This question has been bothering in the past few days. If all of us were born, or our species has pressed on based on our fitness, than where do moral take play? For example, lets say me and you were in a hunter-gathering tribe and we are in a location with no other animals. (perhaps by biotic factors) Because there are no other animals present for food, one of us will eat each other. If our goal in life is to live and evolution takes play, than me or you, depending on who is more fit, will die.
Natural selection still plays but when did we say it was wrong of us to kill each other? How can we live in peace without morals?
Ok, let's clean this up a little bit. First - morality is not uniquely human. All organisms that live in social groups have an evolved moral code based on their evolved value system (i.e., what they find pleasurable/sensually enjoyable). Every social animal needs a moral code to facilitate social cohesion and group stability. The more agents you have in a system - the more complex the moral code must be to facilitate higher levels of ordered stability. Second - You cannot say that just because natural selection and fitness govern biological change, that therefore everything in nature is kill or be killed. The entire biological world is based off of a quid-pro-quo (a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours"). Scientifically this is called reciprocal altruism and a number of glorious biological phenomena emerge from these interactions. Is everything at base selfish? Yes, but cooperation evolves from competition. In fact, socio-technological evolution has a long arc towards eliminating competition using metasystem transitions (i.e., when a new level of order is stabilized the smaller agents that formed the larger collective overwhelmingly cooperate and eliminate "free riders"). This is in the process of happening in our species. We are far more moral than we have ever been. We are far more cooperative than we have ever been. This is dictated by the amount of energy in our system. If no one wants for anything on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - no one needs to compete. Most of our competition is now not related to natural selection. We compete, but if we lose, we don't die. Finally - We are in charge of our morals. We culturally construct our morals. The enlightenment philosophers got it right. The only thing that is important in life is consciousness. Everyone's individual consciousness is precious and unique. Our morals therefore should be constructed around the principle that you should never harm another consciousness. You can do whatever else you like - just don't fuck with anyone else's experience in life. Hope that helped insomniasexx
"Finally - We are in charge of our morals. We culturally construct our morals. The enlightenment philosophers got it right. The only thing that is important in life is consciousness. Everyone's individual consciousness is precious and unique. Our morals therefore should be constructed around the principle that you should never harm another consciousness. You can do whatever else you like - just don't fuck with anyone else's experience in life." Not really. Morales, as I see them, are things impressed and imposed on people by society in order to have all actors in society know and act by a certain beneficial set of rules. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. It has nothing to do with preservation of consciousness. A human consciousness is no different than a pig consciousness or an ant consciousness. The only thing that makes us unique is our ability to contribute and be part of society in some fashion. This includes the disabled, the elderly, etc, as living and being able to speak, or even just having value to those around you who love you is enough to consider you as a contribution to society. It's not all about labor. Don't screw with others because you don't want others to screw with you. Morals are impressed on everyone in society, so you have to assume that your moral code applies to EVERYONE acting around you. So don't litter, don't pirate, don't pop the children's soccer balls. It has nothing to do with protecting consciousness. It's all about that bitter, greedy, wonderful, sense of self preservation.
Your question is kind of wishwashy, so I'll try to answer the best I can. I'd best define myself as a moral nihilist. That means I don't "believe" in morals, if you want to put it that way. I see morals as subjective. General rules that people live by to create a peaceful society and a nice way of living. Morals themselves, as far as humans know, are completely baseless. Some people like to follow a book that has some written down (like the bible). Others like to figure out what's "best for the community" and go about it that way. I personally just do whatever I like, as long as I don't hurt anyone. Everyone has their own set of morals they follow. They are all different. Culture to culture, person to person. Now, I personally don't like the idea of survival of the fittest (at least in a physical sense). So I'm really glad we, as humans, have come up with a standard set of guidelines we call "laws". Laws basically say, that if you don't follow these mutually agreed upon morals/rules, we'll throw you into a cell and you'll basically be stuck. That, or we'll kill you (if this was in earlier times). Naturally, most people decided to follow these "laws", for the betterment of themselves and of others. Sure, some freedoms were taken away, but overall it's created a nice society to live in. Now, if we reduce it down, and take away all those laws. We essentially get "the wild". Where whoever is the strongest and can reproduce the most, wins. We said it was wrong to kill each other, because neither of us want to be killed. We figured that it's best to keep each other alive, so we can discuss tactics, ideas, and share/trade resources if necessary. This obviously put us at an advantage compared to every other organism. So we thrived. And we eventually compounded on this and agreed to not kill each other and instead improve. We said it's "wrong" to kill each other, because we prefer our fellow brethren to be alive and help us in our time of need. It's a kind of "I'll get your back if you get mine" except on a larger scale. It's the same reason money works. We mutually agree that it's worth something. So how can we live in peace without morals? easy. We just get a mutually agreed upon set of rules which involve peace. We then punish anyone who doesn't follow those rules.
>> How can we live in peace without morals? Who doesn't have morals? Surely you're not talking about psychopaths here? Since this is tagged "religion", I'm going to guess that you think atheists have no morals, perhaps. That's simply false. Very few religious people let their religion dictate their morals (think slavery, rape, tattoos, shellfish). Everyone has to pick and choose their morals; not just atheists.
I tagged it under religion because I instantly thought morals originated through religion. After reading all these comments, i realize its more philosophy.
I would love to hear what theadvancedapes had to say about this.
Hmm you might want to search around the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an answer that you like. From what I can tell, this piece on Hume might cover all the bases, but you should still search around anyways since that encyclopedia is awesome haha. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/
The Standford Encyclopedia is incredible. I'd also suggest Philosophy Bro, if you want to take a more fun and entertaining route. I actually remember when Philosophy Bro first started as a comment on Reddit. Now whenever I find a new philosophy interest, I usually hit the SEP, then Philosophy Bro for a lighter summary, then onto the further research.
Haha I completely forgot about that site! The first day of my Legal Ethics class my professor started class by reading a piece from that site and we were all on the floor laughing. They class was somewhat of an into class so it had a bunch of people who were question whether or not they wanted to pursue philosophy, and Im pretty sure that one day got a few dozen people to change their major haha. But yeah, great site. Do you have the reddit comment saved? I would love to read it.
I love it! And your professor is awesome. I am the 'philosophy guy' (aka stoner guy) in my circle of friends and they often ask me to explain stuff for them. Sometimes I'm good at articulating and sometimes I'm not, but I always use Philosophy Bro as my backup or as my recommendation for further reading. It's a great way to introduce philosophy to people who don't have much experience in the area. I looked around and found the original post here. Enjoy :)
Disclaimer: I am not the Renee Descartes, because he is dead. I'm just a guy who uses Descartes as his username on the Internet because I enjoyed reading his meditations in high school. That isn't the only option though. You could perhaps wait until one of us naturally dies of starvation and then the living will eat the dead. Or one could sacrifice themselves. I believe that morality is relative and isn't always so black and white. Humans are smart and conscious and we have rational thought and the decisions we have to make are often very complicated. I don't think anyone lives a life without morality, it's just that we have different moral values. Some people say their morality comes from religion, others from instinct, others say rational thought, etc. (Someone might want to add a #philosophy tag onto this post)If our goal in life is to live and evolution takes play, than me or you, depending on who is more fit, will die.
how a person is able to live life without morals
But is that no morals? Or is that differing levels of a moral value? For example, I guess I'm opposed to killing somebody, but certain situations can arise where killing someone would be acceptable (I'd kill someone in self-defense, or defending another person, or if they beat me at Super Smash Bros more than twice in a row, etc.) So does that render my moral stance on killing a person useless? Implying that there is no morality involved at all and it's all relative to the situation? (sorry if I'm not making any sense, I don't understand nihilism that well).
I literally see no difference in killing a person just for fun and killing someone in self-defense. It's the same act. Just done for different reasons. All are "acceptable" in my eyes. Just as all are "unacceptable". It's really neither. It just is. I can look at what caused the killing, and then decide if I personally would've gone through with it, but really, any example can be extreme or not depending on your opinions. As I said, I just weigh pros/cons. Killing in self-defense, AFAIK, would be more defendable in law. At least, I'm pretty sure it is. I haven't done much research into killing people, so I apologize. The best way I can explain it is this: There is a guy (lets call him X) that you are told to assassinate. Now, X is a pretty smart dude. Lets say he's the top in some respected scientific field. Would you kill him? Probably not. There's no reason. The guy doesn't seem to be doing any harm (to you or anyone you care about), and he overall seems to be advancing his field. That and you don't have any external motivator. Is it morally right? Pretty much everyone would say no. I'd say that it's neither (or subjective). Now add in money. Say 10 million dollars. Would you do it now? Some people yes, some people no. Is it now morally right? Most people would say no. I'd say the same (it's neither/subjective). Now lets say the guy is a serial killer. So you get 10 mil if you kill him, he's a serial killer, but he's also a respected scientist advancing his field. Would you kill him? I'd guess a lot more people would say yes. Is it morally right? Here's where people get stumped. The reasoning would go: "well he's a good scientist, but he's pretty evil. But killing is wrong." So some people again would say no, and others yes. It really all depends. I'd say the exact same thing (neither/subjective). Now lets add in complete immunity. Legally, you're free to kill him. No jail time, and the government is supporting you. Would you kill him? I'd bet most people would probably say yes (unless they have a problem with killing specifically). Is it morally right? I honestly don't know what people would say. Probably yes. Maybe some nos. I'd still say the same (neither/subjective). Now lets say he tried to kill you, and you killed him in self-defense. Is that morally right? At this point, there's a whole range of different opinions on it. I personally think that you've just earned 10 million dollars, killed a serial killer (saved some possibly good lives) and have complete immunity. You've also just protected yourself. Overall it's a pretty good deal. I don't see that as wrong or right. Just beneficial.
I think I'm starting to understand, but I'm afraid of getting bogged down in semantics. So you don't assign a "good" or "bad" value to a certain act and/or don't think morality exists at all? Now I understand your reasoning for killing Mr. X, and it may just be the way you explained it, but your actions seem to hold no emotional weight, which feels really foreign to me. So let's say you compared the pros and cons, you decided that killing Mr. X would be the most beneficial decision and you followed through. How would you say you would feel after killing a man? For me, ending a life would instinctively feel bad, which makes sense because I think a lot of my morals come directly from instinct. In my mind, I would be able to rationalize my actions because Mr. X was an evil man, I just earned 10 million dollars and possibly saved lives. However I would probably still feel bad for ending a man's life. So what would you call that instinctively bad feeling I experience?
"good" and "bad" are meaningless to me. When I hear them or read them in something, I usually just associate them with an average of what people believe the words to mean. But to me they are meaningless. As for "morality", yes, there is the word. But again, I think that it's all subjective. There's no "hard" morals. Exactly. If Mr. X happened to be someone I closely related with, I'd wager that I'd feel the loss of a friend. Losing someone to talk to or bounce ideas off. I suppose I'd have "emotional weight" then. But only because I had lost an asset. Had I thoroughly and satisfy-ably weighed the pros and cons, how I feel after would be dependent on how "good of a deal" I got. If things just barely scraped by, I'd be happy, but maybe the pros didn't outweigh the cons. However, if the pros outweighed the cons by a lot, I'd be pretty thrilled with my decision. In day to day life, it's hard to get an exact idea with how everything will turn out, so there's varying responses. Flawed data leads to unexpected results. Granted everything was in my favor, I'd have no problems. Well, aside from the cons that I decided were worth it. That is, losing a friend might be worth it if I figured the pros were definitely good enough. Different pros/cons will have different weights. But that's just all preferences and opinions. Nothing to do with the emotional attachment or "morals" behind it. A less extreme example would be chocolate vs vanilla ice cream. I like ice-cream, and both flavors are equally beneficial. There's no real reason to go with one over the other (pros/cons wise). So it's a matter of taste. I'd weigh my taste preferences (what "tastes" better to me) and then decide. unfortunately chocolate vs vanilla is pretty difficult and I tend to switch every time. I don't feel any less morally wrong/right for my choice. Ending a life has an inherent con attached to it. That there is one less mind to solve problems, reason, and function in the same space. This may be a pro or con depending on the result. If the person is important, like a scientist or a doctor or something, it'd be a much bigger hit to my wellbeing than say a serial killer (who I'd be glad is gone). If it's just me vs the serial killer in an empty space. I have 0 problems with it. I'd rather not die. So you did something that (in your mind) is morally wrong, just to benefit yourself. I fail to see what makes it morally wrong. Besides your thoughts, there is literally nothing saying this was wrong or right. You did it to benefit yourself. Just as other animals kill to benefit themselves. Is a wild animal being morally wrong, just because it wants to eat and survive? Regret. Regret that you've made a permanent decision that, although benefits you, has gone against everything you've known about the pros/cons of killing people. It's an outlier in your data, so you naturally think about it and wonder if you made a mistake. At least, that's the feeling I get when I "feel bad" about something. There's no undo button for killing. So whatever pros/cons there are, you have to accept them. Misjudging them, or perhaps not considering them to their fullest, can cause regret, disappointment, and a whole bunch of other negative feelings and emotions. I get the feeling a lot, because I'm bad at judging what my body needs for nutrients and taste. I decide to get something to eat and naturally feel bad, because I hadn't weighed my options carefully enough. And sometimes there isn't an optimal choice (they all are around the same pro/con ratio). If there is a different feeling you are talking about, it's foreign to me.So you don't assign a "good" or "bad" value to a certain act and/or don't think morality exists at all?
but your actions seem to hold no emotional weight, which feels really foreign to me.
How would you say you would feel after killing a man?
For me, ending a life would instinctively feel bad, which makes sense because I think a lot of my morals come directly from instinct.
In my mind, I would be able to rationalize my actions because Mr. X was an evil man, I just earned 10 million dollars and possibly saved lives. However I would probably still feel bad for ending a man's life.
So what would you call that instinctively bad feeling I experience?
A lot of that does make sense and I understand the 'lack of morals' and weighing the pros and cons, but it still seems so un-human-like to me because it just sounds so emotionless and static. Would you ever say you act upon instinct when faced with a 'moral decision'? Perhaps you subconsciously and quickly "weigh the pros and cons" in your head because you don't have much time to physically act. Would you consider that acting upon moral instinct? Or just physical instinct? Let's say you kill Mr. X in self-defense. You didn't have any time to think about it, you just did it. You didn't have time to weigh the pros and cons of killing him and there is one pro that stands out: you get to live. Surely that action is like a "default action" in given any situation in where you're about to be murdered. And would that "default action" be the same as a "moral code"?
That's how I see the world. It's fairly easy to see why people did things if you know all the details and facts. No. This would never be the case. The human body has many built in "safety" functions that allow it to keep itself alive, even if I am unable to keep up. It also prevents me from killing myself (which can definitely be circumvented). These are not morals, but biological functions. As for other actions (jumping in front of a bullet for a loved one) these would be judged based on quick rudimentary pro/cons that I have somewhat pre-calculated before hand. It starts to get a bit complicated, as it all depends on whether I think that action is "inherently" (in most cases) be good (pro) or bad (con). Jumping in front of a bullet is generally a bad idea, so I probably wouldn't do it. If there were a particular reason I needed to protect something or someone, I might consider it. In no way is this a "moral instinct". Just slow/fast pro/con weighing. As I said, I may regret my decision afterward as I finish calculating, or recalculate with new data. Also as I mentioned, I get this feeling a lot, usually because of said new data. The only time I'd ever do such a thing is either accidentally, or in self-defense. Every other scenario would involve some sort of pre-calculated (or calculated on the fly) pro/con. Just knowing who Mr X is, is enough to give him a general pro/con for killing. If I didn't know, then as I mentioned, it would be inherently bad because of potential of use. Breaking/destroying anything is "bad" (a con) because it has a potential use. If there were too many pros/cons to look at before I must make a decision, I'd go with whatever was "winning" at the time. Getting to live (as I mentioned earlier) is a biological function in many cases. And naturally I've put it under the "heavy pro" category. However, there have been times where I have indeed sectioned it under "con". These were times that are normally called "depression". In normal cases it's a pro. Staying alive is usually a pretty big goal of mine. It's on my mind the majority of the time when I'm outside of my comfort area. Walking on the side walk? I need to watch out for any potential poisonous bugs/spiders/pests. Need to watch out for any cars that swerve along the road. Keep an eye out for anyone that might have a gun. Etc. I think about this stuff daily. Needless to say, I'm pretty on edge when I go outside. I usually have a good idea of what will benefit me if I ever do need to make split-second decisions. But sometimes it's not possible, and I make bad ones. I am then disappointed with those choices. If I wanted to, I could continually choose what does not benefit me. I see no "moral" difference. As I said, it's not good or bad, just what entertains me and makes me live longest. So if acting in my self interest and striving to live is a moral code, then so be it. That's a very loose definition and tends to go back to the whole "morality is subjective" thing I was talking about earlier. What's in my self interest obviously isn't what is in Mr. X's self interest. Neither of us are morally right or wrong. We just want different things. So if I killed Mr X. that's obviously a con for him (unless he wanted to die) and generally a pro for me (saved my life). But if Mr X kills me, then it's a pro for him (he's a serial killer) and a con for me (I die). So if that's morality, it's subjective. Which is what I stated at the beginning.it just sounds so emotionless and static.
Would you ever say you act upon instinct when faced with a 'moral decision'?
Perhaps you subconsciously and quickly "weigh the pros and cons" in your head because you don't have much time to physically act. Would you consider that acting upon moral instinct? Or just physical instinct?
You didn't have any time to think about it, you just did it.
ou didn't have time to weigh the pros and cons of killing him and there is one pro that stands out: you get to live. Surely that action is like a "default action" in given any situation in where you're about to be murdered. And would that "default action" be the same as a "moral code"?
I think you summed it up here quite well, but I do think this is sorta divulging a little into semantics because I'm having trouble separating what you consider "fast pro/con weighing" from "having an instinct", which may rely on some sort of moral fiber, but doesn't always have to. I've always agreed that morality is subjective, but I've never really looked into the "morals do not exist" perspective. Would you describe the "no morals" approach as sort of like a 'naturalist' or 'clean slate' way of thinking? As in, if you stripped all the influence of religion, society, culture, etc. from any average human, they would be more naturally inclined to your nihilist perspective? This discussion has definitely gotten me thinking more like the budding philosophy student I once was, so I'd just like to say thanks by the way.
When I say "no morals" exist, I mean that there isn't an objective "thing" morals. There's no rule or natural law that says "this is right and this is wrong". It's a human concept. If you look at just the physics behind it, what is "good"? You'd be arbitrarily applying "good" to things. Is gravity "good"? That's why I say my "morals" is just pro/cons. Of course, some people do get "morals" from other things (like religious books). But it baffles me as to why there is so much emotional baggage attached to it. I can only fathom it as pros/cons for that person. Attaching emotional weight to arbitrary events is weird. I don't understand the logistics of it. Well yes and no. I purely look at pros/cons. This is what most animals do naturally. Since it's the best way to survive. If the animal/organism chose something that didn't benefit it in some way, it'd obviously die out. And thus that particular favoring wouldn't be chosen to continue on in the lineage. After millions of years of evolution, humans have come up with a general idea of whats "right". But really, it's just what's most beneficial to us. We keep people alive because nature has showed teamwork give you an advantage. In collecting food, in fighting, and in a bunch of other stuff. So we said "letting someone live and help is beneficial, thus it is 'good'". So I'd say, yes. Looking at it objectively, if you stripped religion, society, and culture from the picture, you'd get early humans before those things evolved. Nature would choose the people who managed to "re-find" the best way to survive. Society and general "good" behavior is so far deemed the best way of doing that. But if the best chance at survival was just to kill everything, then that'd be what our species did. I guess the best way to think about it would be to try and imagine morals from a non-human perspective. Do bacteria decide that eating something (but not something else) "good"? No. It just is. That's how it lives. You can arbitrarily (or semi-logically, or even logically) define "good" and "bad" into categories and put each action into them, but you need a discrete definition. And (I'm not philosophy major so I don't know how often this is done) people have started to do that. There's different "schools of morals" if you will. Perhaps one could be: what is "good" is anything that allows more computers to be made. While what is "bad" is anything that allows more humans to be made. As you can see, the definitions are pretty much arbitrary and pointless. Instincts are things the body does automatically with no conscious input. Touching a hot stove and instinctively removing your hand, for example. Or instinctively removing your hands/grip if you try to choke yourself (or hold your breath for too long). "fast pro/con weighing" requires memories. No memories means you can't quickly weigh pros/cons (you have no memories of related things). Instincts don't require memories. They are biological functions. So I wouldn't instinctively jump in front of a bullet for someone. My body wouldn't do that. Regardless, 99% of events allow at least a couple seconds of decision making.Would you describe the "no morals" approach as sort of like a 'naturalist' or 'clean slate' way of thinking? As in, if you stripped all the influence of religion, society, culture, etc. from any average human, they would be more naturally inclined to your nihilist perspective?
I'm having trouble separating what you consider "fast pro/con weighing" from "having an instinct", which may rely on some sort of moral fiber, but doesn't always have to.
edit: just being a bit more specificI have no problems with killing people
That's kind of fucked up but I guess that proves I have moral values. The weird thing is though, is that I'm glad you live by something. My question for you, what must I do to outweigh the cons?
Well killing is a bit extreme. In modern day society, it's the cons way outweigh the pros. That's on an individual level, by the way. Different killings and different causes/lead ups of course have different pros/cons. If the situation was as was described in the opening post, I'd have no problems eating the other guy. But if you introduce a con, then it gets trickier. Like, I'd have hard time deciding of whether to eat my brother, for instance. He's a great guy, and I'd love to keep him alive. So eating him is obviously going to remove that. But if you mean, just me going out right now and killing someone. That's far from happening. The first major con is the legal system. Which is why the legal system exists in the first place. Jail time is wasted time. Then you get all sorts of official marks and records on you, which are spread to other people. Yet another con. Then you get all the negative social relations because of jail time and murder. Yet another con. In order to kill someone, you need to first obtain the materials in order to do so. That takes time, sometimes money, and whatever else goes into it. That's another con. There's no overall point to it. Military sometimes has a purpose, as do natural animals and in the wild and such. But in modern life, there's really no point unless there is some benefit (cash, you have a grudge, etc). I personally have no reason to kill. It's just a lot of work with little payout. So there's no reason to attempt to do it and risk punishment via various sources. But other illegal activities, piracy for example, I do all the time. The only con to me is a slight risk and fine. And most of the time it's not even that. Maybe a message from my ISP (if they care that much). The other con is that my favorite companies will lose cash and might crash. I figure that the pros (getting free stuff) is worth it. So I do it. I support my favorite companies in other ways, whether it be buying promotional content, or advertising the brand. It's the same reason I support legalization of recreational drugs. I don't personally use them, but I see no problem with it. It doesn't harm me or have any cons for me, so I support it. Pros are obvious. People seem to love the stuff. As I said. Most of the things that I consider right/wrong, is merely because I've looked at the pros and cons and made a decision based on that. My "overall" choice is that I should follow the legal system (for the majority of rules) because I'd like to avoid jail time. Because that would suck. And it'd pretty much ruin every other opportunity. That's why I'm not interested in being an activist either. I see the shit they go through. Kudos to them, but I wouldn't do it.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to ask about. Are you trying to ask how we create and enforce morals if we are outside of a society? Or maybe how morals are created in the first place? That's how I read your post as asking. Maybe I got it wrong though.
Sorry, I have a hard time articulating what I say sometimes. Morality question in general but specifically how a person is able to live life without morals. edit: I contradict myself. Not really a general question after all.