As a result of the thread I started about escaping “God” I’ve been pondering the importance of an external source of good (that could be called God). It seems to me that if we deem something “good” without admitting an external source of good, then at best our language fails us and at worst we’re lying to ourselves. Is “good” truly good without a source external to us?
This just popped up on my blog feed and seems to agree. What do you think?
(His line of thought continues on the blog if you want to read more.)
It is for me perfectly sufficient that child rape causes us to feel horror. To say that it is evil, bad, or wrong is a bonus, perhaps one that discourages some of those who might be inclined to do it not to, but not one that is necessary for the vast majority of people not to engage in it and, in fact, to be horrified by it.
I’m not really in a position at this point to intelligently use terms like moral nihilism, ethical subjectivism, or logical positivism, but I will say this. Unless you are willing to force an external source of right and wrong on a chimpanzee, a cat, an ant, and an amoeba, then there’s no reason to force one on people.
Sure, why not? Most people discipline their pets, right?
I’m not saying anyone should claim to know fully what an external source of good is or use it to enslave others. I’m simply proposing that an external source is essential to our idea of good. Otherwise it seems we should consider the word obsolete.
Okay, sure, what difference does it make? Everything is subject to good as a God-concept.
I agree that good exists no more than does God. I think that’s implicit in what I’ve already said. It’s up to atheists to explain if good exists without God.
My contention is that the “more or less commonly understood concept” of (morally) good requires an external source to have any meaning.
I’m not sure because I haven’t read Dawkins (or for that matter much else in this vein), but I am inclined to wonder if Dawkins is over-reaching if he suggests that morality can be explained in the framework of evolution.
(and I’m just accepting Reitan’s word for that, I have not read Dawkins myself and do not know if that’s the case)
Some things just happen, I don’t think anyone really wants to explain the entirety of the living universe with evolution. Life is complex enough that there can be developments that are purely accidental, that persist because they don’t hamper survival, and are simply accidents.
As far as I’m concerned the only external force inducing humans to be good is the upbringing of their parents and the positive peer pressure they get all through life. None of that has to originate outside the human heart.
Why should I disguise my moral nihilism with ethical subjectivism? To be honest I am not sure how the two terms are really different.
Morals/ethics are subjective and therefore do not exist as hard facts. There is no such thing as good and bad, only what people perceive as good and bad.
I might add that people go to Socrates/philosophers/priests for ethics and help with now right from wrong.
People go to Hippocrates/medical professionals/quacks for health and wellness issues.
I’m saying we don’t expect Science to provide Ethics, so we have separate fields of inquiry/study.
And Raphael, I didn’t hear anyone suggest anything should be forced on people or animals. But I don’t think you’d suggest we do away with child abuse laws, and we don’t persecute animals for eating babies in the wild.
The original poster would do well to use words in common currency to make the debate less exclusive. There are people in this forum who have life experience and plenty of intelligence, but may not be familar with the terms used in the thread title, and be put off joining in.
Then I suggest you read “Existentialism is a Humanism” by Sartre. It’s only a small book, and very readable. It addresses quite thoroughly the problem you have raised.
The gist of Sartre’s argument is even if “God” gives us rules on how to behave, we still have to make a personal judgement on how to interpret those rules when they appear to conflict. If we seek advice, we usually ask the person who we think is likely to give us the advice we do want to hear.
Any fool can follow strict rules until the strict rules appear to contradict each other. Making those decisions is what being a moral creature is all about.
Another approach to the problem is Isaac Asimov’s “Robot” series of stories. There is one story in which a robot finds its “directives” (to obey an order from a human, and to preserve itself) to be in conflict.
The human has ordered it to approach something that is likely to destroy the robot. The robot has no moral freedom of it’s own and has to apply a simple mechanical/logical approach to the problem. It ends up walking in circles around the hazard, at exactly the distance where the two “directives” are perfectly balanced against each other.
Back to philosophy, you could read up on Burridan’s Ass:
This suggests a situation in which an ass (donkey) is placed exactly midway between two equally tempting bales of hay. The ass cannot choose which it prefers, and starves to death.
The dictionary defines a double standard as an ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another, such as to men rather than women, or people rather than animals.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Nothing wrong with the double standard you have. Most aquarium fish will eat their own babies, yet most aquarium keepers do not punish the parent fish for eating their babies.
No external source is being forced, either. Raphael, you’re hallucinating and starting to sound as silly as Saskatchuanian.
I don’t think they’re different. Moral nihilism is the idea that morality does not exist. If morality doesn’t not exist, then you can’t claim to act morally, i.e., do good. But atheists are always telling me that they have morality. You can’t have it both ways. Either morality exists and you have access to it (at least in a subjective sense), or it doesn’t exist an you don’t have it.
I agree with Sartre that we still must judge. I don’t deny that there is always a subjective element in determining what is good. No one can know for sure if they have the objective good–we just hope we guess correctly–yet I suspect most of us believe that there is an objective reality.
So, all I’ve been saying is that good must be part of that objective reality, otherwise we can’t say that good (or lack of it) is a property of an object in reality.
Consider the act of giving to charity. If there is no objective good, then we shouldn’t say that giving to charity is good. We should instead say, “We are delighted that someone gave to charity.” Is that what atheists really mean when they say that something is good, that they are delighted by it? Why should anyone give to charity? To delight the atheists?
That is a good point. I would have to admit that what I mean when I say I’m moral is that I act in ways that those who subscribe to an external source of morality would approve of.
The act of giving charitably isn’t about the giver of charity at all except in so far as it makes him or her feel pleasure. Giving to charity has no external effect on the giver whatsoever, i.e imparting goodness to him. In fact, what you suggest we say is exactly what we should say, namely, “we are delighted that someone gave to charity”. We should give to charity to delight the world.
I don’t know that the effect on the giver is really relevant. Simply that we might judge “giving to charity” as good is what matters to me.
If delight is the only reason, then morality as you’ve conceived it is not about acting toward good or evil. Instead it seems to be about one’s feeling delight or horror. What reasonable action do you have when someone decides that child-rape delights them? Do you just feel horror in response?
Morality is a label we give to an idea that most people define very badly.
People mix up the idea of “morality” with the ideas of “mores”, “customs”, “manners”, “culture”, “religious observance”, and they mix up “immorality” with breaking of local customs or taboos.
I think a good starting point for deciding if an act is “moral” is to ask whether the person committing it believes they are sacrificing some personal advantage for the greater good.
“Mores” and “customs” are local ideas. A Christian who sticks faithfully to his monogamous marriage is no more or less moral than a person whose culture allows several wives or husbands, and who behaves well within the rules of that culture. A feudal liege lord who treated his serfs fairly was as moral as a modern democratic leader who doe shis job fairly.
Moral relativism is a useful concept if it reminds people that whilst the “principle” of “morality” is constant, the form that it takes varies.
“Nihilism” is an absence of values, and not the same thing as moral relativism.
“Morality,” as I’ve been using it, is concerned with how we act toward that which we deem as good. It is very practical and not something we sit around and hem and haw over. We deliberate, decide, and most importantly act.
I’m appealing simply to a general understanding of good–how it is used in common parlance, e.g., that good is an objective property assigned to something when we deem it good or the good that prevails over evil in many of the stories we tell.
There may be general principles involved that we use to judge if something is morally good, but their application depends on the specific situation. That is to say, there is no universalizable moral ideology that we know of.
Now, the point of this thread is to question how an atheist’s use of the word “good” diverges from common parlance and what one means by “having morality.” I am contending that the concept of (morally) “good” as commonly applied has lost all meaning for an atheist.