A buddhist thinker likens the passage of spirit from one form to the next like the transmission of fire between two pieces of wood… All things being equal, would you rather trust the ethic of someone whose actions are premised around the belief that, when you're dead you're gone. Or someone who believes in the idea of an ongoing responsibility for deeds? — Pantagruel

China has the largest buddhist population in the world, but this doesn’t seem to have prevented them from also being the world’s highest emitter of carbon, surpassing the U.S. So much for ongoing responsibility for deeds.

China has the largest buddhist population in the world, but this doesn’t seem to have prevented them from also being the world’s highest emitter of carbon, surpassing the U.S. So much for ongoing responsibility for deeds. — Joshs

That doesn't follow the main point of OP, and China is not the main Buddhist country in the world. It is Cambodia, with 15.7M of Buddhists, which makes 96.8% of the population Buddhist. While in China there is just around 18 %, which is a lot for their population, but not as much as in Cambodia if we compare it with the percentage of active Buddhist believers.

And yes, of course, I will root for a belief which shows a kind of responsibility for the soul, rather than 'commune' and redemption for just enter into heaven. The latter seems business to me.

I think the important part you highlight is that we ought to take stewardship for future generations. I can imagine a Transcendentalist who doesn't care about the future because we reap our benefits in heaven, and a materialist who does because they realize that those are their family members and they are committed to family.

But the important part is whether or not they believe they are responsible for the future or not. The metaphysics is just a dressing to that.

I can imagine a Transcendentalist who doesn't care about the future because we reap our benefits in heaven, and a materialist who does because they realize that those are their family members and they are committed to family. — Moliere

Yes, there are nuances and flavours, but I do believe the essence of the reasoning holds. I agree, if you see your offspring as a continuation. I'd argue that is a form of transcendentalism. I think the only form of transcendentalism that would be responsibility-immune would be some kind of crazy-Calvinistic notion that salvation is pre-ordained. If you keep it simple, to the belief in an "ongoing," it is hard to escape the burdens and benefits of accepting full responsibility for the ultimate consequences of your behaviours.

China has the largest buddhist population in the world, but this doesn’t seem to have prevented them from also being the world’s highest emitter of carbon, surpassing the U.S. So much for ongoing responsibility for deeds. — Joshs

I'm thinking more of the propagation of values at and through the level of individual interaction. The translation of that core credibility into the social arena is another issue. Western politics is rife with examples of individuals feigning alignment with communities of transcendental values only to promote their own basest interests.

China has the largest buddhist population in the world, but this doesn’t seem to have prevented them from also being the world’s highest emitter of carbon, surpassing the U.S. — Joshs

With only 4 times the population! Greedy beggars!

All things being equal, would you rather trust the ethic of someone whose actions are premised around the belief that, when you're dead you're gone. Or someone who believes in the idea of an ongoing responsibility for deeds? — Pantagruel

Most likely I’d trust the person who makes no appeals to unknown worlds or powers and takes seriously the status of an ongoing physical world. Perhaps this comes from hours spent arguing with Christians who say climate change either isn’t real or doesn’t matter because God has it all under control. Generally the people who you have described as ‘when you’re dead, you’re gone’ hold a concomitant belief - ‘this is the only world there is so we must take care of it.’ But no doubt there are outliers in all camps.

I can imagine a Transcendentalist who doesn't care about the future because we reap our benefits in heaven, and a materialist who does because they realize that those are their family members and they are committed to family.

But the important part is whether or not they believe they are responsible for the future or not. The metaphysics is just a dressing to that. — Moliere

:up:

The materialists/naturalists I've known tend to have a reverence for life and align themselves with conservation and environmental causes on the basis that life is to be preserved and the conditions of life should be improved for future generations.

I think what's being put to us in the OP is a variation of a classic (and limited) Christian apologist's question - what reason do you secular humanists have to be morally good if there is no God? The polemical argument being that if this life is all there is, why would we care what happens to us or the environment? It's curious to me that there are people who think nothing matters if there is no transcendental realm. I don't think I have ever met a materialist/physicalist/naturalist holding that position.

Most likely I’d trust the person who makes no appeals to unknown worlds or powers and takes seriously the status of an ongoing physical world. Perhaps this comes from hours spent arguing with Christians who say climate change either isn’t real or doesn’t matter because God has it all under control. Generally the people who you have described as ‘when you’re dead, you’re gone’ hold a concomitant belief - ‘this is the only world there is so we must take care of it.’ But no doubt there are outliers in all camps. — Tom Storm

I didn't really suggest it was an appeal. Rather, an underlying factor or condition for evaluating an inherent quality of human motivation. Perhaps it is an exaggeration. Perhaps not. But I think what you are describing is counter-intuitive. I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. I don't see a lot of "materialist conservation." I do see a lot of spiritually motivated conservation efforts, people who are aware of the significance of the health of natural systems in a cosmic sense.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. I don't see a lot of "materialist conservation." I do see a lot of spiritually motivated conservation efforts, people who are aware of the significance of the health of natural systems in a cosmic sense. — Pantagruel

Ok, well we are at an impasse then. :wink: As someone who has worked with the Green movement here I can say that it is very rare to meet someone who is not a secular humanist.

I think you may need to separate the word 'materialism' as in consumer capitalism from 'materialism' as in non-transcendence. They are not necessarily connected. Materialists are generally known as physicalists or naturalists these days, the thinking having evolved.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. — Pantagruel

Can you provide an example that connects directly the lack of belief in superphysicalism and this?

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. I don't see a lot of "materialist conservation." I do see a lot of spiritually motivated conservation efforts, people who are aware of the significance of the health of natural systems in a cosmic sense. — Pantagruel

I’m in overall agreement here. Indigenous peoples the world over, all of which are spiritual, come to mind as frontliners against the destruction of the ecosystem (of "Mother Earth"); with many of them having been unrighteously (if that needs to be said) terrorized and assassinated for their convictions and generally peaceful actions. Materialists the world over not so much, by general comparison of populaces at least.

Wanted to add: as per Buddhism, for one example, there is no need for an absolute creator deity belief to uphold that corporeal death is not the end of the road.

Secondly, any belief system which deems one “saved/liberated/freed” from all suffering after corporeal death—fully including i) conviction that death is a transcendence into absolute nonbeing and ii) conviction that death results in an instantaneous beam-me-up into a suffering-devoid eternal Heaven—will generally give no rational warrant to be moral/ethical, this despite many such people persisting to be moral/ethical. The typical atheist might yet feel a kinship to life, or at least one’s own species, in general (I know I used to, at least, back when I was a materialist). The typical theist might yet deem deeds to surpass faith as that which determines one’s Abrahamic abode after corporeal death. Yet, those who mass murder their own families and then commit suicide, for example, only do so due to the belief that death is a cessation of being (to not address those atheists who hoard wealth via offshore means at expense of the general community’s wellbeing, etc.)—activities which become logically rational given the end addressed. Likewise, those who deem themselves necessarily saved strictly on account of holding unwarranted convictions regardless of how they act couldn’t give a damn about stewardship of the plant (etc.) for humanity at large.

This to illustrate that it isn’t so much about what you’ve specified as Transcendentalists but about not having an absolute conviction that corporeal death is an end to all conceivable suffering (something that can apply to theists just as much as to atheists).

:up:

but about not having an absolute conviction that corporeal death is an end to all conceivable suffering — javra

:chin:

I think you may need to separate the word 'materialism' as in consumer capitalism from 'materialism' as in non-transcendence. They are not necessarily connected. — Tom Storm

I do think there is correlation happing here too though. I think that something like what Durkheim calls anomie is a product of the wholesale acceptance of a lot of materialistic (choose your sense) propaganda. Hopefully an newly enlightened social consciousness is awakening, in the collective-ecological spirit championed by many indigenous groups. The world needs some kind of fundamental change, because every indication is that we have been on a collision course with disaster since industrialization. Technologies which should have bolstered equality have increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Something is fundamentally wrong.

It's curious to me that there are people who think nothing matters if there is no transcendental realm. I don't think I have ever met a materialist/physicalist/naturalist holding that position. — Tom Storm

Anyone who believes that personal responsibility transcends the limits of material life perhaps is not fundamentally a materialist then. :wink:

Hopefully an newly enlightened social consciousness is awakening, in the collective-ecological spirit championed by many indigenous groups. — Pantagruel

Wishful thinking. Corporate power and capitalism is likely to be too strong to allow for this to become anything more than decorative filigree.

The world needs some kind of fundamental change, because every indication is that we have been on a collision course with disaster since industrialization. — Pantagruel

Could be. Which is why I was a Marxist back in the 1980's. But the problem with revolutions is the morning after, as Žižek likes to point out.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying.
— Pantagruel

Can you provide an example that connects directly the lack of belief in superphysicalism and this? — Tom Storm

Can you provide a good example?

Anyone who believes that personal responsibility transcends the limits of material life perhaps is not fundamentally a materialist then. :wink: — Pantagruel

I'd say physicalists tend to hold utopian visions of a better future for their descendants.

I'd say physicalists tend to hold utopian visions of a better future for their descendants. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure if utopianism is synonymous with laissez-faire materialism though. The belief in "progress" that says things are always getting better. When that is getting less true every day.

I think there is a cult of individuality happening too, which has hurt the type of collective-social (familial) beneficial motivations that you mention. Certainly nothing that robust universal education couldn't help.

I'm not sure if utopianism is synonymous with laissez-faire materialism though — Pantagruel

What is laissez-fair materialism? I was saying that many secular humanists are progressives and believe in helping to make a better world for future generations.

The belief in "progress" that says things are always getting better. When that is getting less true every day. — Pantagruel

Secular humanists tend to hold that progress cannot be taken for granted, nor is irreversible. We only have to look at Afghanistan, say, to see how progress on women's issues has been rolled back. Or Trumpism in the US... Progress is earned gradually across many painful battles and can be set back in an instance. Of course, the notion of progress is itself subject to some scale or set of values.

But I am still waiting to get a clearer idea from you about this.

I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. — Pantagruel

I'm still not sure what you have in mind. Can you provide examples?

All things being equal, would you rather trust the ethic of someone whose actions are premised around the belief that, when you're dead you're gone. Or someone who believes in the idea of an ongoing responsibility for deeds? — Pantagruel

The latter, obviously. Most of the replies haven't managed to hold "all things equal," and are evading the question.

What is laissez-fair materialism? I was saying that many secular humanists are progressives and believe in helping to make a better world for future generations. — Tom Storm

Well, there are stated agendas, and there is deep psychological commitment. Politicians seldom come out in favour of elitism and favouritism, but still manage to be guilty of it often enough. I don't believe secular humanism necessitates or implies the wholesale abandonment of transcendental values.

As far as examples, it's the direction that our world is heading. I don't see examples so much as a ubiquitous problem. Murder in the name of God. Replacing vital human interaction with depersonalized electronic interchanges. Desertification of our habitat. Increasing inequality.

Provable axioms of morality are hard to prove as it is, so adding another layer of unproved dimension to the fold does not help humanity achieve any common ground on ethics.

All things being equal, would you rather trust the ethic of someone whose actions are premised around the belief that, when you're dead you're gone. Or someone who believes in the idea of an ongoing responsibility for deeds? — Pantagruel

Why does the ethics automatically become worse because existence isn't on going? I don't see the correlation between "dead and gone" and bad morality. It's like you argue that nihilism is the only realm of thought for materialists?

A buddhist thinker likens the passage of spirit from one form to the next like the transmission of fire between two pieces of wood. — Pantagruel

What about nirvana? If the highest goal and end is nirvana, then morality isn't structured on ongoing but to reach that state. How does that differ from "dead and gone". Couldn't morality be structured around legacy?

That you have one chance in life to achieve a moral legacy so that when you are "dead and gone" your moral choices echo through history. This would put the effort into actually doing good since you only have one chance in a short period of time to make sure the good stays after you died.

You can easily break a reincarnation morality down to focusing more on selfish gains. Doing moral actions for the sake of "promoting yourself" to a better next life. Even if it would lead to moral actions, the psychology behind it makes moral actions a selfish action rather than an action for someone else or the collective.

I would say that it's not logical to assume that "dead and gone" equals nihilism. The fact that forming morality on the ground that something doesn't continue after death makes someone value life even more. It's the only thing that exist for any life form and valuing it for what it is should be the focus.

I'd say that the idea of an afterlife makes people rather apathetic and ignorant of the ethical problems we have in this life. People treat it like some "waiting room" for whatever good existence that comes after it rather than focusing on making this life the best it is, for themselves and others.

The fact that there's pollution and destruction

The belief in "progress" that says things are always getting better. When that is getting less true every day. — Pantagruel

This is a common misconception that is historically false. Look at the actual statistics on a long time.

I think there is a cult of individuality — Pantagruel

Initiated by the neoliberal individualism which grew in popularity in the 80s and influenced most of the early millennials.

The world needs some kind of fundamental change, because every indication is that we have been on a collision course with disaster since industrialization. Technologies which should have bolstered equality have increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Something is fundamentally wrong. — Pantagruel

This isn't materialism in the philosophical sense. What you are talking about is consumerism and industrialism.

And the progression of technology isn't what's bad and wrong, it's the ideology of neoliberal free markets that produce a wasteful living in which we produce toxic waste and value short term "fixes" over long term happiness. That coupled with deifying strong personalities rather than those of good leadership who lead towards bettering ourselves and society.

The problem you are describing has nothing to do with any nihilism of a lack of an afterlife and more to do with bad systems that we've yet to get rid of.

One such thing is that people act like representative democracy is the end goal. While the world has yet to achieve democracy everywhere yet, we're still stuck in the ideological battle between old bad systems of power and modern democracies. So all deconstruction of democracy gets put aside until we've reached a global implementation of democratic principles. But democracy in itself is very fragile and easy to manipulate. We've seen this with manipulating voters through social media and how we have little to no safety nets to block anti-democratic movements to form. We essentially safeguard democratic values on the naive pretense that no one would ever want to remove it, while the door is open for anyone to vote democracy away. So instead of trying to evolve democracy to safeguard against bad actors we just naively hope that democracy survives.

So while we, on paper, have gotten rid of dictators, kings and elites in favor of democracy, we've replaced it with incompetence and manipulation.

If you're gonna talk about how society is today, I don't see how your ethical argument about an afterlife versus no afterlife fits in. Because it's not materialism as a philosophical concept, you are talking about consumerism, industrialism, individualism in opposition to religious collectivism and thought. Which is another dimension.

It's like you argue that nihilism is the only realm of thought for materialists? — Christoffer

Yes, I'm kind of leaning that way. My sense is that embracing the larger (than self) reality is tantamount to the recognition of (self) transcendent values. As I mentioned, material calculations are all well and good, except where they are plainly insufficient. We think just because we have assigned a dollar value to everything via economics, everything hence becomes computable. When, in fact, our valuations are arbitrary and often misguided.

I don't understand how this strawman of "atheists/physicalists/secularists/materialists have no justification for their morals" is so common. It is like the reproductors of this strawman completely ignore the existence of deontology, virtue ethics, consequentialism (ethics 102), and admit that only ethical egotism is possible, one justified by wanting to go to heaven (or not be reborn as a pig) and the other justified by hedonism. It says more about the accuser than the accused.

The latter, obviously. Most of the replies haven't managed to hold "all things equal," and are evading the question. — Leontiskos

Because things cannot be hold equal. Each of these worldviews have implications besides simply holding them.

Yes, I'm kind of leaning that way. My sense is that embracing the larger (than self) reality is tantamount to the recognition of (self) transcendent values. As I mentioned, material calculations are all well and good, except where they are plainly insufficient. We think just because we have assigned a dollar value to everything via economics, everything hence becomes computable. When, in fact, our valuations are arbitrary and often misguided. — Pantagruel

But that isn't materialism in the philosophical sense though, that's capitalism and consumerism. What you are referring to is "materialistic" rather than the philosophical "materialism".

Outside of those semantics, what you are arguing is rather that the materialistic society we live in is lacking meaning and means for morality to form on the grounds of people's actual value as human beings and instead has been replaced by a dollar value.

While that is a true assessment with support in many fields of study of society, it still does not equal an afterlife being necessary for morality and it's not really connect nihilism with the materialistic. The materialistic people does not operate on nihilism, they're rather operating out of the fear of nihilism. They've rather changed from religion, a "church of religion" to a "church of the free market". They seek meaning in the materials they acquire, they attribute arbitrary value that gets validated through the exchange of money.

It's not nihilism or a lack of belief, it's just another belief system operating on the same principles as normal religion.

True atheism has nothing to do with the materialistic. And as I mentioned, putting value into the only life that we have and thinking about our moral legacy can produce a much deeper moral thinking than believing your consciousness just continues.

You can easily apply a nihilism to such afterlife ideals as well since if there's an afterlife, then this life doesn't matter that much. These are the same principles that much of the islamic extremists operate under, enforcing a deep and soul crushing nihilism to the actions in this life, in order to reach paradise.

If people viewed their existence in this life as the only thing that will exist for them and that the moral legacy of their life will be the only thing people remember them by, then the drive for better moral behavior can increase since the life right now must be the one to be good and if all treat others well, then all will benefit from this only life.

It's the lack of correlation between a lack of an afterlife and good morals that I find is the problem here. And that the materialistic is a nihilistic behavior, when it's rather operating on another type of belief system. That the conclusion is that a lack of afterlife equals nihilism feels like ignoring an honest exploration of morality systems in atheistic lives. Because the materialistic lifestyle is not connected to atheism or a lack of belief in an afterlife. The materialistic lifestyle is a lifestyle that appears throughout society, regardless of religion.

On top of that, the attempt to build a moral system outside of religion is more practically useful than requiring religious belief for it to function. Morality focus on being guiding principles human collective behavior. If requiring a belief system, it then impose a requirement of a specific worldview without any evidence that this worldview has any validity to it. A moral system that can be true for all humans, regardless of beliefs, fantasies or atheistic ideals, should always be preferable over a system that requires specific religious ideas. And the materialistic lifestyle as opposed to the religious afterlife lifestyle has very little to do with morality and more to do with different belief systems clashing.

Outside of those semantics, what you are arguing is rather that the materialistic society we live in is lacking meaning and means for morality to form on the grounds of people's actual value as human beings and instead has been replaced by a dollar value. — Christoffer

That is definitely a descriptive version of my perspective. My feeling is that there are fundamental aspects of humanity that it is difficult for people to perceive, especially when it comes to themselves. The mystery of consciousness, really, that we can be so close and yet so far from the essence of what we are. I'm not promoting specific ideals. What I'm suggesting is that there is an inherent mystery to life which science hasn't come close to excavating. If anything, the light of science is illuminating depths and expanses far beyond our wildest dreams. But at some point the institution started to exist for its own sake (as institutions will do) and for some reason decided to react against this mystery, instead of embracing it.

What I'm suggesting is that there is an inherent mystery to life which science hasn't come close to excavating. If anything, the light of science is illuminating depths and expanses far beyond our wildest dreams. But at some point the institution started to exist for its own sake (as institutions will do) and for some reason decided to react against this mystery, instead of embracing it. — Pantagruel

I'm not sure what you're aiming for here? You mean the institution of science? Because the mystery and the urge to decode the universe is still alive and well.

And I'm not sure how that connects to morality and ethics? Do we have problems with the materialistic lifestyle of modern life? Yes, a lot. But to say that morality can't be find among people who aren't spiritual or religious is false and can also be argued to be the opposite seen as how much violence and bad morality that exists among today's religious people compared to the non-religious. Adding to that, a belief system that replaces religion, such as the belief in material and materialistic values to bring meaning is also producing mob mentalities and deindividuation.

It just shows that the problem doesn't seem to be a lack of belief or religion, it seems to be the opposite, meaning, belief systems gets radicalized today and become more extreme, faster. The solution then is to live a skeptical life, in which only evidence and facts form the world view. To think that a person cannot feel awe and mystery about life and the universe just because they don't accept religious views and other collective belief systems, is just not true.

I'm not sure what it is you are arguing. I'll move on. Thanks for the chat.

Adding to that, a belief system that replaces religion, such as the belief in material and materialistic values to bring meaning is also producing mob mentalities and deindividuation. — Christoffer

:100:

To think that a person cannot feel awe and mystery about life and the universe just because they don't accept religious views and other collective belief systems, is just not true. — Christoffer

I was careful to explain it isn't religion per se I support, but the transcendental attitude.

Can you be sure you're not just referencing inter-generational awareness? There's nothing per se spiritual to that notion - though, as @javra noted above, most indigenous cultures do hold something of this view. It is largely not a reflection of corporeal or terrestrial responsibilities, though, in my experience.

Having spent a large amount of time in those communities and specifically attached to spiritual pursuits (as part of about a decade working within the 'psychedelic' industry') i've found that most of those views are anything but philosophical. They are doctrinal, and based on personifications and anthropomorphising most aspects of the environment to the point that an analysis of their views is actually extremely hard to do - because almost everything ends up jettisoned. There is priestcraft, oppression, manipulatiion, misogyny and all kinds of other ills we find everywhere else. But they are defended on spiritual grounds, not relativistic ones.

However, i take that (and it appears your last comment above confirms this) that you're only wanting to take out of those thoughts, that which actually appeals to 'spirit' per se, and not any view point.

In that sense, how would you define it in practice?

Can you be sure you're not just referencing inter-generational awareness? — AmadeusD

I assume that there is something like a collective consciousness happening at some material level to be sure.

In that sense, how would you define it in practice? — AmadeusD

I think that is the key is that it is defined by practices, practices which are in concert with the most enlightened goals of humanity. I'm reading all about the history of Chinese philosophies right now, and the central theme emerging from Confucianism is that of becoming a spiritual being. Confucius very much melded humanism and transcendentalism; he felt that human actions could enrich and express the tao.

So I would hope right actions would be very much "socially self-reinforcing." I try to act in accordance with this view, through volunteerism and kind acts.