Past candidates for such well-considered moral intuitions include the ideas that the most ethical choice is the one that will:

• produce the greatest good (or happiness) for the greatest number – Utilitarianism or
• minimize the total amount of aggregate suffering, or minimize suffering and, secondarily, maximize the total happiness. - Negative-Utilitarianism — Mark S

I'm no expert on morality and take no formal position on how to determine what is right other than an unsophisticated: minimize and/or end suffering position.

But couldn't enslaving 20% of the planet produce 1) the greatest happiness for most amount and minimize total suffering along with maximizing happiness? Such an approach could even be well considered.

How does one morally assess a moral system's methodology?

In the realm of philosophy, one of the fundamental questions that has intrigued humanity for centuries revolves around the pursuit of truth. However, upon closer examination of human behavior, it becomes apparent that our inclination is not primarily towards truth-seeking, but rather towards advantage-seeking. — Raef Kandil

It's true that traditional philosophy seems to have galvanized around 'the good' and 'the true'. I'm not so sure people generally search for truth, as much as they assume that the values in which they are encultured are 'true'. Human behavior seems to be a reflection of the presuppositions people hold.

You can argue advantage seeking is one such presupposition, many people settle on power. Others settle on sex. Advantage seeking seems to lack something - advantage in what way? Does it all in come down to social-Darwinist survival advantages?

But even if you are highlighting 'advantage seeking' as the idea around which all human behavior pivots, it still comes down to what is true or not. We still need to determine (and this is not always easy) does X produce an advantage, true or false? And how do we determine the true nature of an advantage? Humans tend to crave certainty and predictability in order to navigate a dangerous world, which strongly suggests we are likely to need to determine what is true.

:up: Yep. I hold to the idea that gender is flexible. The trans people I know are just trying to live their best lives. I have friends, acquaintances and work colleagues who are 'trans' and like you, I see no reason to demonize and pillory.

Many times I see this fallacy start when people defend themselves by saying, "Most people". Now, sometimes this can be called for, and sometimes it cannot. When and how should this be parsed out?

“X is a moral intuition because most people believe X. — schopenhauer1

Yes, it's an interesting question and apologies for the rambling response. I guess it depends on what we think morality is. I am not convinced that there are moral facts and I generally think that the kind of putative 'moral truths' we believe humans hold - that we ought to protect children, say, are based on our 'shared subjectivity' and enculturation, which form intrinsic foundational values held by most people.

This is no small matter. Humans also tend to share a view that we ought to prevent or minimise suffering. Is this a product of evolution - our status as a social species whose strength and survivability seems to come about though nurturing and cooperation? Some of course see this as evidence of transcendence of some kind.

Seems to me that there are intrinsic or essential values most humans subscribe to and which may now be a part of our nature, and may even be hard wired. But is this old school essentialism? This also seems to be a kind of 'most people' argument. It's also the case that how shared values are instantiated around the world is highly variable.

It seems clear that popularity doesn't make a moral choice right. If it did then mass killing all people aged over 40 because the majority of people are in favor of it would make this justifiable moral action. But at the same time, morality does seem to revolve around what most people think is appropriate behaviour - community standards, etc. What is the difference between a community standard which holds gay people are an abomination, or one which holds children should be protected from harm?

What makes one value seemingly immutable and another transitory or negotiable?

If by "nihilism" you mean 'not believing in anything' — 180 Proof

Yep, this. :up:

:up:

What I reject is someone claiming they're all invalid since, as a whole, they're mutually incompatible. As I have shown, that's fallacious. — public hermit

But that’s not the argument. The argument, which I stated earlier, is that they all make contradictory claims using the same justifications and so there is no way to demonstrate if any are true, or even how we would begin such a process of discernment. So best we move on until there’s a breakthrough. We’ve been waiting for millennia.

Can you point to any religion that does not have some notion of transcendence as central?[/quote]

No.

If the Buddhist tells me they have experienced Nirvana, I can't reject the veracity of that claim simply because it's presumably incompatible with the dogmatic claims of Roman Catholicism. That makes no sense. — public hermit

If a Christian says that their faith tells them that God hates fags and thinks women should stay at home and black people are inferior - do you accept that claim because it is faith based and they experience the truth of these claims? How do you determine what religious claim you will accept? The same Christian religion will also have people who say faith tells them that god loves and endorses gay people and wants women to work and is a feminist. You might say that the same religion 'cancels itself out.'

Religion escapes legitimate critique precisely because, at its best, it deals in experience. You and I might not get it, but we can't say much about it until we have the experience. — public hermit

I don't think experience is a 'get out of jail free' card. Is there anything that can't be justified through claiming experience?

I think the general point is not that all religions are 'rubbish' but that no religion has demonstrated why it or others deals in Truth about reality. Until this happens, why take any of them seriously? I am not saying none of them are true, I am saying none of them are in a position to demonstrate their truths. And all religions justify their diverse 'authenticities' using similar arguments - personal experience, causation, meaning, truth, morality, etc.

I think the issue is is that religions hold to the idea that they are custodians of The Truth and they tell adherents, 'This is how you attain The Truth'. When these accounts are so different that they contradict each other, it is safe to say that religions are unlikely to be in the truth business and can be circumvented. At the very least, it seems impossible to say which one should be taken seriously.

Some vague notion that religions all focus on the idea of oneness or transcendence is so slippery and inexact it would seem to be foundational quicksand.

Your comparison with governments seems a false equivalence, as governments are nominally cooperative and administrative entities and by definition flexible and subject to constant modifications and never deal in transcendence or Truth. And don't forget that anarchists would seek to abolish governments precisely because they are contradictory and there are no best forms of government.

You argue well and write engagingly, but I am unconvinced. No need to take this much further. Thanks for your response.

Let's have more things that bring people together physically around things that people love, good food, contemplative discussions (note debates), experiences, games parties, live events etc. — Christoffer

I don't entirely disagree, but where I live this fills people's time already. There's a veritable cornucopia of lifestyle shit in the west available to fill people's time - writer's festivals, philosophy groups, food festivals, recreation opportunities, etc. Most of it very middle class and aspirational.

I tend to think this is more apropos -

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.
- Blaise Pascal.

As true now as it was generations ago. :wink:

Could you point to what the following definition, from the Oxford definition is lacking?
"Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances."
— Oxford Dictionary — Hallucinogen

It's religious scholars who often argue the subject can't be adequately defined. Take it up with them. I'm not preoccupied with definitions, I'm more interested in usage. No doubt there are many definitions of religion but they lack or distort the idea. I always liked Ambrose Bierce's definition:

“Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.”

Interesting. What you say may be true although I can't say I personally want to be involved in community type rituals, contemplation, traditions or meditation. Sounds awful. But it takes all sorts. :wink:

Your response - and others have proffered similar ideas to yours - notably the prominent atheists, Sam Harris and Alain de Botton - leads me to some questions:

Do we have evidence that people were less stressed or happier, or more connected to what matters a hundred, two hundred years ago, when religion still had power in the west? I knew three of my grandparents pretty well. They were born in the late 1800s. They did not seem to think so.

Is there any compelling demonstration that people's lives are better with ritual and contemplation? How would we demonstrate this?

Would lives not be generally enhanced if people just slowed down the pace and stopped social media and eating shit? (Such dreams are possibly only a middle class option.) Is it perhaps the case that meditation's benefits are down to the person not being at McDonald's, swiping away on their phone, or similar?

I think that one part of avoiding Nietzsche's nihilistic hell is to find a way to have rituals and traditions in a non-religious world. — Christoffer

I'd be interested to learn who is actually experiencing Nietzsche's nihilistic hell. I work in the area of mental ill health and drug and alcohol services and even though I meet a lot of people experiencing suicidal ideation, generally they are not nihilists. Ususally they are people dealing with psychological impact of trauma or a significant situational difficulty.

Nihilism seems moderately rare, although it seems to pop up frequently in overwrought internet conversations. On the whole, connection to people seems a better guarantee of enhanced mental health and happiness from what I've seen. This could be found though sport, a book group, at church or at an atheist symposium.

I don't think we get to Truth and at best we create responses that allow us to intervene in the world to greater or lesser extents. Our relationship with what we call reality seems to be a constructionistic one. Humans are fixated with metanarratives (truth, purpose, transcendence) perhaps to keep us psychologically safe. Can we meddle with consciousness and tap into something above and beyond ourselves? I doubt it and how would it be demonstrated? If Plato's Cave is a salient allegory, what are we to make of the shadows cast upon the wall of our minds by 'spiritual' experiences?

Dawkins would denigrate religion as being something like a mind-parasite. — Wayfarer

Don't remember now if I have read any of his stuff (apart from the odd essay and paper) but I have seen some interviews.

But if you go into it, you discover it's really a very difficult path to actually follow. Not that people can't follow it, but there's a lot of room for error and endless scope for self-delusion — Wayfarer

Good point.

There's another level of similarity, though, between the two traditions, which is that the philosophical schools that early Christianity absorbed, such as neoplatonism, and also some of the gnostic sects adjacent to Christianity, likewise taught austere philosophical and contemplative practices with a view to acheiving divine union — Wayfarer

I am familiar with this and spent some time with Gnositcs.

I've also watched some lectures by John Vervaeke on Neoplatonism and the Western tradition. I have a rudimentary grasp of its centrality.

The point being, the realisation of higher planes of being, which permeates all of those forms of culture, is 'evidential', in the sense that for those who practice within those cultures, there is said to be the attainment of insight (jñāna or gnosis). Whereas in our technocratic age (and here on this forum) all of that is stereotyped under the umbrella of mere belief. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think this is a key insight. I obviously sit on the technocratic end of this, but I am interested in the 'other side' as it were. Although these days I might be less likely to use inflammatory language like 'mere belief' although it might depend upon my mood.

Although he would make an exception for evolutionary biology of course. — Wayfarer

Yes. And science in general. And aesthetics - he is big on Bach. And the notion of truth. The intelligibility of a natural world. He is riddled with old school metanarrative thinking.

Obviously, people can believe in something transcendent without belonging to a religion, without knowing anything about any religion. I suppose you would call that a personal religion? — praxis

I wonder too what counts as transcendence? Is intelligibility itself transcendent? Are the logical axioms? Maths? Morality? Do we go by Kant, Aristotle or Wittgenstein on this one?

Yeah Richard Dawkins would say that. — Wayfarer

Well, no - you may have misunderstood me. Dawkins believes staunchly in science and progress - surely cases of metanarratives in action?

That's nice - thanks for taking the trouble.

That they're parasitic on religion? — Wayfarer

Or is the 'parasite' the human urge to make and hold foundational metanarratives, from religion to aesthetics, literature to science - which is where I tend to go with this. There's safety and predictability in putative certainty.

Nice. There are forms of Communism - eg Stalinism - that seem to believe in transcendence - the inevitability of historical forces and the leader as a numinous figure of infallibility. Any thoughts on this?

Brings back memories - I spent much of the 1980's with the theosophists and lived in their Melbourne (Russell Street) bookshop and library. I blame Alan Watts and Krishnamurti who ignited my curiosity.

Interesting. I think I agree. Can you say some more?

People have tried to define religion - religious scholar Karen Armstrong writes about this - there's no one definition, or bespoke definition, that covers off on what religion is, probably because the subject itself is so multifactorial and diverse. Reducing it to a few motherhood statements is likely to do it a disservice.

Their view seems to amount to thinking that there can be no common framework that would provide the pathway of reasoning to a "correct" answer with regards to religious questions. In other words that religious disputes cannot be solved because there's no reliable source of reason for solving them? It seems to be a view a lot of atheists and agnostics have. — Hallucinogen

As an atheist, I have some sympathy for this view. There is also a position called ignosticism which says that the concept of god's and goddesses are meaningless since there are no coherent or unambiguous definitions. I also have sympathy for this. Gods may be seen as either as a kind of magic man, or as a benign, unknowable, essentially amorphous 'energy' or force. It does seem incoherent.

Obviously there are venerable and comprehensive traditions of syncretism and perennialism - which seek to find (often rather crudely) common themes and values of religions, or seek to blend traditions in the hope of arriving at an overarching truth - but it's worth remembering that since religion can't really be defined in the first place ( a discussion elsewhere on the forum), this kind of enterprise might be seen to be precarious, muddled and insecure.

By all means question or be sceptical of idea such as god, but to knock it down altogether is to remain ever in infancy. — invicta

Hmm, look above I also wrote this:

Like anything human, it may be awful and great. — Tom Storm

And whilst that may be true of any religion it could also be true of atheists in their every day beliefs about the world. — invicta

I have no special fondness for atheists. Especially those who are libertarians or scientistic thinkers. Or worse, occultists...

But when I look at what is happening in America with Trump and evangelical white nationalists, and in India with Modi and Hindu nationalists and Saudi Arabia with Wahhabi nationalists and Myanmar and its extreme Buddhist nationalists and... etc, etc. This is no small thing. And sure, the religion of Communism as instantiated in China sucks too. You're right, I'm intolerant about these things.

To our surprise, the lecturer was able to demonstrate that every definition was incomplete or inaccurate. We couldn't, in the end, come up with a definition. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Karen Armstrong has written compellingly about this. Religion is one of those things that we struggle to define, but we know it when we see it. Like anything human, it may be awful and great. For years I felt slightly ashamed for my bias against religion until I met a couple of Catholic priests, one of them is now friend. He used to say - 'Religion is all too frequently deficient - people use relgion as a place to hide.'

Most of my criticism of religion I found in Krishnamurti, Fr Richard Rohr and Bishop Shelby Spong - all robust critics of the more popular expressions of faith. I think it was Christian thinker David Bentley Hart who said that Evangelicalism is not really Christianity, it is type of capitalist cult.

I don't think there is a 'spiritual' or theistic urge specifically which people share that explains the persistence of religions, I think it's just the urge to have metanarratives which are transcendence as foundational story. Which is why in some moods I would put Communism and Scientism down as expressions of religion. I don't think they are sublimated or distorted transcendence; they are the real deal, the 'urge' incarnate.

I have read Sam Harris and was disappointed. — Mark S

Thanks. I was just curious. I was unable to get though it as it's quite dull.

Your point in the essay:

This contradicts Sam Harris’ claim that, as a matter of science, the goal of moral behavior is fixed as well-being.

Is this what Harris is arguing? I thought he was saying that wellbeing is generally what morality amounts to (no matter what the source) and this might be a better goal overall than pleasing gods? Looks to me like altruistic cooperation strategies are one potential expression of wellbeing in action. Cooperation being a stepping stone to a goal (wellbeing or flourishing), not the goal itself.

A closed loop does not answer Aristotle's quest for an explanation of Causation itself. Note that in the Ouroboros symbol, the snake that seems to be recreating itself, actually has a head and tail, a beginning and end. A true infinite loop would have no head or tail. — Gnomon

That's actually a good point I have sometimes mused over. Perhaps the symbol is eternity as devourer of itself.

Thanks Mark, that is interesting. I came on here with a similar but less scholarly goal. I was reasonably curious where morality sat in philosophy these days (as well as other subjects). Mostly I am interested to hear what others think and why. I stupidly present some of my own beliefs/judgements from time to time, which is fun, but no doubt superfluous to requirements.

That I can make a small contribution to making moral philosophy more culturally useful based on understanding human morality’s function is solving cooperation problems. — Mark S

I'm not sure I endorse this thinking for reasons others have written, but best of luck hashing something out. I wonder if you need to drill down and examine more closely your presuppositions of well informed and rational. Perhaps you haven't appreciated the extent to which this is perspectival?

Due to our evolutionary origins, we share some needs and preferences that are generated by our genes. To the extent we share genes, we share at least some needs and preferences. Assumed shared needs and preferences are the basis of the ideas that the goals of moral behavior should be increasing "well-being" or flourishing. — Mark S

I get where you are coming from. I am less convinced in a rational morality which can be rolled out consistently the way a factory manufactures a car. I'll continue to watch from the sidelines, but I am not a philosopher.

Have you read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape, I forget if you have or not.

There’s nothing naive about those values, calling them naive with expanding on why strikes me as unjustifed judgment. — invicta

I didn't say the values were naïve, I said they are motherhood statements that almost all believers, no matter how intolerant and dreadful, profess to share.

It seems naïve to assume that you putting them here in any way clarifies things since these values are interpreted differently by all and sundry.

On what grounds do you disagree with these moral teachings irrespective of a creator God? — invicta

I'm not talking about morality - that's a separate matter. I'm talking about the difference between what people say and how they are.

Perhaps this example will assist. Some years back I spent time with some South Africans who were supporters of apartheid. Turns out they were also devout Christians. Over the course of a meal it was clear they professed compassion, forgiveness, humility, tolerance and love yet simultaneously they denigrated black people and spoke of their contempt for homosexuals and women who are not homemakers. They supported capital punishment for dug users and revered 'white blood'. Their faith and the Bible 'told' them these where core moral values from God. Needless to say we can easily find Christians who are in opposition to these positions.

I'd be interested briefly to understand why you are exploring this subject? Are you hoping to change how humans understand morality, or is this an academic exercise, a hobby?

In other words, what's your end game?

Thanks. My intuition sides with Rouse on this matter. I have held a version of this notion since I was quite young.

Sure if you disagree agree against the precepts of humility, compassion, kindness and the discouragement of vanity and revenge. If your values as an atheist are superior to these then by all means keep them to yourself. — invicta

This seems naive. Firstly, it goes to my point that most, if not all theists, would class themsleves as the good guys - with a series of similar motherhood statements you've provided - compassion, humility etc. I heard a similar list recently from a Muslim taxi driver.

As I said, believers of any stripe ususally think they have the right interpretation, not realising the bedrock of subjectivity that underpins their faith.

Secondly, atheism is the answer to a single question - whether you are convinced a god exists. Atheism isn't a system. There are atheists who are libertarians or Marxists, some even believe in reincarnation and astrology. What you may be thinking of, perhaps, is secular humanism which also includes the sorts of homilies you have described above.

The point with morality is not what people say they value and do, it is what they actually value and do.

So handpicked values, and I only pick the best — invicta

That's what they all say.

No, I beat stupid people all the time, especially at logic and chess. — invicta

Sounds like winning is important to you. I'm too stupid to understand chess or logic. A woman tried to teach me chess, but I found it insufferably boring as I do all games.

I've been an atheist since I was young. I have a number of theist friends, but some dislike religion as much or more than I. What I have learned about belief is that there is no such thing as a Christian or a Hindu as such. Believers tend to embody a version of a faith they think is correct. It is often at odds with other believer's versions of the same faith. And all of them believe they have the correct interpretation. Lots of dogma and certainty going in this space and yet no way to demonstrate which version is correct.

How would you would describe your variety of Christianity? Why does it matter to you?

So what do you do? — invicta

About stupidity? I think stupidity is an unwinnable war.

I just accept stupidity as one of those fecund qualities humans are naturally endowed with. What are the real world consequences you see - climate change, the rise of religious nationalism, teen suicide rates - or do you hold to more of a conservative worldview?

Stupid is dismissively concluding crap such as god’s existence or not existence. Tom Storm — invicta

Well, many atheists don't conclude there is no god. I don't. I simply say I am not convinced. I think we've had this discussion.

I've also noticed that many theists are against religion and favour science, so the debate is a lot more nuanced than some people think.

Ok. But what counts as stupid? If we are able to identify stupidity then are we saying we are not stupid - we are above it in some way, no?

I’m angry at stupidity because it leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to evil. — invicta

The stupidity of religious people and atheists? Or are only atheists stupid?