Ethics Without Religion A Good Read Agree? Disagree?

I'm unaware that Charles Darwin wrote anything about ethics. What hints?

Charles Darwin outlined a different way of thinking about ethics, and we are now able to articulate more fully the hints he offered. Ethics emerges as a human phenomenon, permanently unfinished. To adopt this perspective provides a different perspective on many questions that now confront us.
Click to expand...

This is pure conjecture on the writer's part and I find it fairly meaningless.

We became fully human when we were able to find ways of inhibiting tendencies to socially disruptive action and ways of reinforcing our altruistic capacities. Practices of punishment may well have played a role at early stages of the process. The crucial step, however, consisted in internalizing the check on our behavior. We became able to formulate rules for ourselves, or to remind ourselves of exemplary cases of conduct: we invented a crude system of ethics.
Click to expand...

Presumably this development happened long before the historical period, before written records. The Aboriginal people of Australia pre-colonisation are the people who represent the oldest uncontaminated culture that we can study. Their 'ethics' were based on survival of their mob against the threats of other mobs, starvation and disease. Their system of skin groups, totems, taboos, etc all seem to have survival value, not for the individual, but for the group as a whole. Their ethics/religious system used story telling about the natural world and the spirit world of the Dreamtime. These stories were/are passed from generation to generation as oral traditions so there was no need for individuals to think it all out for themselves. Survival depended on cohesion of the group. Nevertheless, the Aboriginees were and are fully human. Now that colonisation has occurred, the survivors have had to do some original thinking because their old system has been destroyed and is no longer protective of the group.
 
Let me complement you Lon on holding our feet to the fire and forcing some of us to ponder some of life's most enduring questions.


Behaving thus and so inorder to avoid eternal fire and brimstone seems to me an unsatisfactory way to promote ethical behavior. If mankind is indeed the crowning achievement of an omnipotent and omniscient diety, I would expect that God could come up with something better than such a primitive carrot and stick approach to ethics. It certainly hasn't worked awfully well over the past two millenia.


I've always liked the Golden Rule which I believe predates the Bible. This sort of maxim which does not depend on the presence or absence of a diety is undoubtably the product of human reason. Social understandings like this should be the basis for a secular ethical systems.
 

OK. I've now read the whole text carefully and I am drawn to this paragraph:

Part of the answer is to appreciate a great insight of Plato’s. To say that ethics is founded in the command of God – or the dictates of Reason, for that matter – doesn’t help. Not every command should be obeyed, and it is crucial that the source of the command be a good one. Thus there must be some prior basis of goodness, antecedent to the source of the command, against which that source measures up. Failure to think in terms of that prior standard pervades the testimonies, offered in courtrooms from Jerusalem to Johannesburg, of those who protested that they were only following the orders of their powerful superiors. That sort of evasion is no more successful when the putative “superior” invoked is powerful beyond human comprehension.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with Plato and perhaps this paragraph could form the basis of discussion of my ethics question proposed above. Or not. Choose your own justifications for your ethical position to the question posed by the statement "Greed is Good."
 
Although greed pursued within legal bounds may stimulate economic activity, most of the consequences of greedy behavior are apt to be socially undesirable. Greed leads to envy, economic inequality, and larceny. Whenever I think about greed I'm reminded of the character Scrooge in Dickens A Christmas Carol.

Some other people's thoughts-

Even in a time of elephantine vanity and greed, one never has to look far to see the campfires of gentle people. - Garrison Keillor
For greed all nature is too little. - Seneca
From the first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization. - Friedrich Engels
Greed and globalization aren't just America's fault. - Arlo Guthrie
Greed has driven the world crazy. And I think I'm lucky that I have a place over here that I can call home. - Nina Simone
Greed has taken the whole universe, and nobody is worried about their soul. - Little Richard
Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. - Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom
Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer. - Julian Casablancas
The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure. - B.C. Forbes
 
Lon said:
Off the top of my head I would think that greed must be bad and not good because greed is selfish and selfishness is not good
Click to expand...

Neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins would argue that greed is natural - he wrote the book "The Selfish Gene" that posits that evolution is all about genes, for a better word, wanting to replicate themselves, and this is what drives human and animal behaviour. Can natural behaviour ever be declared bad?
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins would argue that greed is natural - he wrote the book "The Selfish Gene" that posits that evolution is all about genes, for a better word, wanting to replicate themselves, and this is what drives human and animal behaviour. Can natural behaviour ever be declared bad?
Click to expand...

When "natural" behavior leads to actions that hurt others, absolutely. Depends on the definition of "natural." And "natural" to whom. Is it natural to murder others out of anger or greed? Was the Colorado theatre shooter's behavior natural to him? If so, does that make it "natural" in this sense? May be so, but certainly bad.
 
Throw a rock through your neighbor's window. Expect to get one back. You help him plant, he helps you harvest, you both eat.
You don't steal his stuff. He doesn't steal yours. You both get a good nights sleep. Its not rocket science.
There will always be bad behavior by individuals for a number of reasons, but what we call good is good, because it works for us.
 
Playing the Devil's Advocate here.

Butterfly said:
When "natural" behavior leads to actions that hurt others, absolutely
Click to expand...
Thinking about an age old ethical dilemma:

It is natural for people to engage in sexual behaviour.
It is natural for a woman to become pregnant from sexual behaviour.
Marriage is not a natural state - it is a human construct, mostly aimed at securing inheritances.

So, a woman becomes pregnant and her husband may or may not be the father.

The ethical question is should she tell him and hurt his feelings or remain silent to protect her unborn child.
What harm will result from either choice?
How does she decide which action produces the least harm to herself, her husband and her child?

Is it natural to murder others out of anger or greed? Was the Colorado theatre shooter's behavior natural to him? If so, does that make it "natural" in this sense? May be so, but certainly bad
Click to expand...
I don't remember the motive of the Colorado theatre shooter's behaviour so I'll substitute another example into the same basic question.

Is it natural to kill others out of revenge? Was the United States justified in dropping the second atom bomb on Japan or the British justified in carpet bombing the city of Dresden in the dying days of the war ? Is it natural to want to obliterate an enemy that has killed huge numbers of your tribe? If so, is it also bad?

Please keep the discussion secular.
 
Underock1 said:
Throw a rock through your neighbor's window. Expect to get one back. You help him plant, he helps you harvest, you both eat.
You don't steal his stuff. He doesn't steal yours. You both get a good nights sleep. Its not rocket science.
There will always be bad behavior by individuals for a number of reasons, but what we call good is good, because it works for us.
Click to expand...

Measure for measure is seen in all primitive societies, often referred to as payback. Rough justice at best and totally reactionary. Ethics must be founded on principles and reasoning. Many a woman, and less frequently men, have been killed because some villager has died of unknown causes and sorcery is blamed. It is quite natural in some societies to think that someone is to blame for every death. Definitely not rocket science, but is it bad if it works for the tribe?

What if we are not talking about individuals? What if we are talking about corporations, or nations ?
"You don't steal his stuff" ? What about stealing another company's customers by dropping your prices below production cost until he's bankrupt, or capturing the markets of another country by using subsidies to undercut their exports? It certainly works for the winners. Is it still rocket science?
 
Life's most "enduring" questions remain concretely unanswered. Why? Because no answers are provable, or disprovable. Too "deep" a topic for me to dwell upon, as I expect those enduring folks in charge will take me away before imponderables become ponderable.

My wife likes to tell me, "Get a life". My response? "I've already had one!" imp
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Measure for measure is seen in all primitive societies, often referred to as payback. Rough justice at best and totally reactionary. Ethics must be founded on principles and reasoning. Many a woman, and less frequently men, have been killed because some villager has died of unknown causes and sorcery is blamed. It is quite natural in some societies to think that someone is to blame for every death. Definitely not rocket science, but is it bad if it works for the tribe?

What if we are not talking about individuals? What if we are talking about corporations, or nations ?
"You don't steal his stuff" ? What about stealing another company's customers by dropping your prices below production cost until he's bankrupt, or capturing the markets of another country by using subsidies to undercut their exports? It certainly works for the winners. Is it still rocket science?
Click to expand...

You put a reverse spin on it. I'm not talking about retaliation. I'm saying we don't throw the rock in the first place, because it makes the world a happier place for everybody..
The topic is ethics without religion. The people killed in the tribal example you gave died because of religion. Is it working for the tribe? Not in my view. As far as the corporate thing goes, it comes right back to the individuals. Are there bad people out there? What a surprise. I will just go my way being as considerate of others as I can and hoping to be considered in return. Its worked well for me for 82 years. Didn't need to be told by God, or take a graduate degree in ethics.
 
I'm playing the Devil's advocate to test the strength of the arguments about ethics.

I took it that you were saying that rock throwing is bad (unethical) because it is likely to result in a return rock.
I say it is unethical because it offends the principle "do no harm to your brother" which very much sounds like a rule to me. Or a general principle to be applied.

OK back to PNG. Let's remove the witchcraft element. If today someone accidentally kills someone else, including in a traffic accident, his relatives are likely to demand compensation or a life for a life. This is not about religion as much as it is about economics. Demanding compensation may indeed be an ethical request, but is it ethical to take the life of a relative of the man who accidentally killed your relative? In PNG it is unlawful but that law was imposed by Australian administrators prior to independence. We look at this issue with the eyes of a western society but the locals see their old ways as natural justice. Is that bad (unethical) ?

How can we find principles that can provide ethical scaffolding for different cultures and different times? It's not a simple question but a necessary one before we throw out all of the dos and do nots that are the rules underpinning daily life and our laws.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Playing the Devil's Advocate here.



Thinking about an age old ethical dilemma:

It is natural for people to engage in sexual behaviour.
It is natural for a woman to become pregnant from sexual behaviour.
Marriage is not a natural state - it is a human construct, mostly aimed at securing inheritances.

So, a woman becomes pregnant and her husband may or may not be the father.

The ethical question is should she tell him and hurt his feelings or remain silent to protect her unborn child.
What harm will result from either choice?
How does she decide which action produces the least harm to herself, her husband and her child?


I don't remember the motive of the Colorado theatre shooter's behaviour so I'll substitute another example into the same basic question.

Is it natural to kill others out of revenge? Was the United States justified in dropping the second atom bomb on Japan or the British justified in carpet bombing the city of Dresden in the dying days of the war ? Is it natural to want to obliterate an enemy that has killed huge numbers of your tribe? If so, is it also bad?

Please keep the discussion secular.
Click to expand...

As to the woman's dilemma about her pregnancy -- I believe the best solution which affords the least hurt to all is to keep silent about her doubts. The husband may in fact be the father, and if he is, it would damage the child's relationship to its father as well as the mother's relationship with the father (and thus mother and child's their well being) to tell him about her questions.

The Colorado shooter said he just wanted to kill people. He is presumed seriously mentally ill.

As to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Dresden question, I dispute your premise that the bombs were dropped out of revenge. IMHO the bombs were dropped in an effort to get it over with once and for all as quickly as possible.

As to the question whether it is natural or good or bad to want to obliterate a tribe that has killed large numbers of your tribe, the question should be based on whether or not the offending tribe wishes to continue killing members of your tribe. The "natural" response would be to want to do whatever is necessary to stop "them" from killing "us."
 
Lon said:
Off the top of my head I would think that greed must be bad and not good because greed is selfish and selfishness is not good
Click to expand...


But isn't that even a question of perspective and degree? Or maybe the word would be 'situational'. Depending on the situation, greed would be good/bad?

What I mean is, if a woman with a child that she is nursing and another individual are sitting there with one tiny bit of food, wouldn't it be good if the mother with child was greedy enough to eat the whole because it means that both she and the child (future of mankind) would have a greater chance of survival? Whereas if the single person ate it all, and the mother and child died, that would be the end of the human race or....

Just a thought that popped into my head.
 
My thoughts are starting to distil down to this

Ethical behaviour is behaviour that is founded on sound principles. Behaviour that is based on our feeling that something is wrong or right is not ethics, it is too whimsical and can vary according to mood and situation.

Ethical behaviour can be founded on religious virtues or on secular ideas of what constitutes goodness. But where do these ideas come from, who articulates them clearly. Is it the ancestors, or certain philosophers like Plato or Socrates.

IMO the test of our ethics is whether we are prepared to do what we think is right when it disadvantages us. It's easy to be good when it cost us very little.

Utilitarianisn is a recent, secular philosophy that offers a framework for ethical decision making

Utilitarianism is mainly characterized by two elements: happiness and consequentialism. Utilitarian happiness is the biggest happiness which (supposetly) every human being looks for. In utilitarianism everything useful to happiness is good. Therefore, the name of the doctrine is utilitarianism, based on the principle of utility. Utility is found in every thing which contributes to the happiness of every rational being. The criterion of good and evil is balanced between individual's happiness and the happiness of the community, "each counting in an equal way" (Bentham, Introduction in the principles of morality and legislation).

Consequentialism in utilitarianism is in the fact that an action must be judged for its consequences on the happiness of the largest number. That is: my search for happiness stops when it decreases the happiness of another individual or the happiness of the largest number, of the society or the community. As personal freedom is considered in respect of the freedom of other individuals and of the community, my freedom stops when it diminishes the freedom of another individual or the well-being of the society. We could say that utilitarianism is the continuation of Roman legislation, and its modern aspect is shown in the fact that utilitarianism adds an economical, legislative and political dimension to an ethical concept, that of happiness and well-being. The modern aspect of the doctrine will evolve throughout the 19th century, with Bentham, Mill and Sidgwick who succeeds in giving to this doctrine a practical and rational dimension which we can find in our modern society, in economics, politics and ethics.

"The continuing vitality of the greatest happiness system is not difficult to understand – it embodies a very natural and compelling model of rationality. This model, which dominates much of contemporary economics (as well as decision theory, "cost-benefit analysis", and "public choice theory") sees rational action as an attempt to maximise net utility (i.e. the result of summing the benefits and costs and subtracting the latter from the former). This view, which is frequently called "means-end" rationality, goes back (at least) to Aristotle. In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle asserts that "we cannot deliberate about ends but only about the means by which ends can be attained." If we assume, with Aristotle, that happiness is the "highest good attainable by action," and hence the aim of politics, we get something very like Bentham's view. Indeed it is tempting, and not implausible, to interpret philosophers as different as Adam Smith and Chairman Mao as agreeing that the goal of social institutions is the maximization of realizing that end.

Of course philosophers who share this vision of the proper function of social institutions like law and morality may differ on more than the best methods to attain it, as Aristotle noted, there is widespread agreement that happiness is the goal, but considerable disagreement as to what constitutes happiness. For Bentham the answer is simple: happiness is just pleasure and absence of pain. The value (or disvalue) of a pleasure (or pain) depends only on its intensity and duration, and can (at least in principle) be quantified precisely. Given this, we can reconstruct one line of Bentham's argument for the principle of UTILITY as something like the following:

  1. The good of a society is the sum of happiness of the individuals in that society.
  2. The purpose of morality is promotion of the good of society.
  3. A moral principle is ideal if and only if universal conformity to it would maximize the good of society.
  4. Universal conformity to the principle of UTILITY ("Act always so as to maximize total net balance of pleasures and pains") would maximize the good of society
Click to expand...
More here: http://utilitarianphilosophy.com/definition.eng.html
 
The following is taken from the website of The Council of Secular Humanism. It pretty well summarizes my own thoughts on ethical behavior.

The Common Moral Decencies


The common moral decencies are widely shared. They are essential to the survival of any human community. Meaningful coexistence cannot occur if they are consistently flouted. Handed down through countless generations, they are recognized throughout the world by friends and relatives, colleagues and coworkers, the native-born and immigrant, as basic rules of social intercourse. They are the foundation of moral education and are taught in the family and the schools. They express the elementary virtues of courtesy, politeness, and empathy so essential for living together; indeed, they are the very basis of civilized life itself. The common moral decencies are transcultural in their range and have their roots in generic human needs. They no doubt grow out of the long evolutionary struggle for survival and may even have some sociobiological basis, though they may be lacking in some individuals or societies since their emergence depends upon certain preconditions of moral and social development. Here is a list of some of the decencies:


First are the moral decencies that involve personal integrity, that is, telling the truth, not lying or being deceitful; being sincere, candid, frank, and free of hypocrisy; keeping one’s promises, honoring pledges, living up to agreements; and being honest, avoiding fraud or skullduggery.


Second is trustworthiness. We manifest loyalty to our relatives, friends, and coworkers, and we should be dependable, someone they can count on, reliable, and responsible.


Third are the decencies of benevolence, which involve manifesting goodwill and noble intentions toward other human beings and having a positive concern for them. It means the lack of malice (nonmalfeasance), avoiding doing harm to other persons or their property: We should not kill or rob; inflict physical violence or injury; or be cruel, abusive, or vengeful. In the sexual domain it means that we should not force our sexual passions on others and should seek mutual consent between adults. It means that we have an obligation to be beneficent; that is, kind, sympathetic, compassionate. We should lend a helping hand to those in distress and try to decrease their pain and suffering and contribute positively to their welfare.


Fourth is the principle of fairness. We should show gratitude and appreciation for those who are deserving of it. A civilized community will hold people accountable for their deeds, insisting that those who wrong others do not go completely unpunished and perhaps must make reparations to the aggrieved. This also involves the principle of justice and equality in society. Tolerance is also a basic moral decency: We should allow other individuals the right to their beliefs, values, and styles of life, even though they may differ from our own. We may not agree with them, but each individual is entitled to his convictions as long as he does not harm others or prevent them from exercising their rights. We should try to cooperate with others, seeking to negotiate differences peacefully without resorting to hatred or violence.


These common moral decencies express general principles and rules. Though individuals or nations may deviate from practicing them, they nonetheless provide general parameters by which to guide our conduct. They are not absolute and may at times conflict; we may have to establish priorities between them. They need not be divinely ordained to have moral force, for they are tested in the last analysis by their consequences in practice. Morally developed human beings accept these principles and attempt to live by them because they understand that some personal moral sacrifices may be necessary to avoid conflict in living and working together. Practical moral wisdom thus recognizes the obligatory nature of responsible conduct.
 
Josiah said:
The following is taken from the website of The Council of Secular Humanism. It pretty well summarizes my own thoughts on ethical behavior.

The Common Moral Decencies


The common moral decencies are widely shared. They are essential to the survival of any human community. Meaningful coexistence cannot occur if they are consistently flouted. Handed down through countless generations, they are recognized throughout the world by friends and relatives, colleagues and coworkers, the native-born and immigrant, as basic rules of social intercourse. They are the foundation of moral education and are taught in the family and the schools. They express the elementary virtues of courtesy, politeness, and empathy so essential for living together; indeed, they are the very basis of civilized life itself. The common moral decencies are transcultural in their range and have their roots in generic human needs. They no doubt grow out of the long evolutionary struggle for survival and may even have some sociobiological basis, though they may be lacking in some individuals or societies since their emergence depends upon certain preconditions of moral and social development. Here is a list of some of the decencies:


First are the moral decencies that involve personal integrity, that is, telling the truth, not lying or being deceitful; being sincere, candid, frank, and free of hypocrisy; keeping one’s promises, honoring pledges, living up to agreements; and being honest, avoiding fraud or skullduggery.


Second is trustworthiness. We manifest loyalty to our relatives, friends, and coworkers, and we should be dependable, someone they can count on, reliable, and responsible.


Third are the decencies of benevolence, which involve manifesting goodwill and noble intentions toward other human beings and having a positive concern for them. It means the lack of malice (nonmalfeasance), avoiding doing harm to other persons or their property: We should not kill or rob; inflict physical violence or injury; or be cruel, abusive, or vengeful. In the sexual domain it means that we should not force our sexual passions on others and should seek mutual consent between adults. It means that we have an obligation to be beneficent; that is, kind, sympathetic, compassionate. We should lend a helping hand to those in distress and try to decrease their pain and suffering and contribute positively to their welfare.


Fourth is the principle of fairness. We should show gratitude and appreciation for those who are deserving of it. A civilized community will hold people accountable for their deeds, insisting that those who wrong others do not go completely unpunished and perhaps must make reparations to the aggrieved. This also involves the principle of justice and equality in society. Tolerance is also a basic moral decency: We should allow other individuals the right to their beliefs, values, and styles of life, even though they may differ from our own. We may not agree with them, but each individual is entitled to his convictions as long as he does not harm others or prevent them from exercising their rights. We should try to cooperate with others, seeking to negotiate differences peacefully without resorting to hatred or violence.


These common moral decencies express general principles and rules. Though individuals or nations may deviate from practicing them, they nonetheless provide general parameters by which to guide our conduct. They are not absolute and may at times conflict; we may have to establish priorities between them. They need not be divinely ordained to have moral force, for they are tested in the last analysis by their consequences in practice. Morally developed human beings accept these principles and attempt to live by them because they understand that some personal moral sacrifices may be necessary to avoid conflict in living and working together. Practical moral wisdom thus recognizes the obligatory nature of responsible conduct.
Click to expand...

So like I said; don't throw a rock through your neighbor's window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top