From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Religion and morals
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:17:05 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Thanks to an editor crash, I lost the ability to post this to its
original thread. (Actually, several crashes... it's almost as if some
higher force didn't *want* this article posted... :-> )

In article <pavenant.7.718872479@dos-lan.cs.up.ac.za> pavenant@dos-lan.cs.up.ac.za (Paul Avenant) writes:

[note: There were only a few things I wanted to respond to, so there's a
whole lotta deletions goin' on]

>> But God's or any being's
>> merely willing this or that could not possibly make such an act right.
>
>But why not?  That is precisely one of God's attributes.

 Well, you can define it that way if you like, but then we just have
the ultimate case of 'might makes right'...

>> No
>> doubt God or any morally good being would want others to do the right thing.
>> But a persons'*wanting* others to do the right is not what *makes* it
>> right,
>
>For persons other than God, you are indeed correct. People can be
>sincere (think that what they want/do is right) but immoral. God can
>only want what is right. It is outside his(her) nature to want what
>is wrong. To say "God wants what is wrong" is like saying "A square
>is a circle."

 Hmmm. So, God does not have free will? Or does what God wants automatically
become 'that which is right?' If the former, we have to ask what's so great
about free will that God made us that way, and then commanded us to be
Godlike... If the latter (as I guess you are saying), the why not make humans
with this remarkable propery, so that whatever *they* wanted would
automatically be right?

[mega-deletion]

>It still seems to me that if I were to reject God altogether as the
>grounding for morality, then the *rational* position is to base
>morality only on what is to MY advantage.  There would be no room for
>altruism and martyrdom would be stupid rather than heroic.  The only
>reason for postponing immediate gratification would be a calculation
>that such a delay would improve later gratification.  The well-being
>of others would only have relevance in so far as it affected MY well-
>being. 
 
 Right, if slanted, so far.

>       Honesty would be stupid, although it would be wise to keep up
>an appearance of honesty. 

 Why? Apart from the practical problem of appearing honest without actually
*being* honest most of the time, what if you just felt like being honest?

>                           The recent bumber sticker that I saw:
>"Fuck the poor" would make emminent sense. 

 Why? Then the 'poor' would have reason to want to 'fuck' *me*.

>                                             So what if my actions
>cause others inconvenience or pain - as long as I get more pleasure
>from my actions than the irrational discomfort I might feel from the
>pain of the others.

 Why is this discomfort automatically irrational? It makes me feel good when
my loved ones are happy, and bad when they are unhappy. Hence, it's in my
best interest to try to make them happy.
 Also, if you hurt someone else, you kinda have to expect that they might
want to hurt *you*...
 Finally, most people seem to have this 'empathy' thing. (Maybe it doesn't
work all the time, but that's another topic.) If it makes me feel bad to
see some random person feel unhappy, why should I not help them out? (The
degree to which I help them depends on how much empathy I feel, of course...)

>                     And ultimately, if I couldn't get enough self-
>gratification from my corner of the world if my little pleasures
>evoked the sense of Sartrian nausea, then suicide seems to me to be a
>rational response.

 Well, if that's the way someone feels, it *is* their life. I personally
enjoy living, and plan on doing so for as long as possible. I might try to
talk someone out of a suicide that I felt unjustified, but it's their
decision as far as I can tell.

 I think you're a bit confused as to what most atheists (at least, that
I've seen on this group) practice. It has been referred to as 'enlightened
self-interest.'
 Making the people you love happy makes sense; it makes *you* happy. Needlessly
hurting others is not only wasteful and pointless, it's stupid; it just makes
them disposed to hurt you. Besides, there are better, more productive ways
to handle things than conflict. I mean, if I make tractors, and my neighbor
grows wheat, I *could* just take her grain, but a) she might well take steps
to defend her property, b) I have something *she* wants, and c) with a trade,
everybody benefits. (Okay, that's a simplistic example, but it illustrates the
principle.)
 Cooperation gets more done, on average.

>To some extent, our post-Christian western world is increasingly run
>on this rational moralilty. I would see the rise in divorce,
>abortion, euthenasia, financial wheeling and dealing, political
>opportunism, environmental irresponsibility, indifference to poverty
>etc. are all based on this "as long as its OK for me" morality. It
>seems to me to be the *logical* consequence of rejecting God as the
>basis of morality.

 Not really. What you're describing might best be termed "unlightened
(irrational, shortsighted, stupid) self-interest." Environmental
responsibility, for example, follows from protecting one's own interests.
(Of course, there's room to argue about what constitutes 'environmental
responsibility,' but no one is advocating destruction of all plant and
animal life on Earth...)


 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"