cardw

[SivartM]

I wanted to send you a PM but it says your box is full. So I hope you don't mind answering my question publicly. I'm not interested in starting an argument (this thread can be locked after you reply, if you want), but I do want your perspective as an agnostic. So... I hope you won't mind replying.

In one of my classes we're studying different worldviews. I think that you would identify as a naturalist; is that correct? I was wondering what basis naturalists have for moral values (right and wrong, etc.). It seems to me as if there ought to be one but of course everyone in my class and the book we're studying says there isn't. I think you've addressed this before, so I hope you won't mind answering again.

[SivartM]

I think you're online now but don't know if you saw this...

[cardw]

I wanted to send you a PM but it says your box is full. So I hope you don't mind answering my question publicly. I'm not interested in starting an argument (this thread can be locked after you reply, if you want), but I do want your perspective as an agnostic. So... I hope you won't mind replying.

In one of my classes we're studying different worldviews. I think that you would identify as a naturalist; is that correct? I was wondering what basis naturalists have for moral values (right and wrong, etc.). It seems to me as if there ought to be one but of course everyone in my class and the book we're studying says there isn't. I think you've addressed this before, so I hope you won't mind answering again.

This sounds very interesting. You'll have to outline the specifics like your definition of naturalism and moral, etc. etc.

I think there are a number of rational arguments for ethics. I think using the ideas of right and wrong need to be defined pretty closely to make it rational. I like the word ethical more than moral since morality implies an authoritarian basis.

Many of these debates become about definitions and semantics. So the terms have to be clear.

[Bravus]

I don't want to dive in and take over, since the question was specifically asked to Rich, but I think it's an interesting discussion and I hope it continues.

And before people start, yes, I think it's possible to attempt to dismantle Christians' ignorance about other possible ways of viewing the world - or, in SivartM's case, to answer their genuine questions - without adopting or advocating those world views!

[Bravus]

So, maybe a few definitions of terms, which Sivart and Rich can respond to:

naturalist - person who believes that everything in the world can be explained in natural terms, in terms of the laws of science, without supernatural involvement

[cardw]

So, maybe a few definitions of terms, which Sivart and Rich can respond to:

naturalist - person who believes that everything in the world can be explained in natural terms, in terms of the laws of science, without supernatural involvement

If we are in a class and have to define naturalist we could use this definition, but I don't think anyone is a pure naturalist. I think definitions like this are useful for the discussion of philosophy which needs very black and white definitions.

The problem naturalism has with this definition is how does it explain love, empathy, and beauty? These concepts need a bridge before they can enter into the discussion of the natural world. And often this bridge is simply an assumption or belief. Pragmatically they could be considered useful assumptions, but in the world of naturalism they would be much like the claim of a miracle.

What naturalism does give us is it requires us to see if there is a rational explanation for things before we invoke the claim that it's a miracle. It has brought us modern science and prevents us from giving up on seemingly miraculous aspects of our universe and motivates us to find deeper answers.

If I were a pure naturalist I would assume that this method of inquiry could work infinitely. And it might in the natural world. The problem with this is I doubt if our consciousness lives in a world based on a binary particle or state. I have found no reason to believe that consciousness is a product of nature.

[Bravus]

Hmm... that answer kind of almost avoids the original question. You seem to be pronouncing agnosticism (of a strong sort) about the origins of consciousness. Since ethics arise from consciousness, does that mean that they, too, arise from somewhere unexplainable? Or are there reasonable, plausible evolutionary explanations, for example?

I think the subtext of the original question is something like 'without a superhuman being to dictate and guarantee ethics, can there be ethics at all?' My reading is that that's not what SivartM is saying, but it is what his course and textbook are at least strongly implying.

[cardw]

Hmm... that answer kind of almost avoids the original question. You seem to be pronouncing agnosticism (of a strong sort) about the origins of consciousness. Since ethics arise from consciousness, does that mean that they, too, arise from somewhere unexplainable? Or are there reasonable, plausible evolutionary explanations, for example?

[John317]

...I was wondering what basis naturalists have for moral values (right and wrong, etc.). It seems to me as if there ought to be one but of course everyone in my class and the book we're studying says there isn't.

Are you saying the book and people in your class are claiming that naturalists don't have any moral values? Or do you mean they don't believe naturalists can have absolute moral or ethical values?

I think it's obvious that naturalists, such as agnostics or atheists, can and do have moral values. The questions are: (1) what are they, (2) what are their origins, (3) do they change according to circumstances, or are they absolutes, and (4) are they objectively true values or are they strictly subjective values?

[SivartM]

naturalist - person who believes that everything in the world can be explained in natural terms, in terms of the laws of science, without supernatural involvement

[Bravus]

Yeah, I was gonna say 'basis' seemed to be the key word in the opening post.

Of course, this assumes that values and ethics are the kind of thing that can *have* a basis, or need one...

[fccool]

Quote:

(1) what are they

(2) what are their origins

(3) do they change according to circumstances, or are they absolutes, and

(4) are they objectively true values or are they strictly subjective values?

These are all good questions that should be understood not merely from standpoint of agnosticism. I think that agnostic values and morals seem to serve a necessary pragmatic function.

The real question is whether these values were collectively developed by us over time through observation, or do these originate from outside of ourselves?

I think there might be the case for each view. Yet, I think that we can make an epistemological argument from tradition, while observing lack of certain values in cannibalistic tribes for example. Their ethics is traditional, thus it takes something quite significant to break the paradigm of traditional violence.

I don't think there is a case for absolutist ethics. The only absolute understanding of morality of God that religion paints is in fact "God is always correct". Of itself, such reasoning is relative, and it's relativism finds ample evidence in Biblical narrative.

I.E. It would be wrong for us to tell someone to go and sacrifice somebody's son to test loyalty, and then stop them at the last moment. That would be considered immoral, yet on God level we dismiss such thinking.

Likewise, the idea that human death is wrong because all of us created in God's image, yet God does not have problem with responding death for death, because justice seems to have a greater purpose than life.

It seemingly be more honest to observe that God does evil out of necessity that seems to fit His overall purpose, instead of claiming that God does not do evil, and that killing is not inherently evil. Perhaps, someday I will get the answer to this question, but I'm still questioning as to why one needs to be punished by death for picking up sticks, which would be morally wrong thing to do on that particular day back then, but is not a morally wrong thing to do today?

And, if it's still morally wrong act to commit today, why would it be immoral for us to collectively stone people who break the Sabbath?

If you don't find this to be a sample of moral relativism, then how so?

[John317]

Are you saying the book and people in your class are claiming that naturalists don't have any moral values? Or do you mean they don't believe naturalists can have absolute moral or ethical values?

Originally Posted By: SivartM

No, they are saying that naturalists don't have any basis for moral values.

OK, but are they also saying that naturalists simply have no moral or ethical values?

But if the students concede that naturalists have moral values, where do the students believe those values come from?

Have you read or heard of Nietzsche's book, Genealogy of Morals? He had a lot to say about moral values apart from God. In fact, he was unquestionably the most influential thinker on this topic throughout the 20th century. Between about 1872-1889, he probably said just about everything there is to say about it. He analyzes moral values from the viewpoint of the atheist.

Here's a link to a brief synopsis of Genealogy of Morals:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/nietzsche/section4.rhtml

A link about his life's work and philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

I'm not suggesting that the discussion be devoted to Nietzsche but only pointing to him as an example of someone who thought and wrote a great deal about the topic of values in a world without God. For anyone really interested in values, they can't do better than become familiar with Nietzsche's writings.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

naturalist - person who believes that everything in the world can be explained in natural terms, in terms of the laws of science, without supernatural involvement

Yes, I can agree with that definition.

No, they are saying that naturalists don't have any basis for moral values.

If I was to explore the basis for ethics or moral values I would say that we would have to move past observations of individual concerns. A naturalist origin of laws regarding moral behavior are those formed by early civilizations. It became apparent that if people wanted to live together with a reasonable assurance of safety one had to have some laws regarding individual behavior.

And on a larger scale I think a smarter group began to realize that if they wanted to build an empire they had to form laws regarding the operation of that empire. They also had to create motivations for armies to fight beyond simply survival or having a common enemy. Thus the culture of military honor, excellence, loyalty and for the populace some form of religion. All of these are value systems.

These are naturalistic formations of values based on a very unmeasurable awareness of human nature by those who made the rules. I think we are so far removed from the early formation of value that we just accept that it is a part of our reality.

[Bravus]

It's actually not that hard to account for the origin of most common human ethical principles from an evolutionary perspective, particularly if we include memetic as well as genetic evolution (i.e. ideas are selected for their survival value in a similar way as physical traits).

Are individuals in a society more likely to live long enough to breed if murder is common or rare?

Thou shalt not kill

In a society too large to hold all property in common, is (gene-losing) violence more or less likely if property is respected?

Thou shalt not steal

Given the absurdly long period for which our young are helpless and unable to survive independently after they are born, are people likely to live long enough to breed if families are stable or unstable?

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Likewise for incest taboos, food laws and so on...

There are massive literatures on ethics, and almost none of them would make the claim that ethics must be founded 'outside' humanity to be valid. In their effects on human life, all of these ethics remain valid just from a pragmatic perspective.

[abelisle]

Doesn't E.O. Wilson speak about this to some degree in his books on sociobiology?

[cardw]

Have you read or heard of Nietzsche's book, Genealogy of Morals? He had a lot to say about moral values apart from God. In fact, he was unquestionably the most influential thinker on this topic throughout the 20th century. Between about 1872-1889, he probably said just about everything there is to say about it. He analyzes moral values from the viewpoint of the atheist.

Here's a link to a brief synopsis of Genealogy of Morals:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/nietzsche/section4.rhtml

A link about his life's work and philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

I'm not suggesting that the discussion be devoted to Nietzsche but only pointing to him as an example of someone who thought and wrote a great deal about the topic of values in a world without God. For anyone really interested in values, they can't do better than become familiar with Nietzsche's writings.