Natural Ethics

[FredBoots]

Does anyone believe that ethics and morality can be derived from nature, i.e., can ethics be derived from non-theistic sources?

As an atheist, I’ve struggled with the question for a long time. Is there any basis for what I believe is immoral behavior? Over the years, I’ve formulated a theory, and I thought I’d put it up for discussion.

The foundation of my theory is two observations:
1. Animals act in a way that, if humans were to act this way, would be considered immoral (e.g., infanticide, slavery, torture, rape).
2. Most animals are conscious of their surrounding, but very few are self-aware (only chimps and orangutans), and only humans are “other-aware” (i.e., aware that others are self-aware).

Therefore, I propose that the reason that humans can and do act morally is a direct consequence of our having a level of consciousness (other’s awareness) that allows us to have empathy. Knowing this, all moral questions can be answered using a modified golden rule: Treat other as you would want to be treated in that situation.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone believe that ethics and morality can be derived from nature, i.e., can ethics be derived from non-theistic sources?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, and yes.

Edit: And I might take a stab at elaborating after I've collected my thoughts on the issue. I think you have a large chunk of it in place already.

[Borodog]

First I think that it should be inherently obvious that mankind is inherently social. Humans naturally form social cooperating groups. This should be obvious from the fact that he has language. If man were inherently anti-social and were more prone to conflict rather than cooperation, there would be little use for language. Language is highly adaptively fit in a cooperating group because it makes transferring knowledge between individuals incredibly more efficient than having to just watch another member of the group and figure out what they are doing. Just think how much more quickly a lion or a wolf could learn to hunt, for example, if its mother could just say, “Now you want to stay downwind from the herd, and slink low in the grass . . .”

So language is highly adaptively fit for a cooperating group, but why is cooperating adaptively fit in the first place? I believe it is because of the division of labor. Groups of humans find their lives easier, healthier, safer, and longer if they specialize and cooperate, because each individual, and thus the whole group, can be more productive this way. So certain tasks become divided up, perhaps hunting by the men, gathering by the women. Old men might specialize in story telling and decision making, young men in hunting or defending the group. You get the idea.

As I have posted in other threads, to gain the benefits of the division of labor and trade (i.e. cooperation), without cheating, you must first produce. To consume you must first produce, whether you consume your own products or whether you trade them to someone else for different products.

But there’s a problem. Why not cheat? It seems as though often it should be in someone’s interest to not first produce, but rather simply steal from someone else who has. Obviously if everyone did this, very little would be produced, conflict would reign supreme, and [censored] homini lupus est would be true. There would also be no need for language, since we’d be in constant conflict. So I think we can say empirically this is not the case.

I think the answer can be found in an evolutionarily stable strategy called TIT FOR TAT. In game theory, a TIT FOR TAT strategy works like this. When playing the game, you always cooperate until the other player fails to also cooperate. The next time, you fail to cooperate. But as soon as he cooperates again, you yourself return to cooperation. This is a robust strategy that works for many “games” and scenarios where a “cheating” outcome would appear to be superior in the short run, but in reality a cooperative strategy is much better in the long run.

I think bundled up in the TIT FOR TAT strategy are the underlying reasons why we have evolved the concepts of trust, punishment and compensation, and forgiveness. Empathy is a mechanism that facilitates all of these feelings. “The Golden Rule” is essentially a TIT FOR TAT strategy! And hence it seems clear that the source of all legitimate human morality is essentially The Golden Rule and TIT FOR TAT.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone believe that ethics and morality can be derived from nature, i.e., can ethics be derived from non-theistic sources?

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality is derived from reality. Reality is objective and so is morality.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, I propose that the reason that humans can and do act morally is a direct consequence of our having a level of consciousness (other’s awareness) that allows us to have empathy. Knowing this, all moral questions can be answered using a modified golden rule: Treat other as you would want to be treated in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a meaningless to determine objective morality.

Preferred behaviour and the argument from morality:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2005/11/argument-from-morality-or-how-we-will.html

[Borodog]

Watch out! Lew Rockwell is one of those dirty anarchocapitalists!

[jthegreat]

See Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" essay for an objective development of morality.

[Scotch78]

I wouldn't argue too much if you claimed that our "other-awareness" is why we abstract ethical theory from a concrete code of conduct, but I do not think it is why we have actual expectations and standards regarding our actions. The reason for that is simply that we are herd (social) animals.

Scott

[Gobgogbog]

Life is just one big series of prisoners dilemmas. Morality is just the superrational solution. Religion is an effective way to propogate a pretty good attempt at the solution but has a lot of terrible and (now) unnecessary consequences.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Treat other as you would want to be treated in that situation

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a problem with this. A Swedish philosopher said something along these lines (and, yes, the Hitler reference is bad form, but I don't have time to figure out another example)
Hitler belived in gassing jews just because they where jews. Now, if Hitler, had it turned out he was jew, would have wanted to be gassed to death, then according to your rule here, he was infact behaving morally correct when he was gassing jews.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
Preferred behaviour and the argument from morality:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html


[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I've preferred to think of objective morality as being closer to mathematics, rather than physics. Math exists outside the physical world, but it can be discovered, again and again, by rational beings. Its connection to our world requires a being capable of "fuzzy logic", because what does 1+1=2 really correspond to in our world? Two apples? At an atomic level, they aren’t even close to being identical; they are similar. Anyway, I’m digressing. Thanks for the links.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if Hitler, had it turned out he was jew, would have wanted to be gassed to death, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit, this is one of the most difficult arguments to deal with regarding the modified golden rule: “I like getting punched in the face, so I can walk around and punch people in the face.”

The answer is that while the golden rule is the summary, the root of morality is empathy. It becomes clearer if you use “grandma” in the above sentence. Would Hitler like his grandma or his girlfriend to be gassed to death?

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, if Hitler, had it turned out he was jew, would have wanted to be gassed to death, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit, this is one of the most difficult arguments to deal with regarding the modified golden rule: “I like getting punched in the face, so I can walk around and punch people in the face.”


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not difficult at all. The golden rule doesn't deal with actions. It deals with the manner in which you treat people, not the method.

So, if I like to get punched, and I want you to punch me, what the golden rule sees is that I want you to do that which I like to me. So I should do that which you like to you. And you probably like to not get punched.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Life is just one big series of prisoners dilemmas. Morality is just the superrational solution. Religion is an effective way to propogate a pretty good attempt at the solution but has a lot of terrible and (now) unnecessary consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you're wrong on all but account. Very, very few choices fit the prisoner's dilemma template; morality is neither superrational nor a solution to the prisoner's dilemma (nor to life); and religion is neither an effective propagator of morality nor a pretty good attempt at solving the prisoner's dilemma (nor life). However, religious morality does have a lot of unnecessary, detrimental side effects.

Scott

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
Very, very few choices fit the prisoner's dilemma template;

[/ QUOTE ]

A huge factor in all decisions I can think of is how "good" each possibility is for the individual making the decision. And in a society where individuals make their decisions based on what's good for the society, the outcome is better for the individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
morality is neither superrational nor a solution to the prisoner's dilemma (nor to life);

[/ QUOTE ]

Things tend to be immoral because they are bad for the society. If morality is that which is best for the group then it is superrationality minus the one critical assumption superrationality makes about the society.

[ QUOTE ]
and religion is neither an effective propagator of morality nor a pretty good attempt at solving the prisoner's dilemma (nor life).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's definitely an effective propogator of most things it embodies. And it definitely embodies *some* moral values. But I agree that it's not a "pretty good attempt", and in fact I think parts of it are fundametally immoral. Or at least bad for the society.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Preferred behaviour and the argument from morality:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html


[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I've preferred to think of objective morality as being closer to mathematics, rather than physics. Math exists outside the physical world, but it can be discovered, again and again, by rational beings. Its connection to our world requires a being capable of "fuzzy logic", because what does 1+1=2 really correspond to in our world? Two apples? At an atomic level, they aren’t even close to being identical; they are similar. Anyway, I’m digressing. Thanks for the links.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you like that, be sure to check out Stefan's podcasts:
http://www.podfeed.net/category_item.asp?id=3476
http://www.podfeed.net/episodes.asp?id=3476

[siegfriedandroy]

Fred-

I think it's good that you have struggled with this question. Many atheists fail to fully comprehend the ethical dilemma inherent in an atheistic view.

I guess your theory is okay, but you have no true, overarching and objective reason why that should indeed be the golden rule. Another atheist might define their golden rule as follows- "Treat others in a way that will maximize your own personal happiness, irregardless of how they personally would want to be treated." This rule would be no less inconsistent with atheism than your rule. What I am saying is that, as you probably intuitively realize based on your said struggles, is that there cannot be ONE single, universal standard for all to follow. At least not one that MUST flow from an atheistic world. Instead, everyone is free to come up with their own standards, regardless of how they affect other. An extremist Muslim who tries to kill all non-believers is not 'wrong' in any real or meaningful sense (if atheism is true). I'm not sure that the words 'right' or 'wrong' can even have any true meaning at all in such a world view. At least the type of objective, absolute meaning that many humans think of when considering these words.