Full disclosure: I am an atheist.
Awais Aftab asks "Why be moral?".
This is a question that has hounded me since I started seriously reading philosophy some four or five years ago. What reason do I have to be moral?
Aftab asserts that the question must remain unanswered because it is flawed. It suggests that one must have some self-interested reason to be moral. But to be moral is to act (or refuse to act) regardless of our self-interest. The acts we recognise as most moral are those in which we go against our self-interest, those that involve self-sacrifice. (Typically, such acts are labelled altruistic.) Aftab summarises this neatly:
Morality has nothing to offer to a selfish soul.He goes on to say that morality must be its own reason for being moral. That's to say, if we are moral it's because it's the right thing to do. This sounds like circular logic, but I also can't disagree with it. Not yet anyway. Mainly because I'm not sure this is a circle that can be squared.
While Aftab's makes his points in a secular fashion, where the argument gets really interesting is in the comments to his post. One commenter remarks:
From a theistic point of view, there is no morality other than God's will. Manifesting God's will, as a goal, is not a self-interested one [...]Interpreting God's will is a theological question for the theistically inclined. As a non-believer, I must refrain from comment. Unless I wish to dispute the existence of God but let's not go there. Aftab himself responds with a pertinent philosophical point; in pointing to God's will, the original question is simply rephrased, i.e. "why should I follow God's will?"
But he then also goes on to say:
Atheists cannot explain the mechanism of why morality is an end-in-itself. Therefore the mystical answer is superior in this regard. The mystical answer is superior, but it doesn't contradict the view that morality is an end-in-itself. It embraces it, and takes it a step further. So when an atheist claims that morality is an end-in-itself, he is not saying anything that stands in contradiction to mystical morality.This articulates a view I've long held as an atheist but never felt I was able to articulate. In taking "it a step further", the "mystical answer" does seem to have more explanatory power, hence its apparent superiority. This may be some reason for atheists to give mysticism more serious consideration than is currently fashionable. It also may provide an explanation for atheists as to why religion or mysticism continues to have such appeal, in our supposedly enlightened times.
Posts
Did our discussions last week spawn this post? ;-)
ReplyDeleteI have, for a long time, thought about the consequences to morality of atheism. As you know from a "slightly" different viewpoint, being a believer of sorts. My conclusions have for a long time, I fear, ended in a very neo-Satanic conclusion, that if there is no God, then the individual must be God to himself, and thus, in an optimum act according to a morality that satisfy the "new" God.
Recently, after musing more on Dawkins' outrages against my belief, I've concluded that even for an atheist, religion ultimately has a place, and therefore also morality. The reason being, as we talk about in Durham, given there is no God, religion must have a evolutionary reason, otherwise it would not have persisted for this long in society. Now Dawkins might want to fight it, but if it provides a fundamental function in society he will have a hard time, unless he provides an alternative to normal religion.
Funny to observe how his followers seem to group in a similar fashion to other religious groupings...
This is actually one of the questions which brought me to the idea of trying to research artificial consciousness. I (nearly) have to agree with Karlund about the evolutionary roots; assuming there is no God, there cannot have been sufficient evolutionary pressure to eradicate religious faith - it need not necessarily have been an advantage (although I would argue that it is, if I had the time and space to do so right now!), but it does need to have not been sufficient impediment to survival.
ReplyDeleteOne thing religious faith helps to do is provide a sense of community - it is not necessary for community to exist, but it helps it - because of the idea of morals and/or ethics. It helps govern the behaviour in a community, which gives the community an advantage over those which are less cohesive. It could be argued that 'religion' is the common denominator for individuals separate moralities, in a complex web of interaction where the individual is socialised to conform (more or less) to society's accepted moral standards, and at the same time, those common standards are slowly modified by the interactions between lots of individuals with (slightly, or wildly) differing morals.
Of course, we could also get in to ideas of whether the community has an emergent existence separate from the individuals who make it up - which always sounds in danger of being ever so hippy-new-age-universal-consciousness but which can actually be supported to some degree y considering similarities in the physiology of the brain and the structure of communities. If this is so, then perhaps the gods who dictate moral behaviour are our attempts to describe the 'spirit' of the communities in which we live. Of course, as constituent parts of those communities, it is probable that the emergent community-spirit would be unknowable to us, which makes it awkward from a scientific point of view.
I think there is a mix of meanings in 'moral' implicit in Aftab's reasoning. Is there a set of behaviours which are moral because they enable us to live in communities but which aren't immediately self-serving (such as being faithful to a partner, perhaps), and there is a value-laden concept of 'moral' as being the sort of more spiritual 'better' person?
It was partly inspired by that yes, Karlund! Though the question is always on my mind.
ReplyDeleteThe figure you describe sounds like a psychopath - someone who does not recognise any kind of morality, who is entirely rational and self-interested. I'm sure there's much to be said for the evolution of the psychopath as well as religion and morality.
I believe Dawkins does talk about evolution and religion in The God Delusion but I'm going to have to revisit the book to remember what he says exactly. Bringing evolution into the equation seems to make things very messy to me -- after all, are we entirely determined by evolution or are we able to rationally consider evidence and make decisions based on that?
Ironically, Dawkins says we should do the latter while seeming to put all his faith in the theory of the former. Perhaps that's putting it a bit strongly but it all leads back to the question of the self, which may not objectively exist either being, as I understand it, non-physical.... But this perhaps more of a question for P@!
Thanks for your comment P@ - there's a lot to unpack there. I'd love to know more about what exactly led you to the study of artificial consciousness.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with your two definitions of "moral" in your last paragraph. Being able to live as part of community might be a side-benefit of interpersonal morality but there's no reason why a community should behave morally. Communities can go through periods of internal "cleansing" which some of its members may deem necessary for the community's overall survival. I wouldn't consider this moral. In fact, I'd say interpersonal morality isn't necessarily morality at all (though it may coincide with it) -- I'd say "etiquette" is probably a better term for that. (The story behind the origin of this word is pretty interesting by the way.)
I don't believe wanting to become a "better" or more spiritual person would necessarily make one more moral either. That still seems quite self-serving to me.
Perhaps my definition is too narrow. It's probably obvious that I'm not a moral relativist. I believe that some things must be wrong, or bad, or evil. We can give all sorts of reasons for how something is bad (e.g., we might take a non-rational empathic leap and decide that someone else's suffering is a bad thing, since it would be bad if it was happening to us). But that doesn't tell us why we should do anything about it.
The problem with trying to describe morality in objective or even evolutionary terms is that it seems to completely bypass the question of why one should be moral.
Without a deity, it seems to me that there really isn't a good answer of why one should be moral, except if it fulfills some function for society at large.
ReplyDeleteYes, my first (neo-Satanic) view is very crude/psycopathic, and you must remember that I do have a religious backing, and therefore easier can look at this view, without feeling bad, as it wouldn't have any bearing on myself, but rather a conclusion on what would be if there were no God. Some, even recent (e.g. through German Nazism and Apartheid) alternative moral codes have proven that what seems immoral and even evil, in the case of Nazism, was perfectly acceptable to the morality of that society...
The evolutionary view I present, however, is a way to find a social/functional foundation for morality without a deity. If there is no God, then morality can be (easier) questioned, and the evolutionary aspects can be a way to at least describe why we have them and therefore also tell us why we should follow them.
Otherwise, for me, without Deity we are back to an everyone rationalise for themselves.
BTW - the reason why a "better" or "more spiritual person" would seemingly be more moral, is self-serving/looping almost by definition, as the moral/ethics are, to a large extent, based on the prime-religion in society...
(After a long week of work, so not sure how or if this makes sense... :D )
Thanks for posting further thoughts, Karlund. Yes it may be easier for you to consider the "psychopathic" perspective further -- I do find it troubling but I think it's a view that simply has to be considered.
ReplyDeleteHistory also has some interesting examples to offer as you point out. I'll try to give these consideration in future posts.
And I agree with you on the circular logic of being a "better" or "more spiritual" person. Or at least I think I do; it's been a long week for me too ;-)
Interesting. In an increasingly secular society, then, are we to expect that the 'more spiritual' person will be regarded as being less moral as the society adopts a more atheist stance? I can see some evidence for that, with those who are anti-abortion being seen as abominations by the 'pro-choice' people (and, of course, vice versa, but that is the old position, not the new one). But will those who take time for spirituality, even in the absence of a personal belief in a deity, actually be seen as less moral as society moves away from the morals which it used to exhort?
ReplyDeleteI don't think we can move to a situation where everyone rationalises for themselves - even though the height of morality may be to behave in a particular non-self-serving way even when others do not notice, the nature of moral rules are such that they must be negotiated in some way, surely? And if that is the case, then we will always rationalise these things in collaboration (or blistering argumentation) with other members of society.
Hi P@, that's an interesting question. We must be on the same wavelength because I have been thinking about the idea of secularism. I was going to touch on it in my latest post (on psychopaths) but refrained as I think I need to give it more thought and also because I thought the idea of psychopaths and secular society might be too tenuously related for one compact post! (But perhaps not!)
ReplyDeleteI agree that the nature of survival, of day-to-day living, of politics and society, is such that negotiation of some sort is necessary. But this takes the discussion away from the nature of morality itself and into the nature of pragmatism. As I said before perhaps my view of morality is too narrow, but in order to negotiate we must have something to negotiate with!
So I suppose I think that morals are ideals and that we can't always live by them though we should always strive to (though that itself sounds like a moral, q.v. circular reasoning in the post to which these comments belong!).