Morals?

JRMcC said:

So I agree that altruistic behavior is beneficial for society. But I'm not yet convinced that people behave morally and/or altruistically for logical reasons. I also think you have to account for both the society as a whole and the individual when explaining the existence of altruistic behavior.

Click to expand...

People still have feelings you know. In the Socratic paradigm, we can still feel compassion, sympathy and an emotional responsibility towards our communities. When I said that morals can be drawn from knowledge and reason - you appear to have mistaken that comment for the assertion that only logic applies. That is not the case. People are not automatons, much of our social behaviour (altruism included) is instinctual. Our tribal, social nature is drawn from millions of years of evolution - not just logic.

Americans barely have an understanding of mutual respect, the American idea of mutual respect is to only be blatantly insulting and disrespectful, don't get me started on chivalry.

We can't take religious oppression away from them. Keeps these animals in check.

Bunyip said:

- you appear to have mistaken that comment for the assertion that only logic applies.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what happened.

Bunyip said:

People are not automatons, much of our social behaviour (altruism included) is instinctual. Our tribal, social nature is drawn from millions of years of evolution - not just logic.

Click to expand...

So here you're saying that we're moral and altruistic because we are, we just evolved that way. I can't really argue with that. Think about this though, don't individuals have the option to reject their evolutionary instincts? If we can chose to act evil or be ascetics, how do we determine whether or not this is right or wrong? Is there any such thing? Or is it more a matter or abnormal vs. normal, logical vs. illogical?

JRMcC said:

That's exactly what happened.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean.

So here you're saying that we're moral and altruistic because we are, we just evolved that way. I can't really argue with that.

Click to expand...

Clearly we are not communicating effectively. That is not what I said. Our behaviour is a combination of our nature and our experiences of the world - not either one or the other.

Think about this though, don't individuals have the option to reject their evolutionary instincts?

Click to expand...

Yes, just as they can choose to ignore divine command.

If we can chose to act evil or be ascetics, how do we determine whether or not this is right or wrong? Is there any such thing? Or is it more a matter or abnormal vs. normal, logical vs. illogical?

Click to expand...

By the consideration of ethics. The study of ethics is all about how to derive a moral landscape from reason and knowledge. The funny thing is that morality dictated by an external authority manifests uniquely for all different religions and sects, whilst secular morality tends to arrive at the same almost universal positions.
As to what is right and wrong according to secular morality, we have the law.

JRMcC

A great way to distinguish between good and evil, is to think about how you would feel if it was happening to you, or to your children. Take rape for example, I would tend to see it as evil because I would hate for it to happen to me, or my child. Were a person to reject that common social convention (that rape is bad), the law would reinforce that norm.

True morality comes from the understanding that actions have consequences, and also from the understanding that others are not essentially different from us, that happiness is not a zero-sum game in which we can become happy at others' expense. Therefore we should perform actions that are likely to lead to good outcomes and avoid actions that are likely to lead to negative outcomes—not just for ourselves, but for all beings involved.

It's possible to construct an objective, pragmatic, consequentialist ethical system that does not rely on any supernatural factors. And that's basically what Buddhism has done. Ideas of karma being inherited across lifetimes is a red herring: it's a way of conceptualizing the ways in which one's actions affect others down the road, which you should care about because you care about all beings, not because it's you in any meaningful sense, as everything you're accustomed to thinking of as you will have passed away.

However, it does ultimately rest on a deconstruction of the concept of the self, which is a hard sell to many people, even though it's hard to argue with the logic. But I'd say that all concepts of morality rely on some degree of flexibility in how one defines the self. Compare Jesus's admonition to treat others as yourself, and that what you do to others you also do to him. I don't think that's just cute figures of speech: altruism as a basic animal trait comes from our ability to blur the line between self and other, which is beneficial to the survival of a community. Fortunately, most if not all people have an element of that in them already; they just need to cultivate it. All immorality, on the other hand, can be traced back to very rigid, limited concepts of the self, along with a lack of concern over what happens to others. We also have that tendency, but it can be reduced with practice.

And I do believe the more expansive view, the one that leads to moral behavior and feelings of solidarity with others, makes individuals happier. It's just that a lot of people don't know that, since they've never really tried it.