Atheist Ethics and Morality

[Ghost of a Rider]

As a secular humanist, did you experience more of an inclination to commit murder? To lie, cheat or steal? If not then what difference does it make whether morality is objective or not? And isn’t it ironic that some of the very people with whom you now share a belief in objective morality would have hated you or killed you for your secular humanism?

So, considering that believing morality to be objective (whether it is or not) ultimately makes no difference to human behavior, why is it important that it be objective? And, we need to ask: what is the purpose of morality? If being a moral secular humanist achieves the same moral goals as being a moral theist or whatever, again, why must it be objective?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Bookchin didn't answer the questions I kept hoping he'd answer. He didn't answer questions like, "Why bother to be moral?", "What does it matter if we are moral or not?", "Why bother to even live?", and "What is the point of living?"

[...]

It [objective morality] must come from a source that transcends human beings and subjective human experience. If not, then why do we care about morality? Why do we care about meaning? Why do we even bother to care what is right or wrong?

[...]

If this universe is all that there is and there is nothing supernatural, nothing divine, nothing "spiritual" or whatever word we may use to describe the so-called "supernatural" or "paranormal" realm, then this physical reality is all that there is. We human beings are a collection of cells. But that's all we are. So, if we are a collection of cells, then why should we be moral? Why should we attach meaning to our lives where no meaning has existed before? What does it matter whether we are moral or not? Why bother? Life has no objective meaning or purpose and our existence is merely incidental. We weren't put here for a plan, or so Secular Humanists believe, so why even bother? What is the point? Why should we care?

It sounds like you're obsessed with the Why questions that by definition are impossible to answer. Religion claims to provide the answers to questions about meaning, purpose, and morality, but it's an illusory certainty.

All I think about the subject is that if this is indeed all there is, then that makes it all the more important to live an authentic, meaningful life. This is all we get, so we have to make the best of it. If we don't want to look back on our lives and regret all the suffering we've caused through our malice or neglect, we have to take it upon ourselves to live the way we think is right.

-Nato

 

[idav]

I didn't read the book, and I'm not a Harris fan, but from what I've read so far, I get the impression that he would have received less of a backlash if he presented science as something that can help answer moral questions, rather than claiming that science is going to provide the definitive answers.

There are definitive answers, which science can and does provide, but the problem is it still depends on what your objective is. For example medical science can be used to either harm or heal so the question of what we want medical science to do is based on moral objective.

Harris seems to use alot of his own views and opinions as a guide that should apply to everyone else. I'm still stuck on the fact that this is the idiot who made a moral argument for justifying a nuclear first strike against the Muslim World in the End Of Faith.

In the book I mentioned it talks of many moral landscapes to go by but he gives a pretty good argument for the landscape that everybody might want to strive for ie being pretty much healthy, happy and successful in all aspects.

I haven't heard of such an argument but I'm aware he has some books against god and religion but I havent read any of them.

 

[work in progress]

There are definitive answers, which science can and does provide, but the problem is it still depends on what your objective is. For example medical science can be used to either harm or heal so the question of what we want medical science to do is based on moral objective.

Right! This seems to be why a lot of philosophers, specifically ethicists landed on Sam Harris when he came out with this new book. I don't think very many who are not bounded by religious doctrines, would disagree with basing or altering the ethical standards when new science can provide a clearer understanding of the issue, but Harris is trying to claim that there is a scientific process to reaching moral judgments. That's where a lot of people jump off the bandwagon.

In the book I mentioned it talks of many moral landscapes to go by but he gives a pretty good argument for the landscape that everybody might want to strive for ie being pretty much healthy, happy and successful in all aspects.

It is still going to boil down to value judgments that cannot be determined scientifically. For instance, if we decide to follow consequentialist methods to determining the best ethical solution, we could still have a problem deciding between competing values. Even humanist principles can be challenged in some arenas, when doing what's in the best interests of the majority of people, might mean increasing the destruction to the environment and contributing to other species extinctions.

I've heard Peter Singer describe how he sees the progress of ethics through history as one of expanding our circle of concern from family and tribe members, to members of our larger community when agriculture began, to concern for the nation, then members of our religion, then concern for the basic rights of all people (goodbye slavery), and concern for the safety and wellbeing of everyone on the planet - the peace movements, environmental movements etc. It is only very recently that the circle of concern has started to expand to members of other animal species.

Singer uses the slide rule of conscious awareness to decide how much concern we should apply to both humans and other animals - so we don't have much if any concern for insect pests, but higher developed animals get more concern - many people become vegan for purely ethical reasons....anyone who has ever worked in a meat processing plant for a short time might join that list!. So when the interests of animals conflicts with the interests of humans, how does the "Moral Landscape" give us the scientific knowledge to decide or weigh those competing interests?

I haven't heard of such an argument but I'm aware he has some books against god and religion but I havent read any of them.

Well, at the time he wrote "End Of Faith," 9/11 was still fresher in everyone's minds, and there was a lot more support for revenge or counter-attacks against those on the enemy side. Harris blew a gasket recently when Chris Hedges wrote a piece on fundamentalist extremism and reminded everyone again of Harris's moral argument for using the Bomb in a first strike. But, Harris also made moral arguments in favour of using torture to get information....how well has that one worked out since then? It's not that I want to judge his new work solely on what he wrote in the past -- he's not quite the dogmatic Neoconservative apologist that Christopher Hitchens is; but he's never really walked back the alarmist views he expressed in that book, and I don't know whether he is still following the most egregious premise of The End Of Faith - that religions are evil, but some are more evil than others, so first we take out Islam - the most evil religion, and then we take out Christianity next, and then go through the list, but may stop at Buddhism....since Harris considered Buddhism mostly innocuous and the meditation techniques to be useful as a personal practice.

 

[idav]

Right! This seems to be why a lot of philosophers, specifically ethicists landed on Sam Harris when he came out with this new book. I don't think very many who are not bounded by religious doctrines, would disagree with basing or altering the ethical standards when new science can provide a clearer understanding of the issue, but Harris is trying to claim that there is a scientific process to reaching moral judgments. That's where a lot of people jump off the bandwagon.

But there is a process for reaching the correct answer but he does admit that there are limitations since we are still in a learning process. I doubt most people would jump ship just cause they don't agree that health is worth striving for. It reminds me of medical doctors taking the hippocratic oath which I would hardly think anyone takes lightly. We KNOW the difference between a healthy and unhealthy mind and body and is worth striving for a fix.

It is still going to boil down to value judgments that cannot be determined scientifically. For instance, if we decide to follow consequentialist methods to determining the best ethical solution, we could still have a problem deciding between competing values. Even humanist principles can be challenged in some arenas, when doing what's in the best interests of the majority of people, might mean increasing the destruction to the environment and contributing to other species extinctions.

This will always be an issue as long as knowledge is limited. It is a competing value because someone is wrong/misinformed especially if they have similar agendas which is health and prosperity. So intentions are usually for the best even when we disagree on how to proceed.

I've heard Peter Singer describe how he sees the progress of ethics through history as one of expanding our circle of concern from family and tribe members, to members of our larger community when agriculture began, to concern for the nation, then members of our religion, then concern for the basic rights of all people (goodbye slavery), and concern for the safety and wellbeing of everyone on the planet - the peace movements, environmental movements etc. It is only very recently that the circle of concern has started to expand to members of other animal species.

I agree with this, we are expanding the circle because anything on this planet involves the well being of anything on it. Humans getting over themselves is a good thing.

Singer uses the slide rule of conscious awareness to decide how much concern we should apply to both humans and other animals - so we don't have much if any concern for insect pests, but higher developed animals get more concern - many people become vegan for purely ethical reasons....anyone who has ever worked in a meat processing plant for a short time might join that list!. So when the interests of animals conflicts with the interests of humans, how does the "Moral Landscape" give us the scientific knowledge to decide or weigh those competing interests?

Again it has to do with not having always having the best knowledge available. The more we learn the more we know what will be affected when we make wrong decisions. We aren't omniscient so we couldn't possibly know what will happen a thousand years down the road but if we did we would better know what to do and maybe even make wiser decisions that help the prosperity of the entire earth. Hindsight sucks in that we know too late what the affects are. Had we found how to harness solar energy early and cheaply we would hardly have any power issues.

Well, at the time he wrote "End Of Faith," 9/11 was still fresher in everyone's minds, and there was a lot more support for revenge or counter-attacks against those on the enemy side. Harris blew a gasket recently when Chris Hedges wrote a piece on fundamentalist extremism and reminded everyone again of Harris's moral argument for using the Bomb in a first strike. But, Harris also made moral arguments in favour of using torture to get information....how well has that one worked out since then? It's not that I want to judge his new work solely on what he wrote in the past -- he's not quite the dogmatic Neoconservative apologist that Christopher Hitchens is; but he's never really walked back the alarmist views he expressed in that book, and I don't know whether he is still following the most egregious premise of The End Of Faith - that religions are evil, but some are more evil than others, so first we take out Islam - the most evil religion, and then we take out Christianity next, and then go through the list, but may stop at Buddhism....since Harris considered Buddhism mostly innocuous and the meditation techniques to be useful as a personal practice.

He does express some of his views of how religion is competing with science(and often hinders science) but I didn't see any radical views except for his scenarios of the best life vs. the worst life and that there are correct ways to reach the best and avoid the worst. His main argument is that well being can better be achieved through science rather than religion and I believe that it is true no matter what your version of well being might be.

 

[Sententia]

I didn't read the book, and I'm not a Harris fan

Well the book is quite interesting IMHO. Have you seen his TED talk on the same subject?

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com

 

[TheGodHypothesis]

If this universe is all that there is and there is nothing supernatural, nothing divine, nothing "spiritual" or whatever word we may use to describe the so-called "supernatural" or "paranormal" realm, then this physical reality is all that there is. We human beings are a collection of cells. But that's all we are. So, if we are a collection of cells, then why should we be moral? Why should we attach meaning to our lives where no meaning has existed before? What does it matter whether we are moral or not? Why bother? Life has no objective meaning or purpose and our existence is merely incidental. We weren't put here for a plan, or so Secular Humanists believe, so why even bother? What is the point? Why should we care?

You are critical thinker and therefore have come to the conclusion that, in all probability, there is no "Supreme Being" watching over us, stirring the pot every now and then, answering prayers, punishing the bad, rewarding the good; it sounds like a child's fairy tale doesn't it? The constant charge from the Theists about morality and ethics being the purview of God has always seemed a very desperate attempt to justify beliefs that I think many, deep down, see as what they likely are, an emotional attempt to find answers to questions that we just never will find answers to. Do they speak to God directly about his wishes? Where then do they find these rules on morality? The answer, or course, is the supposed divine words written in their Holy texts. Even a very simple reading of these texts will show you a horrifying mix of brutality and profundity cobbled together with some "pronouncements" that even Charlie Manson wouldn't follow. When you die and then all the people that knew you die, that's it...you're just a picture on a piano or in a fading photo album. So what? You've never loved? You've never held your child and stared into their face and just knew you'd protect and love them forever? You've never read a great book, saw a great movie, walked with your girl in the rain? Had a great vacation? That is the purpose. To love your life, to love your family, to not cause harm to others. Do you really think morality HAS to come from a higher being? Do you want to rape and murder right now? Do you need the silly, superstitious threat of "Hell" in order to be a good person? I don't think you do. Enjoy your life, don't make others not enjoy theirs, and know you are a part of the human continuum.

 

[idea]

If this universe is all that there is and there is nothing supernatural, nothing divine, nothing "spiritual" or whatever word we may use to describe the so-called "supernatural" or "paranormal" realm, then this physical reality is all that there is. We human beings are a collection of cells. But that's all we are. So, if we are a collection of cells, then why should we be moral? Why should we attach meaning to our lives where no meaning has existed before? What does it matter whether we are moral or not? Why bother? Life has no objective meaning or purpose and our existence is merely incidental. We weren't put here for a plan, or so Secular Humanists believe, so why even bother? What is the point? Why should we care?

you might enjoy reading "Mere Christianity"

an exert from it:
“… Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are unselfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but that they ought to be. The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviors in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is… most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if [we removed “Moral Law”]. [the Moral Law] is not simply a statement about how we would like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behavior we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behavior we call inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, this rule of Right and Wrong, or the Law of Human Nature, or whatever you want to call it, must somehow or other be a real thin-a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behavior is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior, and yet quite definitely real-a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us. “ – C. S. Lewis The Reality of the Law


as for the morality of atheists...
here are some interesting studies: link
check the refs at the bottom of the page if you don't like the site... then go through and argue with all of those refs if you care to...

one more link...

 

[Matthew78]

I take issue with this. A true moral relativist would easily be able to judge another for violating their morals.

Playing devil's advocate here, why would a moral relativist judge another person for violating that relativists' morals? If you were, say, a moral relativist, why would you judge, say, Joseph Stalin for the crimes committed by the Soviet Union when he was in charge? I doubt that you could judge him. Maybe you could disagree with what he, and others under him, did but I'm not sure how you could fairly judge. In this case, judgment implies an ought. To judge someone like Stalin, you're effectively saying, "Well Stalin ought to have respected all human rights but he didn't; he violated people's rights to life by having them murdered".

There's quite a bit of ground between (some articulations of?) relativism and nihilism. I can condemn others for violating human rights while also acknowledging that human rights are a category constructed within a culture and not necessarily right for all cultures.

I don't understand how you can do that coherently. You can condemn others for violating human rights but at the same time acknowledge that the concept of human rights isn't the right concept for all cultures? How? If people in a Muslim country can be killed for apostacy, would you condemn it? But if you say that your ethics, which acknowledges human rights and the need to respect them, isn't right for all cultures, then why judge a Muslim country for violating any such human rights?

Playing devil's advocate, wouldn't it be best to say that there is one system of ethics that is you personally find the best, that all cultures ought to agree with, that all cultures should observe and respect? Maybe there's something about your ethics that I just don't understand but I don't see the coherency in what you're saying.

The fact that my morality is relative to my biological/ cultural/ historic/ geographic/ etc. context hardly changes the fact that it's my morality. It is still just as effective (which is really just to say affective) as if I subscribed to a system of purportedly-objective deontological ethics.

Well, if it's subjectively moral, then I don't see how you can judge or condemn. At best I think you can disagree with others' morals and disagree with the actions of people whose ethics you don't agree with. I don't think you can condemn murder as a relativist, just disagree with it.

First off, it's not a why question. We are moral. Barring sociopaths and the like, we feel empathy for others. We could postulate why this is (evolutionary psychology and sociology are helpful here), but the simple fact of the matter is that it is. We have an inherent inclination towards value and morality.

I disagree. We are moral but given the fact that we are moral people doesn't answer the question of why we ought to be moral or even care about morality. We can explain why we feel empathy for others and insist on fairness, justice, and respect our freedoms and boundaries. Just like we can explain various human behavior with evolutionary theories involving sexual selection. But explaining why we tend to be moral or act in certain ways doesn't explain why we ought to be moral just like explaining certain human behaviors by sexual selection doesn't explain why human beings should reproduce or even why the human species ought to exist.

Tied to my first point, there are distinct psychological benefits to having a coherent system of morals/ values/ meaning. You've contrasted secular humanism to different deontological religious values, but there are a number of teleological religions like Buddhism that do not recognize an objective morality or meaning inscribed into the universe, but rather devote themselves to forms of values and meaning designed to be psychologically beneficial to the practitioner and the community.

I understand your point here. Thanks for weighing in.

 

[Tristesse]

you might enjoy reading "Mere Christianity"

an exert from it:
“… Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are unselfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but that they ought to be. The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviors in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is… most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if [we removed “Moral Law”]. [the Moral Law] is not simply a statement about how we would like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behavior we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behavior we call inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, this rule of Right and Wrong, or the Law of Human Nature, or whatever you want to call it, must somehow or other be a real thin-a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behavior is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior, and yet quite definitely real-a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us. “ – C. S. Lewis The Reality of the Law


as for the morality of atheists...
here are some interesting studies: link
check the refs at the bottom of the page if you don't like the site... then go through and argue with all of those refs if you care to...

one more link...

Conservapedia? Really? There were no facts, just bias spewing from that link.

 

[Matthew78]

I don't have the book at hand as I have lent it out but have you read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape?

The Moral Landscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I haven't. I haven't read any of his books but it's on my list of books to read in the near future. The week after this next week is my vacation time. I have one big book by a biblical scholar to read concerning the historical Jesus. Maybe I ought to start reading books by Harris after that.

 

[Matthew78]

Nihilism isn't just a problem for atheists. If an atheist gives all meaning and worth to come from god then take away that god and they are just nihilist. The only difference between being an atheist and theist and having purpose is that for an atheist purpose will not come from a dictator god. For an atheist purpose would come from you. Being theist doesn't solve the issue any better with some higher being giving you the purpose especially when you have no choice in the matter. I don't ask why we should attach meaning to our lives. I ask why should I let someone else attach meaning for me.

I understand what you're saying. I quoted form your post and put in underlined emphasis what I want to highlight for the sake of discussion. Playing devil's advocate, suppose I granted that purpose would come from each of us, subjectively, but asked why bother to assign purpose? What does it matter if we assigned purpose or not to our lives?

 

[Matthew78]

If you want meaning you need look no further than the affect that your continued impact has upon all future members of humanity. Yes, your individual impact is diluted, but it is diluted across a near infinite number of actors. Meaning is conserved, never destroyed.

Okay, playing devil's advocate, I would ask what does it matter if meaning is conserved or not?

Purpose? You can only give yourself that. Do you like having a pleasurable existence? Well start from there.

I suspect that this is what it all boils down to. There is no purpose or meaning beyong what each of us assigns to our lives. I think morality is tied in such a way that it depends on one's sense of meaning. If you have a meaning or purpose, then morality is simply a means of acheiving that meaning or purpose in way that is harmonious with the meaning and purpose of other individuals. Morality seems mostly about harmony and empathy.

Why bother acting moral? So long as the preponderance of humanity acts in a moral manner it increases the chances of humanity's continued existence which is demonstrably good if you prefer to matter. Also; if you act flagrantly immoral, then people will reject you and possibly even harm you. If you don't want to die, then don't be a killer.

Again, playing devil's advocate, why should humanity continue to exist? I think you nailed it here. It boils down to whether or not an individual chooses to matter or not to humanity. To matter to humanity, it's best to behave morally. If not, you suffer the consequences. Basically, you don't matter to humanity if you don't choose to be moral.

 

[Matthew78]

In order to “abandon atheism,” one must believe in the supernatural. So, are you saying that you believe in the supernatural because you're not satisfied living in a world without an “objective” morality?

That's only true if you define atheism as a lack of belief in divine or supernatural being(s). I think what you have in mind is nontheist. I'm a nontheist with respect to many kinds of theism but an antitheist with respect to the Abrahamic religions.

What's more, the existence of the supernatural doesn't help your problem at all. If we have no reason to be moral or to live, then no supernatural being has a reason to be moral or to live. If we can't give our own lives meaning, then another being certainly can't do it either!

Playing devil's advocate, suppose that I said that a supernatural being isn't alive in the sense that we are, consuming oxygen and nutrients. Suppose divine beings are amoral, neither good or evil. That could solve the problem of evil, though. Suppose that a divine being exists and isn't morally good or evil but neutral. A divine or supernatural being could give meaning to our lives. Suppose the purpose of our lives was to create a world of peace, justice, and freedom. Suppose that each of us had a "spirit" and that we did either created positive "karma" or negative "karma". Suppose that our "spirit" was reincarnated and what we were reincarnated as depended on what we did in the past and so if we had a miserable life it could be a punishment for bad "karma" in a previous life or it could be just bad luck.

A divine being, not being subjected to karma or reincarnation, would not need to generate positive or negative "karma" and, therefore, is not moral in the same sense that human beings or moral. I'm not saying that I believe any of this. I'm just putting forth this possibility as a way of playing devil's advocate.

 

[Matthew78]

I don't get your "IF / THEN" statement.

With great respect, I think you probably misunderstood my proposition.

"IF there's no [god / soul / afterlife / angels / Santa Claus / unicorns], THEN life has no purpose or meaning."

That's not exactly it. What I stated was that if there is nothing supernatural then the physical world is all that exists and all that we are is just a collection of cells. But if we are just a collection of cells, then our existence is incidental. Why should we attach meaning, purpose, or what-not to an existence that is incidental? Why should we be moral?

From a purely logical perspective, I think there needs to be something stuck in between the first and second half of this argument. In order to conclude that disbelief makes life meaningless, you are first taking it as a given that believing in the factual truth of our cherished myths causes our lives to be filled with meaning and purpose. IOW, both halves of your statement are the same. It isn't really an "IF / THEN" at all.

Not really. What I'm thinking is that a physical world, by itself, is just a place that exists. Yet atheists/Secular Humanists are clearly inputing an ought. We ought to be moral? We ought to live lives full of meaning and purpose. My question is why?

You think theism makes life meaningful, which means non-theism must makes it meaningless, but you haven't shown the reasoning that led you to conclude theism is meaningful in the first place.

Where I have stated theism makes life meaningful? I am actually an antitheist, especially with regards to Abrahamic religions. The only belief in a divine being that I find attractive and have sympathy for is deism.

If I had to guess what's going on here, I think you might be at a stage of your psychological development where you are missing the carefree simplicity of childhood, which in your case came coupled with religion (I assume). I think you are attributing your feeling of angst-filled nostalgia to religion because that is the most obvious difference in your life between then and now. Perhaps you are just getting older, and you'd be feeling mopey and nostalgic for times past with or without religion.

Nostalgia for a religion? I left Christianity. I'm glad to have left it, never to return. Why would I feel nostalgic for the religion of people like James Dobson, Max Lucado, Billy Graham, and other Evangelical Christians? I find their religion repugnant with every fiber of my being! So, there's definitely no nostalgia.

 

[Matthew78]

As a secular humanist, did you experience more of an inclination to commit murder? To lie, cheat or steal?

I can't say that I did. I was dishonest a few times, which I sorely regret, and I vowed that I would never be dishonest again unless it was absolutely necessary.

If not then what difference does it make whether morality is objective or not? And isn’t it ironic that some of the very people with whom you now share a belief in objective morality would have hated you or killed you for your secular humanism?

People who I now share an objective morality with? It was Murray Bookchin (an avowed atheist) who convinced me that objective morality was possible in the first place! Richard Carrier also argues that morality is objective. That is what his "Goal Theory" is about. It's an objective theory of ethics. He believes that moral facts exist and science can discover them. These atheists (and more) believe that objective morality is real and Secular Humanists should subscribe to them.

So, considering that believing morality to be objective (whether it is or not) ultimately makes no difference to human behavior, why is it important that it be objective? And, we need to ask: what is the purpose of morality? If being a moral secular humanist achieves the same moral goals as being a moral theist or whatever, again, why must it be objective?

It ultimately makes no difference to human behavior? Playing devil's advocate, I would say that it does. Why? Because if there is no objective morality and people decide their own morality, then we cannot, in good conscience, condemn Hitler for his anti-Semitic crimes against humanity. Why did Jeffrey Dahmer commit his immoral acts? Because he believed that there was no objective morality, IIRC.

 

[idav]

I understand what you're saying. I quoted form your post and put in underlined emphasis what I want to highlight for the sake of discussion. Playing devil's advocate, suppose I granted that purpose would come from each of us, subjectively, but asked why bother to assign purpose? What does it matter if we assigned purpose or not to our lives?

I think purpose is rather over rated so subjectively it can be anything really. From an evolutionary standpoint I see our existence to be rather unique and remarkable that we can even ask these questions. All that had to occur for us to be here is so sensitive that any difference in someones lives of our ancestors could mean we wouldn't be here at all. I like to use the analogy of winning the lottery and wondering what the point is in spending all the money. You can have a purpose on how you spend it but you could just be happy that you have the money to spend in the first place and do just about anything with it. You can even squander it if you want but we both know that wouldn't be any fun. So to me existence is enough of a reason to assign our own meaning.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Okay, playing devil's advocate, I would ask what does it matter if meaning is conserved or not?



I suspect that this is what it all boils down to. There is no purpose or meaning beyong what each of us assigns to our lives. I think morality is tied in such a way that it depends on one's sense of meaning. If you have a meaning or purpose, then morality is simply a means of acheiving that meaning or purpose in way that is harmonious with the meaning and purpose of other individuals. Morality seems mostly about harmony and empathy.



Again, playing devil's advocate, why should humanity continue to exist? I think you nailed it here. It boils down to whether or not an individual chooses to matter or not to humanity. To matter to humanity, it's best to behave morally. If not, you suffer the consequences. Basically, you don't matter to humanity if you don't choose to be moral.

To respond to the conjoined premise: Why should I care about either Meaning or Purpose? If you have neither meaning nor purpose, then what is the value of your continued existence? If you do not place any value what-so-ever on your day to day existence (no purpose) and you hold that the sum of your day to day life ultimately has no value (no meaning), then why bother existing at all? You should just kill yourself. You gain nothing by existing and you lose nothing by dying. All you have done is cut out the middle man of time wasted.

I think you have a good handle on what morality entails. At the core of morality is harmony and resentment. Morally good entails something which promotes harmony. Immoral is something which promotes resentment.


There are many possible answers to your final query. Ultimately you will hit a bedrock; a foundation past which you cannot probe any further. Someone might propose that life is intrinsically valuable. Some might propose that a sentient species by virtue of its instinct to self-preserve has that very right: to continue to exist. Someone might value knowledge and experience that we might learn to better understand ourselves and the world around us. And that doesn't even touch on the wilder "possibilities" like we are all sentient nodes in a matrix which is attempting to figure out itself by using us as processors or things of that ilk.

I personally think humanity should continue to exist because I want to have continued impact on the future. I don't want to consider that ultimately my conscious influence will come to naught (astrophysics isn't enough for me; yes my gravity affects the sun, but so what).

MTF

 

[idav]

Well the book is quite interesting IMHO. Have you seen his TED talk on the same subject?

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com

That is a good talk. I haven't seen that in a long time.

 

[Matthew78]

That is the purpose. To love your life, to love your family, to not cause harm to others. Do you really think morality HAS to come from a higher being? Do you want to rape and murder right now? Do you need the silly, superstitious threat of "Hell" in order to be a good person? I don't think you do. Enjoy your life, don't make others not enjoy theirs, and know you are a part of the human continuum.

Playing devil's advocate (yes, I know; I have done that in every post responding so far ), I would have to ask why should I love life, my family and not cause harm to others? I'm not sure that morality has to come from a "higher being" ,if, you have in mind the biblical deity. I don't want to rape or murder. I also don't need threats from some imaginary realm of existence to be a good person.

I like compassion, virtue, love, and honesty. I like the rewarding and promising life that Humanism, secular or not, has to offer. But, I'm not sure I see the point to it . I abandoned Secular Humanism because I couldn't answer the big "why" questions in my mind. I'm exploring forms of religious Humanism and, so far, I find myself mostly attracted to Unitarian Universalism.

I realize that the questions may be impossible to answer. I realize that I may never get the answers that I want and I might not be satisfied. But if I knew, for certain, that this physical world was all that there was and there was nothing "out there" such as an external purpose that we were made for, then I will end it all. I'm hoping that there is a purpose out there and that we exist for a purpose. If I find philosophical naturalism convincing again, it's over for me. Seriously. I hope I never find it convincing and I'm going to keep searching for meaning. I'm happy about the possibility of meaning and purpose.

But as for "enjoying my life", why? To get answers, I have been playing devil's advocate in this thread. So far, I haven't gotten the answers but I'm very hopeful that at least my journey can prove fruitful and this thread may help me out a bit.

P.S. Where is Meow Mix? I thought she would have posted in this thread by now.