Science of Morality

[AlecWelsh]

Why? As I have said before, walk into a random graveyard and tell me if anyone in that ground matters to you. Does it matter to anyone at all if those people were happy, sad, rich or poor? No. Nothing they did mattered.

So we should base on our understanding of morality on those who are already dead? That does not make any sense.

[AlecWelsh]

The arguments I make for morality are not generally disagreed by Christians, we come to similar conclusions. The difference is Christians argue it only matters if God exist, or as atheist see it, It only matters if you are rewarded for acting morally or punished for acting immorally.

[Bill the Cat]

So we should base on our understanding of morality on those who are already dead? That does not make any sense.

No. We should understand that morality is illogical when we remove God. There is no reason to behave morally or not when nothing at all matters in the long run. And there is no reason to treat humans differently than we treat any other species.

[AlecWelsh]

No. We should understand that morality is illogical when we remove God. There is no reason to behave morally or not when nothing at all matters in the long run. And there is no reason to treat humans differently than we treat any other species.

Morality is based not on morals themselves but on what individuals think God's says is moral. So morality doesn't exist it is the will of God. With so many difference religions believing in so many different Gods though all of their claims as equally valid as the next, all coming to different and sometime contradicting morals, what exactly should we believe? We have no reason to believe Christians any more than any other religion.


I disagree with your assertion in the first place. Morality stands on it's own or it doesn't exist. You do not get both.

[AlecWelsh]

What is the point of morality to you?

[Darth Executor]

The arguments I make for morality are not generally disagreed by Christians, we come to similar conclusions. The difference is Christians argue it only matters if God exist, or as atheist see it, It only matters if you are rewarded for acting morally or punished for acting immorally.

I'm a Christian and I agree with what you claim is how atheists see it. Of course morality doesn't matter if there are no consequences. Just like everything else that has no consequences doens't matter. It's kinda the definition of "doesn't matter".

[Darth Executor]

I am not sure what part is an opinion. Conscious beings suffer. The point of morality is to reduce suffering among conscious beings and that suffering is not an opinion or relative to individuals.

Your claim that "the point of morality is to reduce suffering among conscious beings" is an opinion.

[AlecWelsh]

I'm a Christian and I agree with what you claim is how atheists see it. Of course morality doesn't matter if there are no consequences. Just like everything else that has no consequences doens't matter. It's kinda the definition of "doesn't matter".

So you believe unless you are punished or rewarded for being your moral decisions, they do not matter. There are consequences to Moral decisions regardless of if their is a God to make everything alright. Given that this is the only life we have, the actions we make and the live we influences matters more not less. Based on the atheist premise of no afterlife it increase the value of life, not decrease it.

[AlecWelsh]

Your claim that "the point of morality is to reduce suffering among conscious beings" is an opinion.

I do not see how it is an opinion any more than the concept of healthy means that someone has the opportunity to eat, drink sleep and have physical and mental health. The discussion of morality would be based on your actions and if they causes unjust suffering on conscious beings. Similar to making the right decisions to be healthy, you would simply make the right decisions to be moral.

[seer]

The discussion of morality would be based on your actions and if they causes unjust suffering on conscious beings. Similar to making the right decisions to be healthy, you would simply make the right decisions to be moral.

Why? What if causing unjust suffering to my fellow man gains me and my family or tribe more power and wealth?

[David Hayward]

... what is good or moral for one person is different for someone else ... I ... argue that morality is based on the suffer[ing] vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist[s] on a continuum. Causing unjustified suffering among a conscious individual[s] is the definition of an immoral action.

Hmm, what is it that exists on a continuum: a continuum of suffering/well-being, or a continuum of consciousness?; or are both suffering/well-being and consciousness continuums?

And what is a "conscious individual"? Do you just limit that designation to a (human) person; or do you follow Sam Harris and Michael Shermer (and I note that Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have both used similar ideas and phrasing in passing), for whom the relevant meaning of "conscious individual" is a "sentient being" of any genus and species?

Harris looks like the most prominent modern exponent of the suffering-of-all-sentient-beings view -- a view which is very characteristic of traditional Buddhism, which means that if it is not to be regarded as equivalent to the equally mainstream traditional Buddhist religious views of karma, reincarnation, the motherless birth of the saint Padmasambhava as a youth upon a lotus leaf, and so on, it really needs to be justified as rational rather than merely asserted.

What I have not yet been able to work out so far from Harris' blogs or his "The Moral Landscape" book is his weighting system: is a foetus as sentient as an adult human, so that abortion is (usually or always) murder; if a fish is half as sentient as a a human adult -- and how does even a neuroscientist evaluate and score sentience levels -- should one human starve so that two fish might live? Should fishing be banned altogether? Do you eat meat?

What is your own weighting system to evaluate and score the "suffer[ing] vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist[s] on a continuum", and what's the methodology on which that weighting system is based?

Oh, and there's a whole can of worms in that simple idea of justified versus unjustified. I can justify letting Syrian refugees drown (if I am nasty enough); many in Western societies justify little poor relief or benefits.

[AlecWelsh]

Why? What if causing unjust suffering to my fellow man gains me and my family or tribe more power and wealth?

It is unlikely that happens without causing conflict. It is easier to work together through trading, economic gain. As social creatures causing enemies would create more problems than solve. You your family or tribe couldn't take from others and then hide yourself in a vacuum immune to retaliation.

[seer]

It is unlikely that happens without causing conflict. It is easier to work together through trading, economic gain. As social creatures causing enemies would create more problems than solve. You your family or tribe couldn't take from others and then hide yourself in a vacuum immune to retaliation.

Really? Is that not the history of mankind? Some people think the risk is worth it. So again, why is that wrong? The fact is you will be forever reduced to opinion. There is nothing else.

[AlecWelsh]

Hmm, what is it that exists on a continuum: a continuum of suffering/well-being, or a continuum of consciousness?; or are both suffering/well-being and consciousness continuums?

And what is a "conscious individual"? Do you just limit that designation to a (human) person; or do you follow Sam Harris and Michael Shermer (and I note that Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have both used similar ideas and phrasing in passing), for whom the relevant meaning of "conscious individual" is a "sentient being" of any genus and species?

Harris looks like the most prominent modern exponent of the suffering-of-all-sentient-beings view -- a view which is very characteristic of traditional Buddhism, which means that if it is not to be regarded as equivalent to the equally mainstream traditional Buddhist religious views of karma, reincarnation, the motherless birth of the saint Padmasambhava as a youth upon a lotus leaf, and so on, it really needs to be justified as rational rather than merely asserted.

What I have not yet been able to work out so far from Harris' blogs or his "The Moral Landscape" book is his weighting system: is a foetus as sentient as an adult human, so that abortion is (usually or always) murder; if a fish is half as sentient as a a human adult -- and how does even a neuroscientist evaluate and score sentience levels -- should one human starve so that two fish might live? Should fishing be banned altogether? Do you eat meat?

What is your own weighting system to evaluate and score the "suffer[ing] vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist[s] on a continuum", and what's the methodology on which that weighting system is based?

Oh, and there's a whole can of worms in that simple idea of justified versus unjustified. I can justify letting Syrian refugees drown (if I am nasty enough); many in Western societies justify little poor relief or benefits.

As argued by Michael Shermer in his book the Moral landscape... he discusses studies that show Animals hold similar neurophysiology's as humans do in the context of suffering,

"The Neural pathways of emotions, for examples, are not confined to higher-level cortical structures in the brain, but are found in evolutionary older sub-cortical regions. Artificially stimulating the same regions in humans and non human animals produces the same emotionally reaction in both." For the most part emotionally speaking humans and nonhuman animals have the same physical capabilities and therefore suffer and be included in the moral conversation.

[AlecWelsh]

Really? Is that not the history of mankind? Some people think the risk is worth it. So again, why is that wrong? The fact is you will be forever reduced to opinion. There is nothing else.

No the history of man kind is that over time we worked together and gained better morals. Scientifically speaking working together is better than working alone. Since we are discussing individuals and not societies and tribes, it is clear that as an individual human working against society man have sort term benefits and even long term seemingly, but it is by definition easier to work with a group than against it. Humans need social cooperation we are biologically dependent on human interaction at birth. If you can make the argument that living alone produces the same quality of life without interacting with society you are free to try. Given that at birth you are dependent on humans you have an uphill battle.