Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It seems to me that you are saying different things, some of which are nonsensical and some of which are tautological.
When you say, there really is no morality, that is nonsensical. Many people have strong moral beliefs. If you believe that the only end is your own self-interest, that is itself a moral viewpoint.
When you say that calling something moral really means you're saying that it's in your self-interest, that's either false or tautological. False, if you consider simple acts of charity; tautological, if you call those acts of charity self-interested.
If your athiest pals have no objection to slavery in the Sudan so long as it does not affect them, that -- in my book -- is a moral view that exalts their own individual self-interest above everything else. What seems odd to me, in the context of this ongoing conversation, is that you seem to think the moral value of this self-interest can be taking for granted -- i.e., that it needs not be explained -- even as you ask again and again for other people to explain why, e.g., killing people is bad.
So far, you've been making normative assertions, about what morality should be. Then you turn to a positive assertion, about where it came from -- that morality developed because it helps us survive. I think this vein of argument is potentially interesting, but I don't understand what it has to do with your normative arguments. You keep switching back and forth from positive and normative.
I might bother to engage with this view of the world if I thought that you actually share it.
|
The problem is that I am telling you what other people think and not what I think. I do think there is morality - and I don't think selfishness is a valid base for morality. I am just telling you what other people think. I will let them speak for themselves. Here is what Ayn Rand has to say on the subject
" The reason why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man's proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essense of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions... the Objectivist ethic holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his actions and that man must act for his own rational self interest."
Objectivists think that Altruism (or acts of charity) is immoral. Ayn Rand again:
"Nows there is one word - a single word - which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand - the word: Why?. Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that good? There is no earthly reason for it - and in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has every been given."
I have seen studies that suggest that thirty to forty percent of Atheists in America are Objectivists. I don't know if that is true, but I have met many people I consider intelligent to be Objectivits. That is why I feel the need to address their positions. If you review my posts, I focused a lot on critizising this viewpoint. My main argument with Objectivists is that saying selfishness is the basis of morality is a leap of faith. It is just like saying altruism is the basis of morality. You can ask the same question: Why? And the only answer is "just because". In other words morality based on selfishness is just as irrational as morality based on Altruism. Calling an Objectivist irrational is like calling their mother a whore. But I believe their position on morality is irrational.
My friend Ben (and I think LessinSF holds this position), and most of his Physicyst friends think that there really is no such thing as morals or morality. They are Atheists but not Objectivists. Unlike the Objectivists that think that morality is based on selfishness, they think there really is no such think as morality. They believe that moral arguments are inherintly illogical because you can not define morality and you can't rationalize it. Morality requires a leap of faith. They believe people should just drop the idea of morality and just act in their own self interest. Ben donates money to Amnesty International and he gave me a long tortured rationalization of why his donation to Amnesty International was really in his own self interest.
My gripe with them is that I agree with them that without a higher power Morality can't be defined or rationalized. But I argue with them that they actually have a moral code and it can't be defended based on selfishness. They would support the US pressuring Sudan to end slavery. But they stick to the position that they take that position out of selfishness. And if it was not in their interest they would not support ending slavery. I don't buy it. I think deep down they believe Slavery is wrong and should be stopped anywhere in the world it exists, regardless of the effect it has on them. In other words they have moral beliefs that they cannot really rationalize through selfishness. In other words they really believe in morality but don't admit it.
