A Case(?) For Amoralism

[CosmicJoghurt]

Greetings.

I'll try to be as succinct as possible.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Therefore my morals don't come from God (never mind how this wouldn't work). I'm also not convinced by any atheistic (meaning lacking the premise of the existence of God) moral system I've encountered, and I'll explain why.

Every atheistic moral system I've read about attempts to relate good deeds (however they might be concluded), to deeds we ought do, and bad deeds to deeds we ought not do. In other words, each system describes a line of reasoning to arrive at the definition of good and bad deeds, and then uses those conclusions to say that we ought and ought not do those deeds.

My question is, how does one go from saying a deed is good (I'd shortly describe it as: something that brings or contributes to overall happiness, well being and/or peace) to saying it is the right thing to do (and vice versa for bad deeds)?
How does one claim that we ought do good deeds? I haven't read anything about this. It is my impression that it is assumed that we ought be good and ought not be bad.

This is the reason why I'm a moral nihilist - I recognize that some things are overall bad to do and other things are overall good to do. I don't, however, see any reason to associate these with "right" and "wrong". I rarely see other people who share this point of view.


With this said, I'm nowhere near educated in any branch of philosophy. I'm limited to my own thoughts, LoR, and the amazing... Google.

Speak. Please.

Cheers.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

First thing, I have to know what you think the word "ought" means to you.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings.

I'll try to be as succinct as possible.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Therefore my morals don't come from God (never mind how this wouldn't work). I'm also not convinced by any atheistic (meaning lacking the premise of the existence of God) moral system I've encountered, and I'll explain why.

Every atheistic moral system I've read about attempts to relate good deeds (however they might be concluded), to deeds we ought do, and bad deeds to deeds we ought not do. In other words, each system describes a line of reasoning to arrive at the definition of good and bad deeds, and then uses those conclusions to say that we ought and ought not do those deeds.

My question is, how does one go from saying a deed is good (I'd shortly describe it as: something that brings or contributes to overall happiness, well being and/or peace) to saying it is the right thing to do (and vice versa for bad deeds)?
How does one claim that we ought do good deeds? I haven't read anything about this. It is my impression that it is assumed that we ought be good and ought not be bad.

This is the reason why I'm a moral nihilist - I recognize that some things are overall bad to do and other things are overall good to do. I don't, however, see any reason to associate these with "right" and "wrong". I rarely see other people who share this point of view.


With this said, I'm nowhere near educated in any branch of philosophy. I'm limited to my own thoughts, LoR, and the amazing... Google.

Speak. Please.

Cheers.

Notwithstanding Hume's dictum - "You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'" - there is a inherent "ought" enshrined within the "Golden Rule", which - in its Christian form - runs, "do unto others as you would be done by".

For example, if I asked you if you would like to be killed or maimed, you'd probably reply that you wouldn't.

From the "Golden Rule" it follows that you shouldn't kill or maim others.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

First thing, I have to know what you think the word "ought" means to you.

Perhaps I used the wrong terminology. I don't know.
Well, in the context of morals, something one ought do would be something for which there's a moral obligation for him to do. That's the best way I can put it.

Notwithstanding Hume's dictum - "You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'" - there is a inherent "ought" enshrined within the "Golden Rule", which - in its Christian form - runs, "do unto others as you would be done by".

For example, if I asked you if you would like to be killed or maimed, you'd probably reply that you wouldn't.

From the "Golden Rule" it follows that you shouldn't kill or maim others.

Kindest regards,

James

Why should one follow the Golden Rule? Not as in, why is it practical, but, what's the logical obligation?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Notwithstanding Hume's dictum - "You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'" - there is a inherent "ought" enshrined within the "Golden Rule", which - in its Christian form - runs, "do unto others as you would be done by".

For example, if I asked you if you would like to be killed or maimed, you'd probably reply that you wouldn't.

From the "Golden Rule" it follows that you shouldn't kill or maim others.

Kindest regards,

James

Why should one follow the Golden Rule? Not as in, why is it practical, but, what's the logical obligation?

In asking that question, you're not considering how morality arose: evolution.

As a result, we're the descendants of those who passed on the ability to empathize with others.

Since we would not wish to be killed or maimed - due to our ability to empathize - we would not wish to kill or maim others.

It's not so much a case of "ought", as, we have an inbuilt compunction against doing so - we have a genetic predisposition towards empathy. This is why recruits to the military have to be taught to kill to get past this natural compunction against killing/hurting others.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

That fails to answer my question. What is the logical obligation for one to do the "right" thing? I'm aware of the origins of morality by the mechanisms of evolution, but that's a different story. I'm talking about a conscious decision to act morally.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

First thing, I have to know what you think the word "ought" means to you.

Perhaps I used the wrong terminology. I don't know.
Well, in the context of morals, something one ought do would be something for which there's a moral obligation for him to do. That's the best way I can put it.

You may not see this as an important issue, but I contest that this is actually the crux of the problem.
You say that an "ought" in the moral context is something that you are "morally obligated to do". But what does "morally obligated to do" mean? Does it mean that you cannot help but to do that thing? No, of course not, if that was the case, no action would be immoral. Does it mean that something or someone forces you to do that thing? But that is not the context you use it either. So what does "obligated" means in that context? (what are its consequences?) What is making it an "obligation"?

What I am trying to get at here is that intrinsic or floating "oughts" have no meaning, they just simply do not exist.
To properly use an "ought" you must have an objective for that "ought". For example if I want to paint a house I "ought" to buy a paint brush and paint, if I don't want to paint a house either I buy a paintbrush and paint or not is a moot point. If I want to paint a house, then we can go into discussion of either or not I really ought to buy a paint brush, can I borrow one instead? Can I use a roller? What is the best paint?
I contest that moral "oughts" are no different, If I want to promote wellbeing I "ought" do things that promote wellbeing and "ought not" do things that are detrimental to the wellbeing.

If my powers of foresight are correct you will try to forward the objection, "what if I don't value wellbeing and I do not want to promote it?" To which I reply: And some people don't, some of those we call criminals.
You "ought do things that are moral" because you want to benefit from a society that promotes things that are moral. You "ought" to promote wellbeing because you want wellbeing. And if you don't want to, we will make you, because that is what a person that is interested in wellbeing does to promote wellbeing.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

You say that an "ought" in the moral context is something that you are "morally obligated to do". But what does "morally obligated to do" mean? Does it mean that you cannot help but to do that thing? No, of course not, if that was the case, no action would be immoral. Does it mean that something or someone forces you to do that thing? But that is not the context you use it either. So what does "obligated" means in that context? (what are its consequences?) What is making it an "obligation"?

I feel that my lack of vocabulary is a barrier in this case, but I'll try and tackle the issue from another angle.

When someone says killing is morally wrong, what does it mean? It means that killing brings negative consequences to the world, and that's a reason why one shouldn't do it. This is a huge generalization but it serves as an over-simplified example.

You ask me to explain what I mean by "morally obligated to do". I cannot explain it to you in a manner in which it can be fully broken down, because morality is the foundation for us to be able to use these terms and have them mean something. In other words, my "ought" only has this meaning in the context of morality, so I can't explain it outside this context.

What I am trying to get at here is that intrinsic or floating "oughts" have no meaning, they just simply do not exist.
To properly use an "ought" you must have an objective for that "ought". For example if I want to paint a house I "ought" to buy a paint brush and paint, if I don't want to paint a house either I buy a paintbrush and paint or not is a moot point. If I want to paint a house, then we can go into discussion of either or not I really ought to buy a paint brush, can I borrow one instead? Can I use a roller? What is the best paint?
I contest that moral "oughts" are no different, If I want to promote wellbeing I "ought" do things that promote wellbeing and "ought not" do things that are detrimental to the wellbeing.

That's what I mean when I say that my vocabulary is lacking. "Ought" is the best I can find.

If my powers of foresight are correct you will try to forward the objection, "what if I don't value wellbeing and I do not want to promote it?" To which I reply: And some people don't, some of those we call criminals.
You "ought do things that are moral" because you want to benefit from a society that promotes things that are moral. You "ought" to promote wellbeing because you want wellbeing. And if you don't want to, we will make you, because that is what a person that is interested in wellbeing does to promote wellbeing.

That's exactly right. My point is that I see no reason to act morally other than the practical application of acting morally within a society and being rewarded. But that's not really morality. As I understand it, the concept of morality implies an intrinsic categorization of certain actions and choices as "right" or "wrong". This is what I think most people would agree with, and I don't.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

That's what I mean when I say that my vocabulary is lacking. "Ought" is the best I can find.

It is not a matter of vocabulary, you can't do it in english, you can't do it in any languange. Intrinsic moral oughts don't exist, they are totaly devoid of any coherent meaning. We have this ilusion that it must mean something, and that there are intrinsic moral values in the world, but there really isn't, and that is why you cannot coherently describe what you think it must mean.

My point is that I see no reason to act morally other than the practical application of acting morally within a society

And what other reason could there possibly exist, what better reason could possibly exist?

But that's not really morality. As I understand it, the concept of morality implies an intrinsic categorization of certain actions and choices as "right" or "wrong". This is what I think most people would agree with, and I don't.

And I contest that people have a rather cloudy perspective of what is "moral", people can know when someone acts moraly or not, but they can't really define what is moral or not. It is our short sightedness that creates the ilusion of intrinsic rights or wrongs even if there were no else, there cannot be right or wrong without people.

 

[bluejatheist]

First is comes down to whether you want or desire to participate in acts other humans would consider amoral, if you don't then that's that. If you do, or if it's a minor thing such as being rude or something then it comes down to weighing the consequences versus pay offs. You don;t get much from, say, stealing a TV if you'll end up spending more money on legal expenses that you could have bought several TVs legally. Also there is simple conscience, logical or not, if you'll feel guilt perhaps you're better off not doing it. What's moral depends on the society so it may be a different matter every time, but it basically comes down to: If you don't want to do something 'bad' then don't, if you do then consider the trade-off of legal or social consequences and conscience.

 

[BlackLight]

Greetings.

I'll try to be as succinct as possible.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Therefore my morals don't come from God (never mind how this wouldn't work). I'm also not convinced by any atheistic (meaning lacking the premise of the existence of God) moral system I've encountered, and I'll explain why.

Every atheistic moral system I've read about attempts to relate good deeds (however they might be concluded), to deeds we ought do, and bad deeds to deeds we ought not do. In other words, each system describes a line of reasoning to arrive at the definition of good and bad deeds, and then uses those conclusions to say that we ought and ought not do those deeds.

My question is, how does one go from saying a deed is good (I'd shortly describe it as: something that brings or contributes to overall happiness, well being and/or peace) to saying it is the right thing to do (and vice versa for bad deeds)?
How does one claim that we ought do good deeds? I haven't read anything about this. It is my impression that it is assumed that we ought be good and ought not be bad.

This is the reason why I'm a moral nihilist - I recognize that some things are overall bad to do and other things are overall good to do. I don't, however, see any reason to associate these with "right" and "wrong". I rarely see other people who share this point of view.

There are very few (if any) realms of knowledge in this world that are completely self-justifying. There is no Transcendent Central Authority that defines Biology as "the study of life." It was just something established a long time ago by ordinary men. If somebody wanders in and presumes to redefine biology to mean something else, the only bulwark against this is to simply dismiss them from the conversation until they're ready to play the same word game as everyone else.

I believe the same principle may apply here. If you can't get from granting that certain actions are Good (contributing to well-being) to concluding that those same actions are Right, then I'm not sure there's much left to say to you. I freely concede that we aren't proposing a completely self-justifying system. But then, there probably isn't any such self-justifying system. There is no logical argument that can possibly convince someone who doesn't respect logical arguments that they should. Some things just need to be granted as self-evident.

 

[Aught3]

My question is, how does one go from saying a deed is good (I'd shortly describe it as: something that brings or contributes to overall happiness, well being and/or peace) to saying it is the right thing to do (and vice versa for bad deeds)?
How does one claim that we ought do good deeds? I haven't read anything about this. It is my impression that it is assumed that we ought be good and ought not be bad.

Hi CosmicJoghurt,
It seems to me that the answer to your question would be in the initial justifications for a moral system. The way this works for me is to think about the things I want and need in life, and then consider why I want those things. For example, I may want a job.
Why?
To get money.
Why?
So I can buy things.
Why do want to buy things?
So I can enjoy them.
Why do you want to experience enjoyment?
So I can be happy.
Why do you want to be happy?
Because being happy feels good and feeling good means being happy.

Most things that we do in life have the ultimate goal of happiness, or we do things with the expectation that they will make us happy. If everything we do has the goal of happiness then happiness is the ultimate good and the proper basis for a moral system. We can then reason about which actions will lead to the type of actions that will likely lead to the desired outcomes and these actions are the ones we ought to do if we are to act rationally. I suppose the argument goes something like this:

P1: The ultimate goal of my actions is happiness
P2: Action X will lead to happiness
C: Therefore, I ought to do action X

Oh by the way, Hume did not argue that one cannot derive an ought from an is, only that one cannot leap from an ought to an is without some explanatory work.

 

[devilsadvocate]

Most things that we do in life have the ultimate goal of happiness, or we do things with the expectation that they will make us happy. If everything we do has the goal of happiness then happiness is the ultimate good and the proper basis for a moral system. We can then reason about which actions will lead to the type of actions that will likely lead to the desired outcomes and these actions are the ones we ought to do if we are to act rationally. I suppose the argument goes something like this:

P1: The ultimate goal of my actions is happiness
P2: Action X will lead to happiness
C: Therefore, I ought to do action X

Oh by the way, Hume did not argue that one cannot derive an ought from an is, only that one cannot leap from an ought to an is without some explanatory work.

There's a couple of potential problems adopting this system of morality,

1. Whose happiness should I try to maximize? Should I be concerned with only mine, or also that of other humans and/or other beings capable of misery and happiness? Why?

2. There's possibility of qualitative difference between forms of happiness that can not be reduced to quantity that complicate the moral calculus. Is drug-induced bliss better than dedicating one's life to intellectual pursuits that can leave you frustrated and miserable?

3. It permits actions that would usually be considered immoral. If highest amount of happiness is the moral compass, there are possible circumstances where framing and punishing an innocent person is the morally obligated action to take. Is justice purely instrumental in value?

 

[Laurens]

I don't think that there is a universal principle of morality that exists outside of our own consciousness, however, it is true that our brains have evolved a capacity to connect and empathise with those of others.

We have a complex system of mirror neurons---which are best described by V.S. Ramachandran in the following passage:

Within some of these regions [of the brain], there is a special class of nerve cells called mirror neurons. These neurons fire not only when you perform an action, but also when you watch someone else perform the same action. This sounds so simple that its huge implications are easy to miss. What these cells do is effectively allow you to empathise with the other person and "read" her intentions,figure out what she is really up to. You this by running a simulation of her using your own body image.



When you watch someone else reach for a glass of water, for example, your mirror neurons automatically simulate the same action in your (usually subconscious) imagination. Your mirror neurons will often go a step further and have you perform the action they anticipate the other person is about to take,say, to lift the water to her lips and take a drink. Thus you automatically form an assumption about her intentions and motivations,in this case, that she is thirsty and is taking steps to quench her thirst. Now, you could be wrong in this assumption,she might intend to use the water to douse a fire or to fling in the face of a boorish suitor,but usually your mirror neurons are reasonably accurate guessers of others' intentions. As such, they are the closest thing to telepathy that nature was able to endow us with."

The Tell-Tale Brain page 22

Whilst it might be difficult to come up with an objective moral system without appealing to the supernatural, it is in our nature to be empathetic and compassionate---I see no good reason to defy our nature. We are empathetic and compassionate by nature and that is good enough reason to be moral if you ask me.

 

[devilsadvocate]

it is in our nature to be empathetic and compassionate---I see no good reason to defy our nature. We are empathetic and compassionate by nature and that is good enough reason to be moral if you ask me.

We're also fearful and aggressive and so on. Why value this one trait over the others?

 

[Laurens]

it is in our nature to be empathetic and compassionate---I see no good reason to defy our nature. We are empathetic and compassionate by nature and that is good enough reason to be moral if you ask me.

We're also fearful and aggressive and so on. Why value this one trait over the others?

I think we should value this trait over others because although it is not entirely unique to us (great apes also have slightly less complex systems of mirror neurons) it is uniquely complex, and we, as humans have an advanced ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes so to speak. Combined with an advanced awareness of how our actions impact the world around us, and others in it - I think we are uniquely moral animals.

Sure we are still aggressive and fearful, but these are remnants of our reptilian brains - and I think our highly evolved brains should be used to rationalize and control these impulses. I know there are lots of things 'in our nature' that lead us to do bad things, such as our sexual impulses etc. however, our uniqueness is in being able to see the negative impacts that this has on others.

Of course I cannot say why we should inherently value the unique parts of our neurology and psychology that make us moral beings more than the reptilian and mammalian impulses that still affect us. But to me personally it shows that we are extremely well adapted to being compassionate, understanding, and empathetic, as well as being able to control our more basic instincts, and this should be valued for it is more or less unique to us.

 

[devilsadvocate]

I don't think uniqueness is getting us anywhere. There's many unique things about humans we tend to value good and bad, so uniqueness in itself cannot be the sole criteria.

 

[Laurens]

I don't think uniqueness is getting us anywhere. There's many unique things about humans we tend to value good and bad, so uniqueness in itself cannot be the sole criteria.

I think that's a matter of perspective.

In some aspects humanity doesn't seem to get anywhere despite being unique.

In other respects you can see that it has got us rather far. I am communicating my thoughts for others across the world to see, in a symbolic form... We are edging ever further towards understanding the universe... There are many instances in which I'd argue that our uniqueness as a species does get us somewhere.

But it depends how you define progress and what you chose to focus on. If you look at all the wars and famines etc. throughout the world then you might be inclined towards a different point of view...

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Regardless of the matter of the intrinsic nature of humans, our instincts and primitive behavior, my question is concerning the supposed inherent, objective moral truths that many people advocate, i.e moral realism. While MGK may not agree with me on this, I'd say the majority of people would adhere to this line of reasoning, whether it is valid or not.

@BlackLight

Sorry, but I can't go from step one to step two. It's certainly not self-evident, in my view.


So here's my argument in short: certain actions cause overall good or overall harm in varying quantities to society, but there is no logical mechanism to go from that to saying that there is any kind of inherent obligation to do good deeds and avoid bad ones, besides the practical application of benefiting individuals and society in general.

Which part of that don't you agree with, Aught3, or anyone else for that matter?

Kindly,

Cosmic

 

[Aught3]

So here's my argument in short: certain actions cause overall good or overall harm in varying quantities to society, but there is no logical mechanism to go from that to saying that there is any kind of inherent obligation to do good deeds and avoid bad ones, besides the practical application of benefiting individuals and society in general.

Over the course of the day I have read this statement several times but I'm just having trouble understanding it. I think the problem is that it reads like a response to an argument I never made, if you see what I mean. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to question moral realism but it also means I don't really have a starting point to be able to grasp your objection.

Having said that, I think the part I disagree with is when you set aside the practical benefits. The 'practical application of benefiting individuals and society' is the whole point of morality. Morality is about performing good actions and avoiding bad actions. If you understand that a particular action is good then it is rational to take that action precisely because it has some good impact on yourself or your society. We all want good things to happen to us right?