When it comes to Ethics. . . | Ethics | The Libertarian Atheist

When it comes to Ethics. . .

Page: 1

User

Post

7:20 pm
September 8, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

What more noble purpose could there be for ethics in action than the simple desire to have a more peaceful and kind society?

Furthermore, I would think that kindness, compassion, generosity and humility are rewards in themselves; I don't believe in or desire a grand outcome or payoff for doing what I believed to be in my nature and best interest in the first place.

What does everyone else think?

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

6:05 pm
September 29, 2009

Philosophiate

Providence, RI

posts 3

Print this Post

At least for me, and other individuals who share our worldview, it is a satisfactory explanation for how we evolved to develop moral/ethical systems through the course of our evolutionary history. Evolutionary biology and the budding the discipline of evolutionary psychology seem to confirm this explanation for ethical behavior. In addition, it is consonant with the idea that human beings are very pro-social, not in the collectivist sense, but in that we often benefit from behaviors (such as cooperation and reciprocal altruism) that are conducive to social harmony.

From my experience, this explanation does not seem to appease a majority of people, specifically theistic individuals who posit that we need to appeal to some transcendental moral order to have and maintain a just, harmonious society. While it suffices to say that it is in our best interest to engage in cooperative, harmony-inducing ethical behavior, it does not provide any account of what *ought* to be or what are the best means via which we can attain a truly enriching, moral life. An attendant concern seems to be: "what is the ultimate purpose of human life?" Teleologically inclined individuals seem to have that particular objection to any naturalist, atheistic framework for understanding morality.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." - Frederic Bastiat "Without deviation progress is not possible." -Frank Zappa "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." -Richard Dawkins

12:53 am
September 30, 2009

RestrictedAccess

posts 28

Print this Post

My philosophy (not to rip off the Wiccans) always falls along the lines of "do what you will, if it harm none". I think doing good things just for the sake of doing good things is always the best way to go about it.

I submit to you, sir, that there is no God, because everything came from pudding.

12:39 pm
October 5, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Philosophiate said:

…An attendant concern seems to be: "what is the ultimate purpose of human life?" Teleologically inclined individuals seem to have that particular objection to any naturalist, atheistic framework for understanding morality.

I've had that question posed to me in almost that exact verbiage:

"What is the ultimate purpose of human life?"

"To create more human life. It doesn't get anymore complicated than that besides the side purpose of making life better for your progeny."

RestrictedAccess:

"do what you will, if it harm none"

I live by that.

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

4:45 am
January 10, 2010

keddaw

Glasgow

posts 33

Print this Post

RestrictedAccess:

"do what you will, if it harm none"

I live by that.

Which is nice (actually better than The Golden Rule) but begs for a definition of harm…

e.g. should we pay taxes to fund a universal healthcare system? Should we restrict the ownership of firearms? Is a reduction in our freedom a harm? Is the government spying on us (supposedly for our own good) a harm? Was the Bush regime's policy of upping the Terror Alert to bury bad news actually psychologically harmful to the American people and does psychological harm constitute an actual harm?

11:49 pm
February 21, 2010

keddaw

Glasgow

posts 33

Print this Post

What we actually need is some grounding, some base to work from as not everyone thinks that harming others is wrong. Simply saying most people don't want it doesn't cut it for me, I have never been a fan of doing what the majority wants simply because they're the majority and I would guess that applies to all libertarians…

When people have a logical philosophical (or empirical) basis for saying why we should be nice to one another then we can talk, unfortunately no-one has yet put forward a coherent ethical view (I'm working on mine…)

1:07 am
February 22, 2010

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Post edited 1:08 am – February 22, 2010 by mdr

That's the thing, you don't have to be nice to anyone.

If you harm someone, there is nary a person who wouldn't agree that this someone has full right to seek recompense and/or revenge. That is your reason to be nice.

So as to avoid entanglements.

A logical mind, in a free environment with prosperous economy, will see that it is just as easy to collect the resources one needs to survive in a manner with which you would avoid entanglements and harming others. It's not only as simple, it is in fact easier.

A logical mind will take the path of least resistance.

As a society we realize that to let unabated retaliation continue exponentially is foolish, this is why we involve a disinterested third party to mediate (or so it goes in theory).

Works like this, you do no harm to anyone, you are free to do whatever you like. If harm is done to you, you would retaliate (depending on the severity of course). You do no harm to others as best you can so as to avoid their retaliation (retaliation that makes life that much more difficult).

Does this theory take into account situations whereby you harm another person and get away with it? No, but, at the end of the day, neither does any other in spite of what we would like to think.

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

Page: 1

You must be logged in to post

The Libertarian Atheist

don't believe in the two big G's