thing, to exist is better than to not exist. Since that appears to me to be an a priori statement, like "a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time," if you do not accept it as true, I cannot do anything to convince you, just as I could not make a logical argument to convince someone that a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time. That is the nature of an a priori truth. It is not about "personally wanting to survive," it is about the intrinsic "goodness" to a thing to exist. Even for the ebola virus, it is a good (for the virus) to exist and it is not good to not exist. It may not be a good for ME, but it is a good for the ebola virus.

Well ultimately our extinction wouldn't matter, except subjectively to us. And if we all actually did die it won't matter to us.

Since we exist now, then maintaining our existence is a good, whatever you think of it. To argue otherwise is to argue that a things non-existence is better for that thing than its existence. I would take that as a rational non starter.

But there is the rub, you are suggesting something along the lines of the golden rule. But most cultures, going back centuries, have had some form of the rule. The problem is a lot of men don't follow it. If one could gain power and wealth at the expense of their fellow man why would it be illogical do do so? I mean this has largely been the history of mankind - and we still seem to survive.

The reason is the logical contradiction of universalizing the rule. If everyone engages in such practice, everyone becomes the subject and object of exploitation, and happiness is forfeit. Because I see happiness as a good, that moral code is unreasonable to me. And yes, we survive - because that approach has never been universalized - so there have always been some (most) who seek to maximize their happiness and that of those around them - and life goes on. That has been aided by the fact that this basic precept has been baked into the moral codes of most of the major religions of the world.

Right, but that could take a lot of different forms. Secular totalitarianism, religious totalitarianism, political totalitarianism.

Now you're shifting into politics. Your original question was about a reasoned ethical framework for someone who is atheist or non-religious. That was the question I answered.

Of what use is a moral code without enforcement, besides having your personal moral beliefs?

The question wasn't about "use," it was about a rational basis for a moral framework, and I offered mine. If you want to shift into enforcement, we can do so, but I would consider that a separate discussion from the original question.

For all of your questions, Seer, I have not seen you offer a rebuttal to the originally articulated framework. You seem to keep shifting to enforcement, "use," and now political structures. But the core question is, "is there something irrational about that moral framework?" If so - we should explore it. If not, we can shift the discussion into any of the other areas you keep shifting to, but it might help if you just pick one.

[Tassman]

Oh stop Tass, even our survival is not an objective good. And of course Jim's idea of what is best for the community as a whole, rather than what is best for the powerful elite, or what is in the best interests of the majority at the expense of the minority, is subjective.

Glad you agree that the rules of baseball are arbitrary.

The rules of baseball are arbitrary in the sense that they can be changed if deemed necessary. But whist in force they must be obeyed, otherwise baseball would be unplayable. The same applies to the rules of society.

[seer]

I have no way to respond to this, Seer. I accept, a priori, that existence is a good and non-existence is not. For any given thing, to exist is better than to not exist. Since that appears to me to be an a priori statement, like "a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time," if you do not accept it as true, I cannot do anything to convince you, just as I could not make a logical argument to convince someone that a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time. That is the nature of an a priori truth. It is not about "personally wanting to survive," it is about the intrinsic "goodness" to a thing to exist. Even for the ebola virus, it is a good (for the virus) to exist and it is not good to not exist. It may not be a good for ME, but it is a good for the ebola virus.

Saying that it is an intrinsic good that we survive IS a subjective consideration. You are bringing a moral judgment to the table, and moral judgements by nature are subjective. If an alien race came here and harvested us all for food, that would be bad for us but god for them. Who is right? In other words speculating about what is a priori or not has no currency in the real world when we kill and eat the cow.

The reason is the logical contradiction of universalizing the rule. If everyone engages in such practice, everyone becomes the subject and object of exploitation, and happiness is forfeit. Because I see happiness as a good, that moral code is unreasonable to me. And yes, we survive - because that approach has never been universalized - so there have always been some (most) who seek to maximize their happiness and that of those around them - and life goes on. That has been aided by the fact that this basic precept has been baked into the moral codes of most of the major religions of the world.

From what I'm getting from you, you are channeling Kant. But you did not answer my question: If one could gain power and wealth at the expense of their fellow man why would it be illogical do do so? Why would this be an illogical proposition?

For all of your questions, Seer, I have not seen you offer a rebuttal to the originally articulated framework. You seem to keep shifting to enforcement, "use," and now political structures. But the core question is, "is there something irrational about that moral framework?" If so - we should explore it. If not, we can shift the discussion into any of the other areas you keep shifting to, but it might help if you just pick one.

Except you simply can not universalize behaviors. In one context killing who I want may be a bad thing, in another context killing who I want may be a good thing.