PHIL 3310. Exploring the philosophical, ethical, spiritual, existential, social, and personal implications of a godless universe, and supporting their study at Middle Tennessee State University & beyond.
Atheist ethics; Meaning & purpose (JB 3-4). Post your thoughts (etc.) in the comments space below.
1. What was Ivan Karamazov wrong about? Why do you think this attitude was popular in the 19th century with philosophers like Nietzsche, and is popular still with many theists?
2. What main point about goodness did Plato's Euthyphro make? Do you think most theists are comfortable with the idea that moral principles and rules may ultimately be arbitrary, from the standpoint of reason and human values?
3. The major monotheistic traditions all leave us with what view of morality? Were you raised to believe that God (like Santa Claus) is always watching and knows if you've been bad or good? Do you agree that those whose decision not to engage in criminal acts is motivated primarily by fear of punishment are not behaving morally?
[I'll stop explicitly posing "discussion questions" in connection with all our textual questions, leaving that to you and to class discussion... but please always do share your views about our authors' textual assertions.]
4. What view of choice and responsibility comes easier for the theist?
5. What basic impulse did Adam Smith and David Hume consider prerequisite to moral reasoning?
6. Why should we be moral?
7. What consequentialist conundrum was raised by COVID?
8. What must we accept, if we take a pluralistic approach to moral reasoning?
9. By what measures can the most secular societies be said to be the most moral?
10. What form of purpose is most meaningful?
11. What do most people want, more than the achievement of goals (in the narrow sense)? But are these goals in a broader sense?
12. What do we really need to know, rather than the meaning or purpose of life?
13. Religion's "happiness dividend" seems to come from what?
14. Baggini finds it hard to believe that life could not be improved by what?
15. Who are some famous atheists named by Baggini?
16. What does Baggini find problematic about cheery or happy atheists?
17. What is Hanami?
==
IS LIFE WORTH LIVING?
When Mr. Mallock's book with this title appeared some fifteen years ago, the jocose answer that "it depends on the liver" had great currency in the newspapers. The answer which I propose to give to-night cannot be jocose. In the words of one of Shakespeare's prologues,—
"I come no more to make you laugh; things now,
That bear a weighty and a serious brow,
Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe,"—
must be my theme. In the deepest heart of all of us there is a corner in which the ultimate mystery of things works sadly; and I know not what such an association as yours intends, nor what you ask of those whom you invite to address you, unless it be to lead you from the surface-glamour of existence, and for an hour at least to make you heedless to the buzzing and jigging and vibration of small interests and excitements that form the tissue of our ordinary consciousness. Without further explanation or apology, then, I ask you to join me in turning an attention, commonly too unwilling, to the profounder bass-note of life. Let us search the lonely depths for an hour together, and see what answers in the last folds and recesses of things our question may find...(William James, continues)
==
"The solid meaning of life is always the same eternal thing,— the marriage, namely, of some unhabitual ideal, however special, with some fidelity, courage, and endurance; with some man 2 s or woman 's pains.—And, whatever or wherever life may be, there will always be the chance for that marriage to take place." William James, "What Makes a Life Significant"
Since you mention it, I could use an assist with the grammatical construction of the sentence re the marriage. What marriage is being referred to? Is it “the marriage … of some … ideal ... with some fidelity, courage, and endurance ….”? The semi-colon that precedes “man’s or woman’s pains” makes me think there is a third party to the marriage, whereas a comma would have me read it as a marriage between an ideal, supported by a passional and volitional nature (WTB), and my pain.
Hmm... it hadn't occurred to me to consider that fine-grained grammatical detail or a Jamesian menage a trois, I always assumed it was just a straightforward marriage of ideal and effort. You may have a point, though.
I agree with Baggini, morality comes from fellow-feeling and solidarity. Once you acknowledge your consanguinity with peers, seems to me, it's just obtuse to wonder why you should treat others as you'd like to be treated.
In the Euthyphro dilemma it wasn't obvious to Euthyphro but it should be to us, shouldn't it, that what we understand to be good is not the arbitrary fiat of a hypothetical super-being. Sapere Aude, as Kant said: use your reason to grasp the meaning of good, don't take anyone else's word for it.
How can the pursuit of flourishing lives possibly NOT be of concern to us?
Meaning/purpose must be meaningful to each of us, for each of us, originally and at first-hand. Serving meanings/purposes not our own misses the mark, unless we internalize and lay personal proprietary claim to them. Some would say they do that, when subscribing to a religious (or other) tradition. Others would more frankly admit they're merely meeting an external prerequisite.
When Socrates posed the question, "Do the gods choose what is good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods chose it?"
This is a very interesting question because I think if you apply this to popular contemporary religious beliefs that God created existence as it is, then the answer would have to be that good is good because God willed it so. In fact, if that were the case, and we were pre-programmed by this deity, then God could have programmed us to believe torture is central to our moral beliefs, just as we think that not murdering people is central to our moral beliefs now. The fallacy in this argument that Baggini pointed out is that we believe that torture is wrong and THAT is why God would never choose it. So to me, this goes to show that theists simply base their interpretation of God's will on pre-existing human notions and not vice versa. So, I think, the logical conclusion to Socrates's question is rather obvious to any person with a naturalist mindset.
But of course this raises the greater question of morality itself. If there is no pre-existing God to create our moral codes for us, then we become responsible for our own moral landscape.
So what reason do we have to be moral? Should we be moral simply to minimize the suffering in our lives and the lives of others? And "j.vansy" (sorry, unsure who this is) posed the question, "Where does morality come from?" because it does seem to me that we have some sense of morality whether we choose to or not (with the exception of the narcissist or other extraordinary mental circumstances)
Do we have this sense of morality because we are born with is? Or do we develop it subliminally as we interact with other humans? Thus, is morality relative to the circumstances of your birth or universal for every human? If a baby were put on an island separated from other people (assuming it survives) would its moral codes be the same as if it were born in New York City?
I think theists find an odd sense of comfort in accepting that God has chosen things for them. Telling them that their moral principles and rules are arbitrary based on the idea that good is good simply because a higher being says so, wouldn't strike them as it does me. When you say that to me, my reaction is, "well, fuck... yeah. What if the being decided that (this) is ‘good’" But I can just imagine my grandparents listening to that idea and shaking their head-- not wanting to hear that their lives could have been lived arbitrarily. I can already hear their arguments that God wouldn’t give them things they cannot handle-- whatever.
Also, on the Santa/God always watching question: it’s believed by theist, specifically for this response Monotheist, that without God there is no reason to be moral because morals come from God, so without God everyone would devolve into anarchy; therefore, the idea that Santa and God are always watching are like scare tactics to ensure children are acting “morally” at all times. I was raised with this idea, it was beaten like a dead horse into my head, and I find it to be the most toxic idea that I came away with from the church. The feeling of being watched constantly is something that daunts me; however, to return to the point, I don’t consider this notion every time I do something deemed good or bad… I just simply act. It just brings me to wonder if there are theists who consistently think in terms of “God is watching right now, I need to hold the door open for this old woman,” or “God will blink and miss if I don’t click to round up and donate.” To further answer the question, it also persuades me to believe that people are not simply acting morally in fear of punishment… or should I say a majority of people.
Since you mention it, I could use an assist with the grammatical construction of the sentence re the marriage. What marriage is being referred to? Is it “the marriage … of some … ideal ... with some fidelity, courage, and endurance ….”? The semi-colon that precedes “man’s or woman’s pains” makes me think there is a third party to the marriage, whereas a comma would have me read it as a marriage between an ideal, supported by a passional and volitional nature (WTB), and my pain.
ReplyDeleteHmm... it hadn't occurred to me to consider that fine-grained grammatical detail or a Jamesian menage a trois, I always assumed it was just a straightforward marriage of ideal and effort. You may have a point, though.
DeleteWhere does Morality come from?
ReplyDeleteWhat stance should one take in the Euthyphro dilemma?
From Baggini's viewpoint, does intention matter in engaging in moral decision making? Do you agree with his stance?
Should the flourishing of one's life, as Aristotle thinks is an ethical center, be a concern for the contemporary ethical man?
Why does belief in a Creator God fail to give life inherent meaning?
Is there any sufficient answer to the question of Life's meaning that doesn't fall into infinite regress?
Interesting questions all...
DeleteI agree with Baggini, morality comes from fellow-feeling and solidarity. Once you acknowledge your consanguinity with peers, seems to me, it's just obtuse to wonder why you should treat others as you'd like to be treated.
In the Euthyphro dilemma it wasn't obvious to Euthyphro but it should be to us, shouldn't it, that what we understand to be good is not the arbitrary fiat of a hypothetical super-being. Sapere Aude, as Kant said: use your reason to grasp the meaning of good, don't take anyone else's word for it.
How can the pursuit of flourishing lives possibly NOT be of concern to us?
Meaning/purpose must be meaningful to each of us, for each of us, originally and at first-hand. Serving meanings/purposes not our own misses the mark, unless we internalize and lay personal proprietary claim to them. Some would say they do that, when subscribing to a religious (or other) tradition. Others would more frankly admit they're merely meeting an external prerequisite.
When Socrates posed the question, "Do the gods choose what is good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods chose it?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question because I think if you apply this to popular contemporary religious beliefs that God created existence as it is, then the answer would have to be that good is good because God willed it so. In fact, if that were the case, and we were pre-programmed by this deity, then God could have programmed us to believe torture is central to our moral beliefs, just as we think that not murdering people is central to our moral beliefs now. The fallacy in this argument that Baggini pointed out is that we believe that torture is wrong and THAT is why God would never choose it. So to me, this goes to show that theists simply base their interpretation of God's will on pre-existing human notions and not vice versa. So, I think, the logical conclusion to Socrates's question is rather obvious to any person with a naturalist mindset.
But of course this raises the greater question of morality itself. If there is no pre-existing God to create our moral codes for us, then we become responsible for our own moral landscape.
ReplyDeleteSo what reason do we have to be moral? Should we be moral simply to minimize the suffering in our lives and the lives of others? And "j.vansy" (sorry, unsure who this is) posed the question, "Where does morality come from?" because it does seem to me that we have some sense of morality whether we choose to or not (with the exception of the narcissist or other extraordinary mental circumstances)
Do we have this sense of morality because we are born with is? Or do we develop it subliminally as we interact with other humans?
Thus, is morality relative to the circumstances of your birth or universal for every human? If a baby were put on an island separated from other people (assuming it survives) would its moral codes be the same as if it were born in New York City?
I think theists find an odd sense of comfort in accepting that God has chosen things for them. Telling them that their moral principles and rules are arbitrary based on the idea that good is good simply because a higher being says so, wouldn't strike them as it does me.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that to me, my reaction is, "well, fuck... yeah. What if the being decided that (this) is ‘good’"
But I can just imagine my grandparents listening to that idea and shaking their head-- not wanting to hear that their lives could have been lived arbitrarily. I can already hear their arguments that God wouldn’t give them things they cannot handle-- whatever.
Also, on the Santa/God always watching question: it’s believed by theist, specifically for this response Monotheist, that without God there is no reason to be moral because morals come from God, so without God everyone would devolve into anarchy; therefore, the idea that Santa and God are always watching are like scare tactics to ensure children are acting “morally” at all times.
ReplyDeleteI was raised with this idea, it was beaten like a dead horse into my head, and I find it to be the most toxic idea that I came away with from the church. The feeling of being watched constantly is something that daunts me; however, to return to the point, I don’t consider this notion every time I do something deemed good or bad… I just simply act.
It just brings me to wonder if there are theists who consistently think in terms of “God is watching right now, I need to hold the door open for this old woman,” or “God will blink and miss if I don’t click to round up and donate.”
To further answer the question, it also persuades me to believe that people are not simply acting morally in fear of punishment… or should I say a majority of people.