4 ms·
ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them It's a pretty big claim that ethics has "no reason but your belief in it". There are plenty of l
by mehwoot 8y ago
ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them
It's a pretty big claim that ethics has "no reason but your belief in it". There are plenty of logical reasons why one would want to behave ethically, even self interest, beyond you simply believing it.
- carlmr 8y agoThat self interest is usually rooted in how society would react to your behavior. So in the end if it's society basing the idea that something is immoral on religion, you're still indirectly basing it on religion.
- JohnStrangeII 8y agoI don't want to defend a naturalistic perspective on morals, which is unfortunately popular nowadays and leads to a lot of immorality, but there are definitely bio-logical reasons for not killing others in your group. Humans are altruistic, group-based apes whose survival depends on collaboration. Originally, this might have been small groups only. Today society is based on the collaboration between (nearly all) nations, because modern technology and labour division would break down entirely within about six weeks without massive global trade and shipping. There are also some moral principles that follow directly from factual matters, provided some very basic first assumptions are made. Theories of just resource distribution and social justice are of that kind. The principles that get things going are very basic, e.g. reciprocity, generality of moral statements, and fairness in the sense of trade/bargaining/exchange fairness get you very far. It is a myth that religion provides values, as it can be shown very easily by historical comparison that it never has. The values defended by major religions such as Christianity and Islam have changed over the centuries again and again. Modern Christian values, for instance, mostly come from the enlightenment movement and were not endorsed at all earlier. (Christianity is just an example, AFAIK this is true for all religions.) Churches and 'holy men' have always had a vested interest in selling their values as a product of their religion, though, and they are very good at selling this false story to the public.
- catawbasam 8y agoWat? "Thou shalt not kill" (or more accurately "Thou shalt not murder") has been there since the get-go in both Judaism and Christianity.
- JohnStrangeII 8y agoSure, but there is no prohibition against genocide, for instance.
- trashtester 8y agoI'm curious: What "first assumptions" do refer to as "very basic"? Also, for the final paragraph: Your theory of religion seems to be based on intelligent design. I think it is more accurate (and less prone to conspiracy theories) to think of the evolution of religious memes in darwinist terms of "natural" selection.
- JohnStrangeII 8y agoThe Principle of Reciprocity, the No Harm Principle, and Democratic Power Division.
- brobdingnagians 8y agoI think one of the difficulties here is that you may have a logical reason for cooperation leading to more pleasant life or increase production in a civilized society, etc. but when it comes down to being in a gulag, you often need stronger reasons for morality than a belief that it will make your life more pleasant. The short term consequences of an action (e.g. stealing) may seem more pleasant [satiation of hunger], the long term consequences may seem to be unlikely to occur [because of imminent death]. Religion provides much stronger reasons for living in a certain way (belief in afterlife, that justice ultimately prevails regardless, consequences of character you've developer for eternity, and that human life is sacred and valuable beyond the grave, etc.). Reasons that neither death nor deprivation can change.
- BadThink6655321 8y agoYou may have a chain of logic, but what is the first link in the chain anchored to? It’s not too hard to show that this first link is anchored in belief.