What is morality?

[gatorboymike]

Religionists often say that their particular god is the author of morality, that it not only decides what is good, but that it is good personified and everything it does is good, even if what it does would be considered evil by human standards. Thus, morality is acting, speaking, thinking and living in a way consistent with what their particular scripture says that their particular god wants, because your personal morality comes from god.

For those of us who don't believe in gods, this definition of morality is of course invalid. Extremist Christians and Muslims often slander members of other religions and atheists by saying it's impossible for anyone to be good who doesn't believe in their particular god. They also contend that their religion is the only thing keeping all of society from breaking down into a manical orgy of murder, rape and theft. Well, for those people, I have a question.

Suppose that tomorrow, humanity received indisputable, undeniable proof that your religion was wrong and your god didn't exist. Possibly a visit by aliens who were able to show that they had visited earth in the past posing as gods, and it was they who inspired all the world's major religions, or an archaeological discovery of a secret journal kept by your prophet/founder/whatever wherein he admits he made the whole thing up. If this happened, would you...

A. Deny the evidence and continue insisting on the validity of your god and your religion
B. Accept the evidence and turn into a violent maniac committing horrible crimes left and right
C. Accept the evidence and continue to be a peaceful, nonviolent person
D. Something else

If you choose A, then you necessarily admit that reality doesn't matter to you, because you think there is some kind of super-reality underlying reality wherein your religion is right even though your religion is wrong in reality, and there can be no communication with you whatsoever. If you choose B, then you necessarily admit that each and every single act of goodness and kindness you have ever done in your entire life (and furthermore, every time you did NOT commit an act of violence or destruction) was nothing more than a selfish attempt to please your god, and that you would have been perfectly happy to do terrible things left and right, and you only did not do so out of fear of repercussions from your god. In this case, you would be admitting that you have no personal morality. If you choose C, then you necessarily admit that not believing in god would not turn you into a violent maniac or worsen your behavior in any way. In this case, you would be admitting that your personal morality never came from god in the first place.

Personally, I define morality as putting collective self-interest before individual self-interest, or putting individual self-interest in line with collective self-interest. Where does my morality come from, if not from a god? From the study of objectivism and rational self-interest, game theory (especially the Nash equilibrium), and biological evolution. We evolved from animals who lived, traveled and hunted in packs. For them, survival depended on all the individuals acting in the collective's common interest. An overly selfish individual who acted solely in its best interest without contributing to the collective, or even acting against it, would be kicked out. These individuals banished from the packs were far more likely to die on their own, and therefore they would not reproduce to pass on their characteristics to the next generation...in evolutionary terms, "selected against."

A common religious argument against using self-interest as a metric for morality is, "What's stopping you from running around killing people?" Aside from being highly insulting to assume that somebody is naturally interested in mass murder, it's also a failure to grasp the concept. Anyone who ran around killing people would face dire legal consequences, which it is in anyone's best interest to avoid. If you want something your neighbor owns, you could kill him and steal it, but then you'd face legal consequences. This is irrational self-interest. Or you could go and buy one of your own. This is rational self-interest (with certain assumptions, such as that you can afford it, and that it would be as beneficial to you as it is to your neighbor).

Whenever someone chooses to become part of a collective (a nation, a church, a university, a club, etc.), they explicitly and implicitly agree to abide by the regulations that collective sets down for its members, in exchange for the benefits the collective provides for its members. In the case of national identity, one agrees to abide by the laws of the nation in exchange for citizenship, civil rights and the opportunity to find or create employment within that nation. Those who violate the laws of the nation they live in forfeit the benefits afforded to its members, which is against personal self-interest. Thus, it is most often within one's personal self-interest to act in the collective's self-interest. Anyone who doesn't feel like abiding by the laws of any nation can go find a deserted island somewhere where they can create their own society. But if the society you create is one where it's considered OK to run around murdering whoever you want, understand that nobody else will want to join your society.

And one more thing: if you're the kind of person who assumes it's in everyone else's interest to run around committing murder, if you say you just don't see how anyone could not run around committing murder if they don't believe in your god, that says more about you than it does about anyone else. And if you think your religion invented the idea that murder, rape and theft are bad, you are sorely mistaken.

[WilyWestbrook0]

Personally, I define morality as putting collective self-interest before individual self-interest, or putting individual self-interest in line with collective self-interest.

I agree. I think keeping selfishness in line so that your actions don't harm other people is the core concept underlying essentially all morality.

The things almost universally regarded as immoral are instances where a person, or groups of people, impose will on another party and hurt the party in the process: murder, rape, etc.

I do think the Golden Rule works in concept and practice as it keeps the feelings of other people in mind. No sane human being enjoys being stabbed, shot, etc., so I would never want to do the same unless in self defense against the same kind of action. In essence, if you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Actions reveal a person's morality over time. I've seen both religious and skeptical scientific types with incredibly low morality indices who like to instigate conflict, which indicates a clear interpersonal deficit. Interpersonal abilities are factors independent of claimed spiritual affiliation and alleged intelligence quotient, so I really don't care what people insist about themselves until they indicate what they are like in the long term.

[goeyj]

If there were the possibility of ever having evidence that God does not exist (which won't happen), I would probably be closest to C.
Most of my "moral standards" are derived from scripture. If that were falsified I would not go on a binge of drugs, sex and murder, but I would not have the accountablity that was in place before. I believe my moral standards would drop a bit because if we are not here to please God, we are here to please ourselves.
You are right that morality is not derived from a "religion", but, I believe, instilled by a creator. We all are affected by the idea of morality, not just "religous" people. It is something that is instilled in us, but can also be ignored or unlearned.

[gatorboymike]

There does not seem to be an objective reason for why we are here, so everyone has the right to create their own "meaning of life" for themselves. If you want to subscribe to a religion that tells you the meaning of life is X, that's your choice. If you want to live a purely selfish and hedonistic lifestyle ("we are here to please ourselves"), that's also your choice, as long as you're not harming anyone else in the process.

I don't think morality comes from a creator because everyone's sense of morality is different. Nobody thinks of themself as the bad guy, even if they are doing something a large percentage of the world considers to be bad, and people pursuing diametrically opposed lifestyles all claim divine instruction. Unless the creator decided to put different ideas in everyone's head and set us all against each other, that doesn't seem likely to me.

[Instanton]

If there were the possibility of ever having evidence that God does not exist (which won't happen), I would probably be closest to C.
Most of my "moral standards" are derived from scripture. If that were falsified I would not go on a binge of drugs, sex and murder, but I would not have the accountablity that was in place before. I believe my moral standards would drop a bit because if we are not here to please God, we are here to please ourselves.
You are right that morality is not derived from a "religion", but, I believe, instilled by a creator. We all are affected by the idea of morality, not just "religous" people. It is something that is instilled in us, but can also be ignored or unlearned.

What makes you say that? I understand the concept of how you would come to that conclusion but I don't see why it's exclusive? I'm assuming - of course - that you're saying 'X then Y?


I myself believe in [a] god but do not prescribe to a form of absolutism/moral realism/etc.... Normatively speaking, I have adopted a reformation of the Social Contract theory and Virtual Ethics. Meta-Ethics, on the other hand, Contextualism (very iffy right now, though).