> > > >If you do not accept the existence of a divine entity and thus the > >validity of a divinely ordained moral code, what is the source or > >origin or base or criteria or root for the moral code you do accept > >and strive to follow?
Assumptions: (1) That moral behavior is the result of a "code." (2) That such a code must rest upon some further "foundation". Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is no being that dictates the moral structure of the universe, it is incontrovertible that humans have produced loads of moral codes over the millennia without such a "foundation" (even if such putative beings have often been invoked to provide the appearance of such a foundation). Such codes are successful when they provide the basis for a stable and prosperous society. For instance, a society that does not regulate things like killing and the taking of others' property is not likely to be stable and prosperous for long, and soon disintegrates (and then we call it immoral, or decadent, or degenerate, or some such ethically-charged term). We don't need a god to tell us this. We only need to ask whether we would want to (or be able to) live in a society in which these things were not well-regulated. (Note: "regulated" does not necessarily mean "forbidden." There is "moral" killing and taking in all societies -- we just don't call it "murder" and "theft." We call it things like "war" and "taxes". And [he said pre-emptively] just because *you* happen to find this or that war "immoral", note that your society, as a whole, apparently does not. There is space for disagreement even in most code-regulated societies.) Someone earlier gave a basic reciprocity example: I don't steal because I don't want others to steal from me. There is a basic correctness to this, but I think it is too simple to bear the load of morality on a societal basis. The question is not just "What would I want other people to do to me?" but, more broadly, "What kind of a society would I want to live in?" For instance, I may not want to be punished personally even if I, say, kill someone (for what I thought was a good reason) but, more broadly, I do not want to live in a society in which killing goes unpunished. So killing (of certain kinds) becomes "immoral." But (as I said in an earlier post), codes are only very rough guides to moral behavior. Codes can never envision all the circumstances that are going to arise in future situations, and codes can always be manipulated by those who can take advantage of their very literality (e.g., finding "loopholes"). So, in order to act ethically, we always must be *thinking* ethically so that we can assess new situations on their own merits, rather than distracting ourselves with misguided questions like "What Would the Perfect Code-Follower Do?" "Foundationalist" thought of this sort is on the outs all over philosophy these days -- epistemology, ethics, semantics, you name it. The reason is that it always either leads you into an infinite regress (e.g, "It's turtles all the way down") or to some arbitrary fiat (like a "god"). Coherence, networks, stability, self-organization are the replacements. They have their problems too, to be sure, but they manage to cut through a number of difficulties that have beleaguered these areas of thought for (literally) millennia now. Now, I'm done with this discussion. Over and out. Regards, Chris Green --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
