|
|
|
|
|
| | Why be just/fair/good/etc ?Page 1 of 5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | Perhaps not the best title for a thread, but it arises from a discussion in another thread where a poster suggested we divert to a separate one to discuss it in more detail.
So be it...
If we remove "God and religion" (and I hate using those words for the above stated reason of their volatility in discussions) from humanity, what's left ?
Why would one want to assist others, at their own expense ? Why care about anyone else, especially those not in your circle of friends and family ?
Why not just do anything and everything possible to make sure YOU succeed, "immoral" or not ?
Lie, steal, cheat ?
If you are going to simply rot in a box, why not do everything you can to make sure you have the most comfortable existence possible, even at the expense of others ? Who cares about them, anyway ?
======================================================
I love to see a serious discussion about those questions.
Ultimately these boil down to one question, namely, "Why be just/fair/good/etc.?"
Start a thread, I will participate.
So, my premise is that religion (at it's best) may provide a "justification" for at least some people to not harm others while being self-centered. Obviously, that same reigion can be misused to harm others, as we so often see.
One also has to realize that even religious people can be hypocritical, or even non-enlightened.
So, if we indeed live in a Godless universe, and just rot in box at the end of our lives - why not just do everything possible to enrich yourself, and your family and friends ?
As long as you don't get caught, and wind up in jail, who really cares about what happens to any strangers you negatively impact upon while getting everything you justly deserve ? | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/20/2010 10:26:05 PM | It baffles me to think that people think one needs "God" in order to be moral.
Here's a really good article on the subject. I've reproduced most, but not all, of the article because of lenght. It not only gives very sound non-theological reasons for why humans choose to be moral, but also documents altruistic behavior among chimpanzees.
Put simply: behaving morally is more pleasant and living in a society where people behave in a civilized manner is more pleasant for us all. That's my take on it.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/?src=me&ref=homepage
From "Morals Without God"
"Five centuries later, we remain embroiled in debates about the role of religion in society. As in Bosch’s days, the central theme is morality. Can we envision a world without God? Would this world be good? Don’t think for one moment that the current battle lines between biology and fundamentalist Christianity turn around evidence. One has to be pretty immune to data to doubt evolution, which is why books and documentaries aimed at convincing the skeptics are a waste of effort. They are helpful for those prepared to listen, but fail to reach their target audience. The debate is less about the truth than about how to handle it. For those who believe that morality comes straight from God the creator, acceptance of evolution would open a moral abyss.
Our Vaunted Frontal Lobe
Echoing this view, Reverend Al Sharpton opined in a recent videotaped debate: “If there is no order to the universe, and therefore some being, some force that ordered it, then who determines what is right or wrong? There is nothing immoral if there’s nothing in charge.” Similarly, I have heard people echo Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, exclaiming that “If there is no God, I am free to rape my neighbor!”
Perhaps it is just me, but I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior. Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for livable societies, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked social norms before they had religion? Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal? Humans must have worried about the functioning of their communities well before the current religions arose, which is only a few thousand years ago. Not that religion is irrelevant — I will get to this — but it is an add-on rather than the wellspring of morality.
Deep down, creationists realize they will never win factual arguments with science. This is why they have construed their own science-like universe, known as Intelligent Design, and eagerly jump on every tidbit of information that seems to go their way. The most recent opportunity arose with the Hauser affair. A Harvard colleague, Marc Hauser, has been accused of eight counts of scientific misconduct, including making up his own data. Since Hauser studied primate behavior and wrote about morality, Christian Web sites were eager to claim that “all that people like Hauser are left with are unsubstantiated propositions that are contradicted by millennia of human experience” (Chuck Colson, Sept. 8, 2010). A major newspaper asked “Would it be such a bad thing if Hausergate resulted in some intellectual humility among the new scientists of morality?” (Eric Felten, Aug. 27, 2010). Even a linguist could not resist this occasion to reaffirm the gap between human and animal by warning against “naive evolutionary presuppositions.”
* * * * * * *
"The Pleasure of Giving
Charles Darwin was interested in how morality fits the human-animal continuum, proposing in “The Descent of Man”: “Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts … would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed … as in man.”
Unfortunately, modern popularizers have strayed from these insights. Like Robert Wright in “The Moral Animal,” they argue that true moral tendencies cannot exist — not in humans and even less in other animals — since nature is one hundred percent selfish. Morality is just a thin veneer over a cauldron of nasty tendencies. Dubbing this position “Veneer Theory” (similar to Peter Railton’s “moral camouflage”), I have fought it ever since my 1996 book “Good Natured.” Instead of blaming atrocious behavior on our biology (“we’re acting like animals!”), while claiming our noble traits for ourselves, why not view the entire package as a product of evolution? Fortunately, there has been a resurgence of the Darwinian view that morality grew out of the social instincts. Psychologists stress the intuitive way we arrive at moral judgments while activating emotional brain areas, and economists and anthropologists have shown humanity to be far more cooperative, altruistic, and fair than predicted by self-interest models. Similarly, the latest experiments in primatology reveal that our close relatives will do each other favors even if there’s nothing in it for themselves."
"Chimpanzees and bonobos will voluntarily open a door to offer a companion access to food, even if they lose part of it in the process. And capuchin monkeys are prepared to seek rewards for others, such as when we place two of them side by side, while one of them barters with us with differently colored tokens. One token is “selfish,” and the other “prosocial.” If the bartering monkey selects the selfish token, it receives a small piece of apple for returning it, but its partner gets nothing. The prosocial token, on the other hand, rewards both monkeys. Most monkeys develop an overwhelming preference for the prosocial token, which preference is not due to fear of repercussions, because dominant monkeys (who have least to fear) are the most generous.
Even though altruistic behavior evolved for the advantages it confers, this does not make it selfishly motivated. Future benefits rarely figure in the minds of animals. For example, animals engage in sex without knowing its reproductive consequences, and even humans had to develop the morning-after pill. This is because sexual motivation is unconcerned with the reason why sex exists. The same is true for the altruistic impulse, which is unconcerned with evolutionary consequences. It is this disconnect between evolution and motivation that befuddled the Veneer Theorists, and made them reduce everything to selfishness. The most quoted line of their bleak literature says it all: “Scratch an ‘altruist,’ and watch a ‘hypocrite’ bleed.”[3]
It is not only humans who are capable of genuine altruism; other animals are, too. I see it every day. An old female, Peony, spends her days outdoors with other chimpanzees at the Yerkes Primate Center’s Field Station. On bad days, when her arthritis is flaring up, she has trouble walking and climbing, but other females help her out. For example, Peony is huffing and puffing to get up into the climbing frame in which several apes have gathered for a grooming session. An unrelated younger female moves behind her, placing both hands on her ample behind and pushes her up with quite a bit of effort, until Peony has joined the rest.
We have also seen Peony getting up and slowly move towards the water spigot, which is at quite a distance. Younger females sometimes run ahead of her, take in some water, then return to Peony and give it to her. At first, we had no idea what was going on, since all we saw was one female placing her mouth close to Peony’s, but after a while the pattern became clear: Peony would open her mouth wide, and the younger female would spit a jet of water into it."
"Such observations fit the emerging field of animal empathy, which deals not only with primates, but also with canines, elephants, even rodents. A typical example is how chimpanzees console distressed parties, hugging and kissing them, which behavior is so predictable that scientists have analyzed thousands of cases. Mammals are sensitive to each other’s emotions, and react to others in need. The whole reason people fill their homes with furry carnivores and not with, say, iguanas and turtles, is because mammals offer something no reptile ever will. They give affection, they want affection, and respond to our emotions the way we do to theirs.
Mammals may derive pleasure from helping others in the same way that humans feel good doing good. Nature often equips life’s essentials — sex, eating, nursing — with built-in gratification. One study found that pleasure centers in the human brain light up when we give to charity. This is of course no reason to call such behavior “selfish” as it would make the word totally meaningless. A selfish individual has no trouble walking away from another in need. Someone is drowning: let him drown. Someone cries: let her cry. These are truly selfish reactions, which are quite different from empathic ones. Yes, we experience a “warm glow,” and perhaps some other animals do as well, but since this glow reaches us via the other, and only via the other, the helping is genuinely other-oriented."
* * * * * *
"The Atheist Dilemma
Over the past few years, we have gotten used to a strident atheism arguing that God is not great (Christopher Hitchens) or a delusion (Richard Dawkins). The new atheists call themselves “brights,” thus hinting that believers are not so bright. They urge trust in science, and want to root ethics in a naturalistic worldview.
While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.
Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.
Bosch struggled with the same issue — not with being an atheist, which was not an option — but science’s place in society. The little figures in his paintings with inverted funnels on their heads or the buildings in the form of flasks, distillation bottles, and furnaces reference chemical equipment.[4] Alchemy was gaining ground yet mixed with the occult and full of charlatans and quacks, which Bosch depicted with great humor in front of gullible audiences. Alchemy turned into science when it liberated itself from these influences and developed self-correcting procedures to deal with flawed or fabricated data. But science’s contribution to a moral society, if any, remains a question mark.
Other primates have of course none of these problems, but even they strive for a certain kind of society. For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today. On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion." | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/20/2010 10:31:21 PM | The way I see it, you can nor reserve only for yourself the right to be unjust, unfair, bad (whatever you want to call the badness) without granting the same privilege to everyone else.
The result of everyone being unrestrained from moral (religious or any other or self-imposed) rules, will end up coming back and biting you in the a s s, for the simple reason that everyone would want to benefit from such a guiltless grab.
As long as you don't get caught, and wind up in jail, who really cares about what happens to any strangers you negatively impact upon while getting everything you justly deserve ?
Now this justly is confusing. Justly according to whom? What? The non-rules?
There is only a minority of unjust, unfair etc.,people, and you see the havoc and the misery they create. If everyone was like that, can you imagine what the world would look like? Since not everyone has the strength and the capacity to defend themselves from the wrong-doers, the weaker would be destroyed, and the ones who could retaliate, would inflict greater harm in any direction possible.
I think self restrain and compliance with moral and ethical rules is simply a self-defense mechanism.
People avoid being evil, (well...the ones who avoid it, anyway) unjust and unfair, not because of their basic goodness within, but because of their fear that injustice and unfairness will be bestowed upon them, by others.
As in "Evil begets Evil."
 | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/20/2010 10:39:09 PM | Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Because I am aware that I cant escape consequence
and I'm aware that
Greed narrows my view of consequence
But not the consequence | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/20/2010 10:43:33 PM | I was just thinking about this very thing.
I was at a restaurant today, and left a nice tip for the waitress. As I was paying the bill, I watched the restaurant manager slink past the table, grab the tip, and slip it in his pocket. I told the cashier and waitress what I'd seen. The waitress was upset, of course, and confronted the manager. He lied about stealing the dough, until I stepped forward and told him I'd seen him take the cash off the table. He came clean, then. His excuse for the theft was that the waitress was a smoker and smoking was a sin, so God would expect him to steal the girl's money so she wouldn't be able to buy cigarettes.
I've found people often use God to justify their bad behavior. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/20/2010 10:59:41 PM |
So, if we indeed live in a Godless universe, and just rot in box at the end of our lives - why not just do everything possible to enrich yourself, and your family and friends ?
As long as you don't get caught, and wind up in jail, who really cares about what happens to any strangers you negatively impact upon while getting everything you justly deserve ?
This is exactly why Nietzsche said that "god is dead", and not out of some sense of glee from liberation from religion, but out of a sense of tragedy that everyone in society is really living their lives, no matter what they call themselves as far as religion goes, as if there is no god, as if god were just a lie in the first place...
A good read through this stuff:
The Republic (Plato): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)
The Prince (Machiavelli): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince
The Federalist Papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
Two Treatises on Government: (Locke) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
New Atlantis (Bacon): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atlantis
Politics and the Arts (Rousseau)
& Nietzsche,
Twilight of the Idols: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_of_the_Idols,
Thus spoke Zarathustra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra,
The Anti-christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_(book),
Ecce Homo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(book).
gosh, I've read all those books and... basically what I think as a result is that:
There is no need for there to be a god in order for there to be a good and evil, or all that comes with it, fairness, justness, etc.
All that people need is a "great lie" according to Socrates, or "commitment" and "will to power" according to Nietzsche | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/20/2010 11:03:42 PM |
I've found people often use God to justify their bad behavior.
So God is not a deterrent to immoral behavior and, in fact, is sometimes used as an excuse.
Look at the Inquisition, the Crusades, the problems in the Middle East. When we think God is on our side we can do all sorts of atrocious things.
Bottom line for me: life is a lot more pleasant and I feel better, life is less complicated, when I am honest, fair,and a nice person and am surrounded by people who are nice, fair, and honest. People tend to treat me well when I treat them well. And even when they don't treat me well (like a screwy client who arrived 20 minutes early for an appointment and then complained that she had to wait, even though I was on time) I often feel better if I ignore that and treat them well. I don't let people walk all over me but a lot of what happens is so insignificant and petty that it isn't worth my getting upset over. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/20/2010 11:06:21 PM | Then again, is being honest, fair, or nice always good? Don't those qualities often contradict, counteract, and oppose one another?
Sometimes, being fair or just requires cruelty.
In the case of a jury committing someone to death, imprisonment, or fines because they broke the law, that is the case.
Often, being nice requires being dishonest or unfair.
Answering "Does this dress make me look fat" with "nope, you're just fat." Or in a more serious way perhaps, a jury finding a criminal not guilty because they feel that regardless that the facts show they were guilty, they don't want to harm the defendant.
Often, being honest requires both being unfair and cruel.
"I will uphold the law" a person swears an oath to do... which requires them to be unfair (not consider everything about why someone broke the law, there is no excuse) and cruel, obviously, because taking liberty or life from someone is inherently cruel. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 2:50:27 AM |
So, if we indeed live in a Godless universe, and just rot in box at the end of our lives - why not just do everything possible to enrich yourself, and your family and friends ?
As long as you don't get caught, and wind up in jail, who really cares about what happens to any strangers you negatively impact upon while getting everything you justly deserve ?
lol, I wonder about this all the time. I mean I have the "ingredients" to be a complete scumbag(not judging scumbags, you do what you have to do). My existence on earth is set up for me to be a scumbag but for some reason I haven't made the leap. The "opportunity" probably hasn't presented itself yet.
The Godless thing, I don't know......I am not religious but I feel there is something out there it just doesn't speak to me. So again, I wonder why haven't I made the complete transition to low-life scumbag that will run anybody over for cash(then again money don't mean s%^$ to me either, damn near nothing or nobody means s%$# to me...well except my passion....opportunity to f&^% people to get it hasn't presented itself there either.
Maybe it isn't time for these godless people to be ruthless and skullduggerers yet. The "opportunity" hasn't presented itself, like in my case. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 3:50:03 AM | I can't help but feel that we are perhaps missing something here.
The majority of our laws, philosophies and understanding/potential for science was unlocked at a time when you had polytheistic greeks in europe, not forgetting budhism in the orient and hinduism in india.
The greek gods were created in the image of man, with man's flaws. They created the parabolic stories illustrating consequence to negative desires and actions. Their gods were by the people for the people, the people were not by the god for the god.
The gods were often as unruly as the people. The concepts of law and justice, were created by man, religion was just a vehicle.
The only reason christianity is where it is today is because romans, after they had brought their own brand of civilization to europe, complete with laws and swift, harsh justice, decided it was easier to control people with the jewish idea of 1 god rather than the many roman god's all conflicting with each other.
If you think religion came before the law as we know it today then, you have some reading to do... | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 4:31:22 AM |
Why not just do anything and everything possible to make sure YOU succeed, "immoral" or not ?
Lie, steal, cheat ?
oh, absolutely! because the end justifies the means. do it like a politician!
steal a little and they throw you in jail; steal a lot and they make you a king.
 | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 5:32:37 AM | Some atheists put forth ideas with no more examination of them than people who do religion by rote, repeating I guess things they've heard their parents say? Like a coworker who dismisses discussions of God by other coworkers with the retort "just do good because it's the right thing to do."
Trite platitudes like that one enforce my notion that blind followers don't really care all that much what they follow.
Was it Scott Peck? or CS Lewis? who said the root of all evil is selfishness. I can see that. But my main reason for not wanting to be evil is I've tried it, and it makes me feel bad. The ultimate selfishness. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 9:37:23 AM | | I don't think so. I think if you need religion as an excuse to keep you from murder and mayhem then it's just a mirage. I would answer this question with the rational notion that it's of mutual interest to you and everyone else to maintain a livable society that you are both part of. It's kind of like the nuclear deterrent. No religion needed. In fact, religion seems to make some nations less likely to respect the contract of mutual annihilation, because they're going to heaven after all. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 3:47:33 PM | Perhaps it's an innate quality? A consequence of evolution where, like others have said, we've learned it's in our best interest to be just/fair/good, etc. It's bred and taught and part of the human genome. I guess that's why when people tend towards very aggressive/violent/cruel behaviors, it's less common and usually there's usually the conclusion that something is "off" about that someone.
I also feel good when I act according to what are generally considered good morals. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 4:03:31 PM | Was it Scott Peck? or CS Lewis? who said the root of all evil is selfishness. I can see that. But my main reason for not wanting to be evil is I've tried it, and it makes me feel bad. The ultimate selfishness.
M. Scott Peck, in his book People Of The Lie, says the root of evil is laziness.
I have no idea about C.S. Lewis.
Perhaps it's an innate quality? A consequence of evolution where, like others have said, we've learned it's in our best interest to be just/fair/good, etc. It's bred and taught and part of the human genome.
And it exists in chimpanzees and other mammals. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 4:23:20 PM | If you had to do everything that you have ever done in life over and over again for all eternity, would you be excited or unhappy? -eternal recurrence
Do I believe in eternal recurrence... not really, but I think its a good way to examine how we are living our lives and whether we are living them in a truly moral way in that it forces us to look at whether we are really living in a life-affirming way.  | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 5:10:43 PM | I'm a Godless man,,,,yet I live by a rule.
It's called the Golden Rule.
Simple, and it works.
That's why I follow it. And you better hope your "God" is nearby if you don't follow it with me,,,cause it happens to be on a two way street. | |
|
x_file
| | Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 18 | |
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/21/2010 10:59:19 PM |
If we remove "God and religion" (and I hate using those words for the above stated reason of their volatility in discussions) from humanity, what's left ?
A sincere burning desire for the search for truth - or so I hope.
Man is knower, but also a believer, and once the believer in man dies, there is nothing left but the sincere search for the truth.
Why would one want to assist others, at their own expense ?
Helping a stranger at my own expense is something I will do if I recognize the good in me in the stranger, and if the expense to me is not that great.
I think if the expense is too great, most people would not assist others. For example, giving $10 to a homeless person isn't that big of a deal, but handing over a paycheck probably is.
The question, slightly revised, still stands... why help anyone even if there is no expense to oneself.
Or even better yet... why help anyone if there is no expense or benefit to oneself?
It seems no one would do such a thing.... it would be almost insane to do so.
Why care about anyone else, especially those not in your circle of friends and family ?
Personally, I like certain people... I like the good in them so if I can help them in someway, I will.
But ultimately I do it for a selfish reason.
Why not just do anything and everything possible to make sure YOU succeed, "immoral" or not ?
The world would be so much simpler if I were the only human... or so the saying goes. I wonder if I were the only one a life, what would "success" be considered then? No money, no one to take from, to give to, to envy, to be envied by, etc..
If you are going to simply rot in a box, why not do everything you can to make sure you have the most comfortable existence possible, even at the expense of others ? Who cares about them, anyway ?
I have a better question, suppose you can do injustice with absolute immunity. Suppose you can steel, lie, and cheat, etc. but no one can do anything about it. It seems it would be insane not to, right?
I am slowly coming to the opinion that morality is much like economics/business in that they both are based on and share the same common human trait: selfishness.
I am afraid that even "love" - as conceptualize by the majority - comes from selfishness.
As long as you don't get caught, and wind up in jail, who really cares about what happens to any strangers you negatively impact upon while getting everything you justly deserve ?
That is the thing though... one can not know s/he won't get caught. One cannot know all the consequences of their actions/inaction. I guess fear (of the consequences) is part of morality as much courage (to do the right thing) is.
I'm a Godless man,,,,yet I live by a rule.
It's called the Golden Rule.
Simple, and it works.
That's why I follow it. And you better hope your "God" is nearby if you don't follow it with me,,,cause it happens to be on a two way street.
The rule is fundamentally flawed... but at least it is one step in the right direction.
Simple example:
I'm a crazy person who likes killing people, and I like to be killed (cause I'm crazy).
The golden rule justifies the actions of the crazy person, yet no one would except his/her actions as moral. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/22/2010 1:15:01 AM |
A sincere burning desire for the search for truth - or so I hope.
Man is knower, but also a believer, and once the believer in man dies, there is nothing left but the sincere search for the truth.
But what if the truth is that people are just animals? What if the truth is that there is no god? What if the truth is that we are here for no reason at all and are just wandering existence with no real purpose? Then the truth lacks any meaning at all... and then the truth is no something worth striving for, and belief in a meaning to live is the only reason to live, life becomes a thing-in-itself to live for...
But that's just nihilism without some sort of order of values.
We can sit there and talk about how nice we are to other people, but does that mean we are really doing good? We can talk badly about people who do bad things for good consequences all day, but can we refute that often when someone is being nice they are really just being cowardly?
I think we are in an age of shallow meaningless morality. Religion is debunked, science doesn't give us any values to live by, and philosophy is dead. Civilization is in a moral crisis. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/22/2010 5:23:05 AM | I've found that living by the Golden Rule and various teachings of harmony, empathy and altruism, that if one lives by those, one tends to be surrounded by a better class of beings, that there is more productivity and happiness overall, and that life is easier for all. We're not the only animals that have these traits, but were one of the very few, that can go the exact opposite direction with such frequency and dire results for our survival.
I don't see today's "moral crisis" as any more dire than all of the ones that have gone on since the beginnings of humankind. Even in the christian bible, it starts out with murder and incest and moves into messier territory from there. Religion is not needed as a moral guide, and more often becomes a guide for immorality toward others of different sects or religions.
It is in our self interests to be kind to one another, to live by the Golden Rule, and in return live lives worth living, in peace and happiness. It's a biological function. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/22/2010 7:42:59 AM |
But what if the truth is that people are just animals? What if the truth is that there is no god? What if the truth is that we are here for no reason at all and are just wandering existence with no real purpose? Then the truth lacks any meaning at all... and then the truth is no something worth striving for, and belief in a meaning to live is the only reason to live, life becomes a thing-in-itself to live for...
So what if we are animals? And we really are, at the most fundamental levels. But then, so are cats, dogs, fishes, bugs and bacteria. And they get along quite well without existential angst. The only difference is that we have the capacity to think "I think, therefore I'm special in the universe." Why should life have any more intrinsic value than that it exists. More on this in a second, however...
We can sit there and talk about how nice we are to other people, but does that mean we are really doing good? We can talk badly about people who do bad things for good consequences all day, but can we refute that often when someone is being nice they are really just being cowardly?
Why 'cowardly?' As animals in a social group, we have to get along. The problem in any social group arises when someone isn't being cooperative. The ape that hordes the fruit that it finds without sharing usually ends up shunned by the group and ultimately ends up having a tougher time surviving without the support of its troupe.
I think we are in an age of shallow meaningless morality. Religion is debunked, science doesn't give us any values to live by, and philosophy is dead. Civilization is in a moral crisis.
Actually, that is demonstrably incorrect. The idea of a "God" creating human beings has the support of more than half the population of the U.S. (presumably a large proportion of Canada) and a growing proportion of Europe. There is a growing trend towards a more "absolutist" viewpoint in which morality is a black-and-white affair. People who espouse this viewpoint like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin - in addition to espousing an almost 'anti-science,' 'anti-intellectual' viewpoint - are attaining cult-of-personality followings. They also speak out against efforts by some to try and live a little more harmoniously with our environment.
Science isn't required to offer "meaning" to anything. It's only job is to educate us on the natural workings of the universe. Only vanity and basic insecurity demands that human beings have to have some sort of "purpose" beyond living. However, an understanding of the true nature of the universe and our place in it can give us a more humble viewpoint and place more value on where we stand in the grand scheme of things.
Consider the message of the scientist vs. the religious right on the issue of global warming...
Scientist: We have to find more sustainable ways to use what few resources we have so that we can maintain a balance with our resources and our means of production.
Religious right: Global warming is a scam. God created the Earth for us to utilize as we want.
Do you really want to put more value on religion? Of course, not all who hold religious views share the viewpoint of our not-so-hypothetical example above, but you get the point (I hope).
It can and frequently does lead to a greater and more complete understanding of what responsibilities we have to our fellow residents on this little blue dot in the cosmos and to the blue dot itself. Trying to find meaning in "God" is paternalistic at best and cowardly at worst. We create our own purpose. For some, that's just living day to day. We all can't be great artists and scientists. At the same time, some find greater purpose in serving their fellow human beings or in great works that live on in perpetuity.
As for civilization in moral crisis...please tell me a time when it wasn't. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/22/2010 11:42:10 AM |
So, if we indeed live in a Godless universe, and just rot in box at the end of our lives - why not just do everything possible to enrich yourself, and your family and friends ?
You are assuming that being fair and just is mutually exclusive with doing everything possible to enrich your family and friends. I'd suggest that being fair and just as a general rule is the way one does enrich himself, family and friends. Human society has become complex precisely because the complex interdependence has allowed many individuals to contribute to a large number of people. Where rulers have sought to enrich themselves, family and friends at te expense of everyone outside that circle, the rulers and their family and friends are generally overthrown and often brutally killed. So, being unfair and unjust is not a good long term survival strategy, no mattter how appealing the short term prospects appear. The more interdependence that is required to maintain our lifestyle, the more likely we are to be fair and just with those responsible for providing the various goods and services needed to maintain it. That's easily explained by evolution. Our brains evolved to become sufficiently complex that we enhance our survival by cooperating better than by existing in small tribes and attacking other small tribes or hunting in packs.
If anything, the concept of god has been used to rationalize self enrichment by being unfair and unjust. People cherry pick the parts of religious texts which suit their preconceived ideas of right and wrong, not the other way around. People who seek to control others use the promise of eternal salvation to create an army of believers who enrich them and do their bidding. Do you really think people like Pat Robertson have any notion of being fair and just beyond whatever additional enrichment they get from putting on a show?
I really think you have it backwatds. Fair and just originates from the self-interest that best suits a long term survival strategy. The short term self-enrichment never lasts across many generations and the sort of ambition that allowed people to conquer and enslave others for self enrichment on a regular basis a thousand years ago just doesn't work today. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/23/2010 5:53:07 AM | By way of making an attempt to FRAME this discussion, I suggest that definitions of a LOT of terms are in order. Even with the few responses so far, it's obvious that "fair," "just," and "good" have wildly different meanings from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance.
Also: there is a HUGE difference between RELIGION and BELIEF IN GOD OR GODS. The religion is the organized structure of a group of believers. This difference alone, has the result that many people talk at cross purposes about this subject, one group disliking the ORGANIZERS of religions, another disliking the idea of BELIEF. This is ESPECIALLY important to define in this discussion, since (as the Soviets found) it is simplicity itself to eliminate religious structure, and replace it with government structure, but BELIEF is not subject to legislation or enforcement (or logic).
I second those who point out that neither belief nor religion has succeeded, even in short term, limited situations, in establishing a "wrong-free" society. Neither have non-believers managed it. So we have no examples of success to refer to. In fact, if one dispassionately examines most religious or other related "belief movements," one will find that what REALLY happens historically, is a frenzied SORTING PROCESS. People group themselves together and exclude others, then subdivide that group, and so on, always seeking purity and complete commonality, until the entire group separates back to individuals again. The same thing happens whether the sorting process is based on a supernatural being, or a non-theistic idea.
As for the question in the OP itself, we CAN look to the past, and find a plenitude of examples of people who have tried to go the route of pure self-interest. Generally, you will find that that behavior works GREAT when the person or group doing it is VERY POWERFUL, or at least COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM THOSE MORE POWERFUL.
Look at hermits, for example. People who isolate themselves from everyone else CAN do entirely as they wish. Whether they will be ultimately satisfied this way or not, we will only know if they choose to communicate with the rest of us, and even then, it will be a judgment call of the OBSERVERS as to whether they really WERE happy.
Look at absolute rulers, for another example. They last as long as they have enough power, many living well into infirmity, retaining that power unto death. Again, it is the OBSERVERS who choose whether or not the ruler had a happy life as a result.
Finally, there ARE prime examples among us of those who behave entirely without concern for rules, or for the concerns of others: we label them SOCIOPATHS. Some are serial criminals, others are limited ENOUGH in their selfish behaviors, that we simply hate them as individuals, or promote them to leadership positions where we hope to benefit from their lack of empathy, by directing their attaention at our enemies.
From another angle: we can look into history again, and see that the primary, driving REASON why people have always struggled to create ordered societies, is BECAUSE a non-ordered society is painful, frightening, disruptive, and extremely discouraging to MOST individuals. Even the powerful of the world CHOOSE to join regulated society for the very practical reason that they needn't expend their resources near as much in fighting with others that way. Acceding to the temptation to FORCE such regulation on others is a repeated motif.
I did a sort of thought experiment about gods, wherein I postulated an early ancestor of mine, trying desperately to get to sleep in a cave full of unruly young ones. Too exhausted to get up and smack them anymore, he finally shouted out that there was a great invisible creature in the sky who would GET THEM if they didn't settle down and go to sleep....thus religion was born.
Essentially, I suggest for consideration, that God was invented, or at least RECYCLED, primarily as a tool to try to get unruly selfish people to behave themselves when there were no corporeal police around. As such, the technique has had only marginal success, as we see every day. Greedy people will come up with explanations of why it's okay with God that THEY do as they wish, while demanding others follow the rules to their own displeasure.
Bottom line: the needs and desires of various individuals will naturally come into conflict over time, from moment to moment. What someone does to deal with that may include religion,philosophy, rule lists, and more. Much of the struggle for wealth, is REALLY a struggle for control and stability in life, with the accumulation of wealth being essentially a side issue, hoarding "fuel" to use to BUY freedom from want, or additional struggle. | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/24/2010 2:24:41 AM |
So what if we are animals? And we really are, at the most fundamental levels. But then, so are cats, dogs, fishes, bugs and bacteria. And they get along quite well without existential angst. The only difference is that we have the capacity to think "I think, therefore I'm special in the universe." Why should life have any more intrinsic value than that it exists. More on this in a second, however...
I'll admit that we are animals, in that we are surely not plants or reptiles or anything else. Bacteria surely aren't animals because they are not eukaryotes . I'll say you get the point that since we are sentient beings, we are different as an animal. I just don't think you are really getting how important a leap it is for a creature to have an existential crisis. It seems as though you don't want to admit that human beings are superior to every other life form on the planet even though we are sentient and realize the crisis of our existence and that we are mortal.
That, to me, is important. I think if we are acting as if it's no big deal that we are going to die, or as if we can control our deaths, we are deceiving ourselves and living a delusion comparable to believing in god or an afterlife.
Why 'cowardly?' As animals in a social group, we have to get along. The problem in any social group arises when someone isn't being cooperative. The ape that hordes the fruit that it finds without sharing usually ends up shunned by the group and ultimately ends up having a tougher time surviving without the support of its troupe.
To survive as a group we have to get along, yes, but who makes the rules? The strong or the weak? The herd or the patriarch/matriarch? If morals are social norms, who sets the norms? Who better sets the norms? Does the herd, which wants to set the norms to what is average do best or does the elite leader with a vision and command do better? The herd tends to be cowardly in that it challenges nobody in the herd to be better than the average within the herd, because then, the new norm would threaten their tyranny.
Actually, that is demonstrably incorrect. The idea of a "God" creating human beings has the support of more than half the population of the U.S.
Sure, and I bet that since they all follow what everyone else does as a majority that they also follow their religious texts to the dotted I and the crossed T... oh wait... if that were true then there would be widespread religious war in the USA. Protestants would be slaughtering Catholics, Christians would be slaughtering Muslims, Muslims would be slaughtering Hindus.... and so on. Except, none of that is happening. This is because the moral norm in the USA is not about religion, its about rights and the state.
The liberal democratic society has neutered religion. Religion has become nothing to talk about. If someone tries to talk about religion, they inevitably end up offending someone and defying moral norms. It has become essentially, a crime, to speak about religion in everyday conversation. Try it sometime at work or in public, see how people react... they will act like you are insane.
Science isn't required to offer "meaning" to anything. I'll agree. It doesn't, it never will, and that is precisely why its so great to talk about. Only crazy religion freaks will ever argue with scientific evidence of god's irrelevance, well, there are philosophers who would also argue about god's relevance outside of science, but they are all dead and forgotten.
Scientist: We have to find more sustainable ways to use what few resources we have so that we can maintain a balance with our resources and our means of production.
Religious right: Global warming is a scam. God created the Earth for us to utilize as we want.
Philosopher: Should we try to maintain a the earth as we inherited it from nature, or should we manipulate it for our own ends? Does the earth own us, or do we own the earth? What are the virtues of there arguments and what are their vices? ect.
Do you really want to put more value on religion?
Compared to science, sure.
I value religion because it contains human values, its a product of culture. Science is a worthy tool, but it creates no values and is culture-less. I think that good and evil exist, all the proof I need is that I observe justice and injustice and know that science can say nothing about that, but philosophy can.
But, I think religion is the inbred step-sibling of philosophy. Philosophy can set moral norms. So can religion. Philosophy is better.
Science has taken over society as some sort of thing to make moral norms by. The problem is that people are becoming too reliant on science, they are tending more and more to at least accept, if not live by, the rules of what science says makes them happy and healthy more and more. This is a problem because in the west, where this life-style is most prevalent, people are less happy than anywhere else, at least according to scientific statistical polls, lol. This is because if one is told they are just an animal and there is no god and also no meaning to life, they will be pissed, even if they have a four car garage and cars to fill it.
As for civilization in moral crisis...please tell me a time when it wasn't.
Ancient Egypt, when Hinduism swept over India, when Confucianism took over China, Ancient Greece, When Moses came down from the mountain, When Constantine canonized the Bible, Medieval Europe, when the Federalists wrote the Constitution, when Marx wrote the Communist manifesto, and Nazi Germany, to name a few times when it was clear what was right and wrong to a civilization.
I'll say that right now, all we learn is school is that all of the above have been debunked... and are hypocritical things to believe in, or are evil. There is nothing that is OK to really believe in except for, "popular things", whatever the rest of the people polled believe in is acceptable to believe in, if not, then don't try to talk about it at work or in public or people will look at you like your insance. lol | |
|
| Why be just/fair/good/etc ?
Posted: 10/24/2010 4:35:18 AM | The "liberal democratic society" has not neutered religion, but rather protected all religions from any dominant pushy one that wishes to establish a fascist Theocratic state as we've seen too much of in the past and present. It's no small wonder people look at you odd when you "talk religion". Religions have their places. Freedom of religion also comes with the freedom from religion. Makes everyone happy but the Theocrats du jour who can't get their way.
While I agree that religious texts can lead to a respectable level of morality, most "religious" people I have known are cafeteria Christians who either focus on the new Testament and the actual teachings of Christ, or the olde testament types who wish for a return to Theocracy, all that stoning and smiting, homo-hating, pagan burning, good old days. There's some in between, but the olde testamentalists seem to dominate the screaming matches these days.
There's the debate between stewarship and dominion in that divide too, where the olde testament types focus on chewing up the earth ASAP because the rapture is coming soon anyway, and the new testament types tend to focus on creation care, and equity for generations to come. I see a helluva lot morality from Christ Christians and pagans than I do from fundies.
A mass majority of what we are as beings is a colony of bacteria and other organisms, living in, sharing, and maintaining this one body. No man is an island. To likewise live in society it only takes respect, honoring diversity and interdependence, and good will to all of good will. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
1
of
5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
|
|
Home
login 
