Morality Does Not Exist

[RenaissanceBiker]

I think your glass is half empty. I'll be locking my valuables before inviting you over.

Many people refrain from stealing everyday. You point to the few that do as proof that there is no morality. I am a regular blood donor at the Red Cross. At my next donation I will have given 5 1/2 gallons. This does not benefit me at all, in fact I have to take time out of my day to go donate. I do it as a benefit for people I don't even know. There are people who have little or no morals. That doesn't mean that nobody does.

 

[Merko]

I think your glass is half empty. I'll be locking my valuables before inviting you over.

I'd prefer if we could refrain from that kind of slurs, please.

Many people refrain from stealing everyday. You point to the few that do as proof that there is no morality.

Yes. You're a bit like Sylvia Browne counting only the hits here I think. If someone acts 'morally' then this proves morality exists and has an influence - but when people don't, it doesn't count. How can morality exist, but only for some people, sometimes? I have seen no proposed mechanism that would explain this on/off-behaviour.

I have proposed a different mechanism that is consistent with the observation that people often act in in the best collective interest, but sometimes not. I have supported this with the claim that people will be more likely to go against the collective interest, when the benefit for them personally is very great. I think this squares well with our observations. Do you agree, or disagree?

I am a regular blood donor at the Red Cross. At my next donation I will have given 5 1/2 gallons. This does not benefit me at all, in fact I have to take time out of my day to go donate. I do it as a benefit for people I don't even know.

I think you do it because you are a caring individual, and it gives you satisfaction to know that you may be saving someone's life. Myself, I've just spent almost six months in a jungle trying to figure out how to reduce malnourishment in children, which is rampant here. Because I'm moral? No way. But I like children, and I think my time here may have taught me important things that will be valuable to me later in life. And I don't mean that as in teaching me how to make a lot of money.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

It seems to me that you are the Browneish one, only counting the misses. Morality exists for all members of a society. A member of a society can choose to act immorally, but that does not disprove the existence of morals. It actually proves it. You can't be immoral in the absence of morals.

The only way to have an absence of morals is to have an absence of society. If you are alone, far from other people, and unable to interact with a society in any way, you cannot act morally or immorally. However, if you have the opportunity to do something that could impact others, you suddenly become part of that society again.

For example, you are a space traveller who has crashed on a planet far from home. You have adequate supplies to live a long time but you are completely stranded with no way to get home. You are alone. If you can communicate with another ship or planet in some way, you are still a member of a society. If not, how could you possibly act in an immoral way? Your actions cannot bring happiness or sorrow to another human being. All of your actions are amoral.

3 months later, you find an advanced race of aliens living on the planet. They are capable of space travel. They have spacecraft and weapon systems far more advanced than humans possess. You inadvertantly become humanities ambassador to this race. Your actions, completely unknown to the rest of human society, could start an interstellar war. In that case, you suddenly can be moral or immoral again.

You can make a case for being lost in the jungle or cast away on a deserted island in a similar fashion. As long as your are a member of a society (willing or unwilling), morality exists for you. I look forward to your arguement to the contrary.

 

[PenguinWarrior]

Bingo! Although I know you mean ethics/morality, I think the above applies only to ethics, not morality.

The lack of morality means that we must always pay attention to what kind of ethics we postulate. If we ask people to commit sacrifices, or to refrain from advantages, we must make sure that they are rewarded or punished accordingly. Otherwise, we must assume that clever individuals will act to the detriment of society by breaking our ethical code.

So basically we agree, but I'm more romantic about it. It may be a character flaw, but it's one I'm happy to have.

 

[Orangutan]

Hey Merko,

You might find this guys http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/ dissertation interesting. There seems to be some genetic predisposition in people to think certain ways during moral dilemmas. He's done some work with live brain scans while people are asked questions on morals (outlined here
http://www.reason.com/news/show/35014.html

You can find a link to his dissertation on his home page. I'm jut giving it a read at the moment. I'm not sure it's related to the question in the thread but you seem interested in this kind of stuff so I hope you enjoy it.


O

Edit:
Here's a direct link to the dissertation:
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-Dissertation.pdf

 

[Merko]

A member of a society can choose to act immorally, but that does not disprove the existence of morals. It actually proves it. You can't be immoral in the absence of morals.

But by the same reasoning, we could add another trait. I'll re-use the thread-starters example. Let's call this trait 'frogality'. A frogal person is someone who furthers the well-being of frogs. An imfrogal person doesn't do this, or may even harm frogs. It seems we have exactly the same 'evidence': some people are frogal, some are imfrogal, and therefore we have proven the existance of frogality - and an infinite number of other traits.

No, the only thing it proves is that you can define any arbitrary concept. But I have argued throughout this thread that morality, as commonly understood, is not supposed to just be an arbitrary concept. It is supposed to be something that actually moves people, something that exists not just as an idea.

The only way to have an absence of morals is to have an absence of society. If you are alone, far from other people, and unable to interact with a society in any way, you cannot act morally or immorally.

Why? Surely you are human yourself. If 'morality' would be to further the happiness of humans, and you are all that remains of humanity, then surely you should further your own happiness. But why? Why not that of frogs? Or perhaps you should strive to collect 10241 rocks in a pile? Or 10242 rocks. Or...

Like I already explained, the fact that people sometimes - but far from always - are furthering the interest of other humans (or frogs) can be easily explained by their self-interest. We don't need the concept of morality to explain that. Do you agree, or disagree?

Additionally, I claim that societal norms, ethical codes, or laws, are not what people usually refer to as morals. To show this, I claim that most people who believe in morality would agree that a law or social norm that prescribed pedophilia would not make pedophilia moral. Do you agree, or disagree? And do you agree, or disagree, that societal norms, ethical codes or laws are not what is meant by morality?

On the other hand, the existance of social norms, ethical codes and laws can again easily be explained by self-interest, as Hobbes explained very well. Do you agree, or disagree?

I cannot see any other way in which we could observe the
existance of morality. Can you?

If we cannot observe morality, then why should we assume that it exists? Would it then not also be equally prudent to believe in an infinite number of other unobservable concepts? But clearly we cannot handle an infinite number of concepts, so this is impossible.

Hey Merko,

You might find this guys http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/ dissertation interesting. There seems to be some genetic predisposition in people to think certain ways during moral dilemmas.

There was already a thread about that study:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69217

However, I don't think this has anything to do with morality, obviously. Of course I don't deny that most people would save some human lives if they could do it without risk, and that sometimes it may be difficult to decide who they would want to save or if it is a good idea to save someone by hurting someone else. But again, we don't need 'morality' to explain this. Humans have a tendency to like other humans, and sometimes this causes kind acts, especially when there is no cost involved in doing so.

 

[scepticat]

On asking why he replied that it was wrong. When pushed to explain what exactly was "wrong" about it he told me it must simply be a behavioural trait, conditioned through evolution, that steered us away from confrontational situations that might endanger us, or that might create situations that prove detrimental in the future.

No arguments there, but it took me quite a while to make him understand that wasn't what I was asking; I was interested in why he wouldn't kill someone, given the scenario I had outlined. If he understood that it was simply behavioural conditioning that was putting the idea of "wrongness" into his head then why, in this hypothetical case that allows for no come-back, would he not consciously override it and do the deed.

One explaination is that humans just ain't built that way. We are mostly not logical creatures and we do not calculate. We are controlled by innate and indelible drives that are difficult to overcome even with knowledge and logic at our disposal. We see this in phobias, anorexia, addictions, etc. Logic is no match for the primal parts of our nature.

The other explaination is that from birth we learn that murder is very seriously wrong. If we sucessfully convince ourselves that there is no such thing as wrong, we still are left with the idea that murder is very serious. Getting murdered is the most serious thing that can happen to me, so it follows that murdering someone is serious. And in such serious situations I have learned to act with extreme caution and examine my motivations. I may ask so many questions that it is debilitating. All of this creates uncertainty and doubt and fear which may very well keep me from pulling the trigger.

Just my thoughts. I am an atheist, external world skeptic, and moral relativist.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

But by the same reasoning, we could add another trait. I'll re-use the thread-starters example. Let's call this trait 'frogality'. A frogal person is someone who furthers the well-being of frogs. An imfrogal person doesn't do this, or may even harm frogs. It seems we have exactly the same 'evidence': some people are frogal, some are imfrogal, and therefore we have proven the existance of frogality - and an infinite number of other traits.
No, the only thing it proves is that you can define any arbitrary concept. But I have argued throughout this thread that morality, as commonly understood, is not supposed to just be an arbitrary concept. It is supposed to be something that actually moves people, something that exists not just as an idea.

You certainly can define frogality and classify peoples behavior as frogal or imfrogal. We can similarly define goatality, pine-treeality, and mailboxality. Most people would look at you strangely if you try convince them to act mailboxally. It's not very useful to most people, but morality is.

Like I already explained, the fact that people sometimes - but far from always - are furthering the interest of other humans (or frogs) can be easily explained by their self-interest. We don't need the concept of morality to explain that. Do you agree, or disagree?

It is in an individual's self-interest to act in a manner that benefits society. What other concept is there?

Additionally, I claim that societal norms, ethical codes, or laws, are not what people usually refer to as morals. To show this, I claim that most people who believe in morality would agree that a law or social norm that prescribed pedophilia would not make pedophilia moral. Do you agree, or disagree? And do you agree, or disagree, that societal norms, ethical codes or laws are not what is meant by morality?
On the other hand, the existance of social norms, ethical codes and laws can again easily be explained by self-interest, as Hobbes explained very well. Do you agree, or disagree?

I'm not going to respond to the obvious emotional hook, pedophilia. The needs of society dictate what is moral behavior. It seems like you just don't want to call it morality, and by defining it as something else claim you have disproven the old name. That seems silly.

I cannot see any other way in which we could observe the
existance of morality. Can you?
If we cannot observe morality, then why should we assume that it exists? Would it then not also be equally prudent to believe in an infinite number of other unobservable concepts? But clearly we cannot handle an infinite number of concepts, so this is impossible.

We can define morality and observe moral behavior in society. You can't weigh it on a scale or measure it with a yardstick, but we haven't defined it that way.

 

[Merko]

It's not very useful to most people, but morality is.

I disagree obviously - I think moral is a very harmful concept, that only serves to delude people and make them subservient to those with lesser scruples. If I believed in morals, I'd say they were immoral.

It is in an individual's self-interest to act in a manner that benefits society. What other concept is there?

But clearly this is wrong. There are clearly many cases where it is in the individual's self-interest to act in a manner that harms society. Tax evasion would be a very common example.

I'm not going to respond to the obvious emotional hook, pedophilia. The needs of society dictate what is moral behavior. It seems like you just don't want to call it morality, and by defining it as something else claim you have disproven the old name. That seems silly.

I take this that you mean that pedophilia would be moral in such a society, even though you very much dislike the idea, which is understandable.

However, this puts you at odds with most people who believe in morality. They would argue that pedophilia cannot ever be moral in any society.

So I'm saying that you are trying to re-define the "old name" of morality. I accept the concept according to the way it is commonly used - but I deny that the concept has a basis in reality.

 

[MrFrankZito]

Renaissance Biker,

You mention some animal behaviors and, I think unjustifiably, label them "moral behaviors." Animals, to be sure, engage in wildly various behavior, including cannibalism and rape.

If cannibalism or rape were a very common behavior of some particular species, for that species would cannibalism or rape be considered a moral behavior?

I'm not sure it's sensible to conflate animal behavior with a moral code of some type.

 

[Tricky]

Renaissance Biker,

You mention some animal behaviors and, I think unjustifiably, label them "moral behaviors." Animals, to be sure, engage in wildly various behavior, including cannibalism and rape.

If cannibalism or rape were a very common behavior of some particular species, for that species would cannibalism or rape be considered a moral behavior?

I'm not sure it's sensible to conflate animal behavior with a moral code of some type.

Morality is a general term which we use to describe what we think is good and what is bad. This includes both learned behavior and instinctive behavior. For example, if a mother protects her young, is that moral behavior? Certainly when mothers don't protect their young, we call them "immoral" (think Andrea Yates), so I think it must be classified as a moral behavior, even if it is instinctive. So if an animal does the same thing, why can we not also call that a moral behavior?

It is well known that there are certain individuals within the animal kingdom whose behaviors are "abnormal", for example, some mother cats will kill their kittens for no discernible reason. By "cat society", those cats could be called "immoral". And if cannibalism and rape were unusual in groups of animals which sometimes do them, then they might be considered "immoral" as well, though their moral code, like their reasoning powers, would be considerably less complex than ours.

We're animals too, Frank. Morals aren't always about rationality or learned behaviors. A number of things go into what we loosely define as "morality", and genetic predisposition is not the least of them.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Merko, most people would argue that pedophilia cannot ever be moral in any society because they can't imagine a situation where it would be beneficial to the group. I can't either. I'll try though.

In Africa, there is a horrible superstition that a man can cure himself of HIV/AIDS by having sex with a virgin. If that were true, what would the impact on morality be? Let's assume that it was scientifically proven that a man could be completely cured of HIV/AIDS by having sex with a minor and not pass on the disease to the child. It is a completely ridiculous assumption, of course. How many lives would that save in a continent that is being ravaged by this epidemic? Would it be worth it?

 

[SirPhilip]

Again, 'morality' and 'law' are completely different things. Of course we can have laws. Of course there is no point whatsoever to create relativist laws. However, that has nothing to do with morality. I know of no one who seriously think that because something is a law, it must be moral - or vice versa.

By law, I meant objective consequences of conduct, as opposed to invented ones. Lacking this (as seems to be the case) people invent their own, either by consensus (in the case of a democracy) or imposed (in the case of a monarchy or dictatorship). All reasonable people, however, wish this wasn't the case. Even in a social darwinistic sense, in the game of life, it would be nice to have rules.

 

[Merko]

So if an animal does the same thing, why can we not also call that a moral behavior?

Because it doesn't capture what people mean by 'morality'. Yes, I would agree that it is the same thing, and that there is nothing essentially different about human behaviour. But 'morality' is supposed to be something that moves us to act to promote the general interest, even if our instincts move us in the opposite direction. 'Moral' is not supposed to just be a synonym for 'commendable'.

Merko, most people would argue that pedophilia cannot ever be moral in any society because they can't imagine a situation where it would be beneficial to the group.

Well you know, I'm having a two-front debate here. On the one hand, we have people like Tricky who argue that 'Morality' is simply what the majority finds to be commendable. My pedophilia argument is directed towards those people.

On the other hand, we have people like you who argue that 'morality' is the tendency to act to promote the general interest (or a similar definition). I agree that this is a truer definition of what most people mean by 'morality'. But my argument against this view of 'morality' is that it doesn't seem to be supported by observation: people appear to act in a way that benefits themselves, not society in general.

By law, I meant objective consequences of conduct, as opposed to invented ones. Lacking this (as seems to be the case) people invent their own, either by consensus (in the case of a democracy) or imposed (in the case of a monarchy or dictatorship). All reasonable people, however, wish this wasn't the case. Even in a social darwinistic sense, in the game of life, it would be nice to have rules.

Sorry, I don't understand. All reasonable people wish that what wasn't the case? I agree it is nice to have rules, and that we can make them up. But I think this is fundamentally different what is commonly understood by morality. In fact, morality is often promoted as an alternative to clear, enforceable rules. Rather than implementing safeguards to keep our leaders in check, for example, it is suggested that we should elect more 'moral' leaders.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

The majority of a group will find it commendable when someone acts to promote the general interest.

People sometimes act in the best interest of society and sometimes they act in their own best interest. Sometimes their actions benefit both. You seem to be saying that one person acting solely for their own benefit proves that no one in a group has any morals.

 

[Merko]

You seem to be saying that one person acting solely for their own benefit proves that no one in a group has any morals.

No, I'm saying that there seems to be absolutely no evidence for the position that everyone does not always act solely for their own benefit.

This benefit may frequently involve feelings of compassion or pity, but I don't think it would make any sense to make 'moral' a synonym for 'compassionate'. Clearly there is more to the concept of morality.

 

[meg]

Merko wrote:

So what is morality? I say it's a scam. People claim to be moral, but it doesn't affect their behaviour - it's the other way around. Someone who is rich is likely to adopt moral values where the right to property is very important. If the same person suddenly becomes poor, he is likely to change his moral values. And the poor person who gets rich changes her 'morals' in the same way. A person who morally condemns homosexuality, but then gets a homosexual child, is quite likely to change opinions. And so on. In other words, we change our 'morals', but not according to what society needs, but according to our own situation. It is really only an attempt to further our own personal agenda, by convincing the others that there is a woo force that promotes our values.

I think our personal morals, which, when enough people have the same ones, they become our societal morals, are directly affected by our sense of empathy. When one does not understand poverty, one might not consider it important. If one has never met a homosexual, one might not think of them as human beings worthy of respect. If one is convinced that certain races of people are subhuman, one might think slavery is acceptable.

Merko wrote:

But I have argued throughout this thread that morality, as commonly understood, is not supposed to just be an arbitrary concept. It is supposed to be something that actually moves people, something that exists not just as an idea.

I think this is a throwback to Plato's ideas about form and matter. Though, actually, I don't think he invented it. He probably took it from the zoroastrian concepts of Minu (inteligence) and Geti (perception) from a few hundred years before. He's just the one that made it popular.

Plato taught that everything we see is just a reflection of some perfect "essence". A cup is but a reflection of "cupness". Your cat is but a reflection of "catness". That our concepts of "good" or "evil" are mere reflections of some perfect essence of "good" or "evil" that exists whether we're thinking about it or not.

This whole dualism/essentialism thing is ridiculously wooish nonsense, in my opinion, but it has been deeply incorporated into cultures around the world, and is a mainstay of most religious thinking. It justifies the idea of souls, spirits, sin, heaven, hell, the idea that man was made in god's image, good and evil, all sorts of things. Even many people that reject the notion of "god" still accept deep down this basic premise that there is some sort of "ulitmate good". - That there is some way, somehow, some thing that no matter what will always be considered "good" or "bad". That there are some things that are "moral" or "immoral" no matter what.

So, as I reject essentialism, I reject this concept of morality. There is nothing we humans can do that is always considered "bad", nor is there anything we can do that is always completely "good".

In my opinion our morals, ethics and our laws are pretty much reflections of the same thing. They are rules and guidelines we come up with to try to solve various problems in our society and are just a reflection of the values of the people in power at a particular time in a particular place.

There is no one thing that has ever been agreed upon throughout the history of civilization that could be called "immoral".

We generally agree that killing people is a "bad thing", but what exactly constitues "murder" and how bad it is vary greatly depending on the culture. We sentence criminals to death, we send our soldiers off to fight and die (and kill people), so apparently there are some times that we consider it "good", or at least acceptable to kill people. Some cultures practise euthanasia. Some infanticide. At various times in history it's even been considered highly entertaining. The coloseum packed in 50,000 people at a time who came to watch the sport. The amount of money Americans spend on movies and books depicting serial killers and murderous maniacs might suggest we still consider it pretty entertaining.

In our western society, we consider a man having sex with a 9 year old girl to be child rape and pedophilia, highly immoral, disgusting and offensive, and we send them to prison.

In Yemen, as long as the man pays the agreed upon bride price, it is called a marriage, and a three day feast is thrown to honor the happy couple.

One could even say the Yemen man is acting morally, compared to what the rules used to be:

Yemenite Jewish men [from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century] submitted to the rabbinical ruling which permits a man to have sexual intercourse with a female once she is three years and one day old.

taken from http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/YEMEN.HTM

Yes, the above makes me want to puke. But not because I'm more "moral" than the people of Yemen. It's because I was raised in a society that (fairly recently) realized that having sex with people that are not sexually mature damages them physically and mentally. It can kill them, make them infertile for the rest of their lives, or leave them so mentally damaged as to not make the good hard working, tax paying citizens we value, so we stopped the practise by creating moral beliefs which are reflected by laws concerning the "age of consent". These beliefs and laws change as our knowlege and understanding about sexual maturity and the mental capacity of young people grows.


MrFrankZito wrote:

Morality relates to human-to-human interaction. Moral actions increase happiness, while immoral actions increase suffering.

While, in general, I agree with this statement, I don't think it's particularly useful. It's too vague. There are too many variables. What is the definition of "happiness"? What constitutes "suffering". How are they valued? Is physical suffering the same as emotional suffering? And of course Who's suffering or happiness are we talking about? Does a rich person's happiness trump a poor person's? If I eat the last piece of chocolate cake and increase my happiness, is that moral? Will my daughter suffer when she realizes there isn't any cake left? Is buying a chocolate cake when there are starving people in the world a moral act or an immoral act?

This attempt to define "moral" is just pointless. It just leads to more questions about the definitions of the rest of the words, and it doesn't necessarily give you any clue as to what to do in particular situations.- Which IS what we're really trying to find out, isn't it? - Just what are we supposed to do? Just how we are supposed to act?

I'm really fond of Popper, so here are some of his thoughts on the subject:

"Never let yourself be goaded into taking seriously, problems about words and their meanings. What must be taken seriously are questions of fact, and assertions about facts: theories and hypotheses; the problems they solve and the problems they raise... The ad hoc method of dealing with problems of clarity or precision as the need arises might be called dialysis, in order to distinguish it from analysis: from the idea that language analysis as such may solve problems, or create an armory for future use. Dialysis cannot solve problems. It cannot do so any more than definitions or explication or language analysis can: problems can only be solved with the help of new ideas."
------Unended Quest, section 7

Agreeing on what constitutes "moral" or "immoral" behavior doesn't solve anything. The best we can do at any point in time is to attempt to create some general guidelines for social behavior based on our current knowlege of the facts at hand, and our current beliefs (which are hopefully based on evidence, facts and logic) about individual rights and freedoms and what constitutes a healthy society.

So, I agree with the opening post, that "morality", as a concept of an essential quality that exists in and of itself, does not exist. However that doesn't mean we don't have any "morals". Obviously we do, and they change and evolve as we solve the problems we face and incorporate new knowledge into our beliefs about the world we live in.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

No, I'm saying that there seems to be absolutely no evidence for the position that everyone does not always act solely for their own benefit.

This benefit may frequently involve feelings of compassion or pity, but I don't think it would make any sense to make 'moral' a synonym for 'compassionate'. Clearly there is more to the concept of morality.

So if someone does something that benefits society, you think they are just doing it to make themselves feel good? How about the defenders of the Alamo? They could have surrendered and lived. Instead they fought a hopeless battle against a vastly superior Mexican army, buying time for Houston to prepare his troops. These men died for the temporary good feeling of self-sacrifice?

Edit: I'd like to continue this, but I'm off for a long overdue vacation. I probably won't be back until after New Years. All I can say, Merko, is that I think this is a very pessimistic position for you to take. I prefer to think that some people are moral and will work towards the betterment of society even if they themselves receive no benefit. I'd like to think I'm one of them. It's ok if you don't think you are, but I must disagree with you if you think no one would.

 

[Merko]

Meg: I agree with almost everything that you write. I have also traced back the idea of a good/evil dichotomy to Zoroastrism. The pre-Zoroaster polytheism appears to have had an attitude to this that is more similar to that found in Hinduism or Chinese philosophy. I don't know if Judaism borrowed the idea from Zoroastrism, or if it was invented separately. It seems plausible that they borrowed it.

However, I'm a bit curious about what you think defines morality, then. Is it the same as prudence? Or enlightened self-interest? Or societal norms?

I understand that it is politically very difficult to challenge the idea of morality, at least in the west. It seems to me that there is a school in Taoist philosophy that does it, though, so I'm not so sure it can't be done. The Cyrenaics also seem to have been thinking in this direction (although all of their writings were apparently destroyed by Christians). However, I'm not happy with attempts to just re-define morality into something that is more agreeable.

So if someone does something that benefits society, you think they are just doing it to make themselves feel good? How about the defenders of the Alamo?

Well, I'm not familiar with this particular example. But I think that in this kind of situation, people may decide to keep fighting either because they believe they could win, regardless of the odds against it (maybe this Houston guy would get there and save them), or because they just keep doing what they are doing, and never reach a moment of decision where they re-think their position. But above all, I'm not saying that people make very deliberate decisions at each moment. If you're a soldier, there are very good reasons to internalise values of bravery and unyieldingness. It's good for your career. It may not be very good in every situation, but you can't always sit down in the middle of a battle and do a detailed analysis. Many soldiers probably aren't very good analysts to begin with, anyway.

But my point is that this attitude of bravery and unyieldingness, even when it may be fatal under certain circumstances, has still evolved in this individual for selfish reasons. Sometimes it just backfires.


In all, I think my objection to morality can be summarised by paraphrasing that famous Seneca quote:
"Morality is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

I think it would serve the "common people" to wisen up and demand real reasons for doing what they are "supposed to". And they should create reasons to make other people do what they are supposed to do. Well, we do that all the time of course, but I think we should be more vigilant about it.

 

[SirPhilip]

Sorry, I don't understand. All reasonable people wish that what wasn't the case?

The requirement of man-made rules, as opposed to a sentient, universal presence which acts as a referee.

Rather than implementing safeguards to keep our leaders in check, for example, it is suggested that we should elect more 'moral' leaders.

Hey, anytime you want to air-drop millions of copies of the PCL-R all over Capitol Hill, hit me up.