off topic, but good intro. And i think, fair. It's something i've been thinking about for a while.
Briefly, i don't think goodness makes philosophic sense without a moral center for the universe (g0d or a universal consciousness or whatver).
This does not mean one cannot be good if one is an atheist.
Having written a paper on this in my undergrad philosophy degree, i came to the conclusion that if there is no g0d, the ethical option that makes most sense is enlightened selfishness, not true goodness.
i came to the conclusion that if there is no g0d, the ethical option that makes most sense is enlightened selfishness, not true goodness.
I wouldn't go quite this far, but yes, in the absence of a metaphysical moral realism, enlightened selfishness would seem to me to be the most sensible option, as well. If by murdering someone you could come into a sufficient amount of money, and you were sufficiently sure that you would get away with it, that would seem to be the most sensible action.
I should add, that by "ethical option that makes most sense" i was talking about an *individual person*.
ie, it's in my interests to have most people act ethically even when its not in their interests. That way no-one steals my stuff or hurts me. But it's in MY best interests to act unethcially when it benefits me.
Which is a dilemma, because if everyone acted that way we would not have an ethical society and i wouldn't get the benefits to me.
i would like to add that i do not act this way, personally. :) Although I don't have a good argument for it yet, I "feel" that always acting ethically is a better way than shafting people when its in my interest. I cannot justify this philosophically yet. But i trust my conscience - which some argue is evidence for g0d being in the universe.
The Dalai Lama argued that we humans, despite our rather obvious shortcomings, are fundamentally good because as babies, it is hard-wired into us to crave love and affection, and that desire remains central to our motivation throughout adulthood, even in evil-doers.
I'm not saying it's sound psychological theory, but it's certainly an interesting way of looking at the world, and it makes good food for thought.
Of course, the existence of sociopaths throws a bit of a monkey wrench into that theory, and its supposedly universal application.
Sociopaths only mess up the theory if you assume they're that way because of genetics. Following every film and TV show that's ever had a psycho in it, they're *always* a product of their environment, usually due to being abused when they were a kid. Therefore they are fundamentally good, it's just they're broken inside and express it in a very peculiar way. Unfortunately they can't be fixed and must be killed off in a climactic showdown with a 20-something hot american girl who's been narrowly avoiding being killed by him for a good 90 mins.
There are plenty of sociopaths who've had perfectly good childhoods. The simply don't develop consciences. Something in them is just plain missing, or at least broken.
Conversely, being a serial killer doesn't necessarily make you a sociopath. If you were abused as a child, and you start killing people as an adult to relive the events from the point of view of the abuser, or simply to enact a revenge fantasy, you are attaching enormous ritual importance to your victims, (which is why serial killers select their prey so carefully).
Sociopathy is different.
Sociopaths don't consider anything outside themselves to be real. We're less than ants to them. They do it because they can, and because they don't fear consequences.
Its in our evolutionary interest to behave morally.
The problem I see is that individuals don't have evolutionary interests. So, confronted with a situation in which you could murder someone without a net positive consequence to yourself, it seems to be in your personal interest to murder that person. Yet surely that is something you should not do?
Comments 30
And i think, fair.
It's something i've been thinking about for a while.
Briefly, i don't think goodness makes philosophic sense without a moral center for the universe (g0d or a universal consciousness or whatver).
This does not mean one cannot be good if one is an atheist.
Having written a paper on this in my undergrad philosophy degree, i came to the conclusion that if there is no g0d, the ethical option that makes most sense is enlightened selfishness, not true goodness.
Sorry for brief reply. Yes, this is probably OT.
Reply
I wouldn't go quite this far, but yes, in the absence of a metaphysical moral realism, enlightened selfishness would seem to me to be the most sensible option, as well. If by murdering someone you could come into a sufficient amount of money, and you were sufficiently sure that you would get away with it, that would seem to be the most sensible action.
Reply
I should add, that by "ethical option that makes most sense" i was talking about an *individual person*.
ie, it's in my interests to have most people act ethically even when its not in their interests. That way no-one steals my stuff or hurts me. But it's in MY best interests to act unethcially when it benefits me.
Which is a dilemma, because if everyone acted that way we would not have an ethical society and i wouldn't get the benefits to me.
i would like to add that i do not act this way, personally. :) Although I don't have a good argument for it yet, I "feel" that always acting ethically is a better way than shafting people when its in my interest. I cannot justify this philosophically yet. But i trust my conscience - which some argue is evidence for g0d being in the universe.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
A classic is "money is the root of all evil".
It's actually "the LOVE of money is the root of all kinds of evil" (implication, the root of SOME evil, not ALL evil)
Reply
I'm not saying it's sound psychological theory, but it's certainly an interesting way of looking at the world, and it makes good food for thought.
Of course, the existence of sociopaths throws a bit of a monkey wrench into that theory, and its supposedly universal application.
Reply
Disclaimer - real life may not work like films
Reply
Conversely, being a serial killer doesn't necessarily make you a sociopath. If you were abused as a child, and you start killing people as an adult to relive the events from the point of view of the abuser, or simply to enact a revenge fantasy, you are attaching enormous ritual importance to your victims, (which is why serial killers select their prey so carefully).
Sociopathy is different.
Sociopaths don't consider anything outside themselves to be real. We're less than ants to them. They do it because they can, and because they don't fear consequences.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The problem I see is that individuals don't have evolutionary interests. So, confronted with a situation in which you could murder someone without a net positive consequence to yourself, it seems to be in your personal interest to murder that person. Yet surely that is something you should not do?
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment