I did read a book on ethics, but I have never found a reason: if all theological speculations are false, why should we be moral?

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

Atheists like to say that one could be moral without believing in a God or karma, and I agree that this is possible, but there is no reason (feelings are not a reason) for why one should genuinely be moral, rather than pretending to be moral for the benefits (such as society being possible and having people trust you). Without a God or a transcendent punishment system, what reason do we have to be genuinely moral and not just a hypocrite gaming society?

all 19 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I believe based on my experience of this life that morality is hardwired into us. We don't do it for a reason; rather it is inherent to what we are. Why this should be is very hard to explain without invoking a creative force that wants it to be this way. It is also of course impossible to fathom why this same force should manifest some who behave in concert with what we all agree to be "moral" actions, while manifesting others who seemingly revel in negating any positive action they see. Our world is vastly mysterious. Any who claim to understand how this works (i.e. to be able to put an accurate framework around "life" and to predict actions/events/behaviors based on that framework) are overselling. I can see that it exists, but I make no claims to understanding how it works or why.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So why should we do what comes natural to us? Isn't this no different from people who talk about a natural law?

[–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, the "should" word. Careful with that one. Once the mind gets in there and starts mucking about explaining what "should" and "should not" happen, we're into weeds which make satisfying action unlikely. Right and wrong are deeper than "should". Thought is not required; instead I've heard it described as discernment. It's a skill far too few practice, seemingly fewer every day.

[–]JohnRaymond 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Catholic Church is sure way to Heaven, if you believe all it proposes in faith and morals, and follow its teachings on morals.

Hell is forever, and torments are horrible

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What is morality?

If morality is doing that which will not harm others then not harming your family, your tribe, or really anyone who can in some future situation be of use to you is naturally a benefit to you by not degrading those potential assets.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm not sure, but what you are describing is egoism, which is exactly what I am wondering about. I suppose that moral reasoning would require reasoning on principles other than just self interest.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Your question presupposes egoism.

Morality under religious logic, which promises salvation as a reward for virtue, is also egoism. Under almost every possible definition morality and self interest are inextricably linked. Why follow the moral laws of a god if not for your own self interest?

So your question boils down to "what are the benefits of moral behaviour without the rewards promised by religion"

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not quite. You are assuming that merely doing moral things without meaning them suffices to be rewarded.

In fact, to distinguish between really meaning it and just keeping the laws for your own benefit is probably why evil is permitted to exist.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I read this several times and have no idea what you are trying to say.

It sounds like you have some notion that an emotional feeling has to be attached to your actions in order to make them valid.

That is nonsense.

The emotional feelings you attach to your actions are just self congratulatory, narcissistic ego flatulation.

It is this "feelings over facts" ideology that leads to the greatest evil. As the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The trans movement is built on emotional platitudes and on that platform they confuse and groom prepubecent children into a mental disorder so torturous that their suicide rate exceeds that of prisoners of war. Do you think those actions are moral because they feel good about them?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’m saying that keeping the law only keeps you from punishment, but rewards go to people who are genuinely altruistic. Yet people don’t become saints?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What law? What does a law have to do with morality?

What is "genuinely altruistic"? Who decides what is genuine?

What does sainthood have to do with anything?

[–]jet199Instigatrix 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the chances are it will work out for you better in the end.

Imagine what society would look like if everyone acted without morals then imagine how poor old you would fare in such a society.

[–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is a great topic, and it's very problematic. I can think of these reasons off the top of my head:

  • It reduces the risk. If gaming society goes wrong, you could end up in jail, depending on what you did. A risk-benefit analysis may demonstrate it to actually be a bad idea, even though others are gaming society successfully.

  • It's more fulfilling to be an effective altruist, so you might as well aim for that.

  • People have a conscience and simply can't get themselves to do it even when they try.

  • It's complicated to maintain two personas. You have to think more, you have more to worry about, and more to lose. On the contrary, sometimes if you're forced into a simple life where you don't have much, you find yourself being happier. So it isn't even obvious that it's the best choice.

  • It requires a competence not everyone's capable off. This is similar to the above points, but my point here is that it can be difficult to even get started on this path.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Have you ever heard of Plato’s Ring of Gyges?

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see that it is relevant to our discussion but I quit looking it up because I don't like spoilers, I have yet to read The Republic.

[–]panel30 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

some thoughts (not being particularly careful here, just musing, but maybe there's something helpful in here):

  • a lot of things we think of as moral are also just good ideas. hygiene keeps you from getting sick. helping the people around you helps keep the group healthy and safe generally. being able to work effectively with others is a huge benefit. norms where the social environment is safer from attack from other humans benefit you. etc. there's research about altruism in non-human social groups and how it works and how it may have developed.

  • why not just pretend?: keeping up a deception is difficult especially over time. maybe easier to just actually be moral.

  • human retaliation and mimicry. if people see you do it they might do it back, or just try it out themselves.

Also, these books might have some related content, I happened upon them recently when looking for content about another (maybe related) topic. If they seem relevant, you can check the content at no charge on openlibrary.org or maybe your local public library:

  • Altruism: The Power of Compassion by Matthieu Ricard. Sortof a scientific-ish approach discussing some topics related to altruism. Author seems to have a background in genetics science and also in Buddhist spiritual teachings.

  • Capitalizing on Kindness by Kristin Tillquist. Being kind is compatible with and helpful for success in business.

  • Maybe: The Power of Kindness: The Unexpected Benefits of Leading a Compassionate Life by Piero Ferrucci. Discusses some different aspects of kindness and related topics.

[–]panel30 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think this topic is interesting, more thoughts, for anyone who wants to read I guess.

is it related to what you care about and your motivations for things? saving someone from a burning building because you want them to be ok, vs because you want to look good? this reminds me of how people recommend against "rewarding" people for something they do naturally anyway for intrinsic motivation reasons. that it's better to just let people do it for the intrinsic reason without trying to mess with it like that.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

but there is no reason (feelings are not a reason) for why one should genuinely be moral

How have philosophers fooled people into believing that feelings don't matter, and aren't part of the equation?

Hard evidence isn't required to know something is real.

Can anybody concretely prove they love their family? Indirectly, but that's not direct proof.

Yet, nobody debates the existence of love, in it's many forms.

The philosophers who would remove emotion from the equation, are trying to manufacture a false paradigm to build upon.

They try to create artificial constraints that aren't based in reality.

They're philosophers of robots.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Feelings can be a cause, not a reason.

Imagine if Biden nuked Russia because he was in a bad mood.