The Black Hole at the Center of Ethics

[peter]

In the absence of an after-life where we reap the rewards of a life well-spent or pay the penalty for living a life of self-interest and gratification of selfish desire how do we escape from the conclusion that the best gameplan is one of 'screw your neighbour - look after number one!'. The world has a poor record of looking after the nice guy, and all to often it is the very worst examples of humanity who rise to the top.

It is not sufficient to say 'we all benefit from leading altruistic and benevolent lives'. Human nature is not like that, nor I am afraid ever will be. The immediate advantages to the immoral self-pursuer in such a world would doom it to failure from the very start.

It is but a couple of hundred years since 'the Enlightenment' and significantly less since the majority belief in Heaven, Hell and a God passed (in the West at least) into history, yet few would deny that the rise of greed and self-interest are visibly discernable with the passage of generations. Could it be that what morality/altruism yet survives in our culture is really no more than an 'afterglow' from that age when belief inhaving to 'pay the piper' at some future stage was the norm and we are truly headed toward a dystopian future where life is a Hobbsian pastiche of Nasty, Brutish and Short.

[deer of the dawn]

Yes.

[Damelon]

It is but a couple of hundred years since 'the Enlightenment' and significantly less since the majority belief in Heaven, Hell and a God passed (in the West at least) into history, yet few would deny that the rise of greed and self-interest are visibly discernable with the passage of generations. Could it be that what morality/altruism yet survives in our culture is really no more than an 'afterglow' from that age when belief inhaving to 'pay the piper' at some future stage was the norm and we are truly headed toward a dystopian future where life is a Hobbsian pastiche of Nasty, Brutish and Short.

The Conquistadors were pre-enlightenment, and yet it could be said the majority of them were driven by the desire to get rich.

The Geneva Convention was post-enlightenment, pre-enlightenment it was common practice to kill prisoners of war if they could not provide a ransom to the captors.

[peter]

Granted what you say is true Damelion, but these remain just examples. What I am looking for here are some logical refutations (that will withstand robust critical examination) of the proposition that "In the absence of an after-life the most advantagious game-plan to pursue in life is one based on self-interest and personal gain".

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Your original premise is correct--if we presume that there is no afterlife then the only logical conclusion is to get what you can in this life, even at the expense of someone else.

The only problem with that philosophy is that if we take it to its logical conclusion then we become no better than wild animals. Life would consist only of being strong enough to take what we want from others...even though there wouldn't be anything worth taking, eventually.
For example, I have a nice house and car but you want them so you take them from me at gunpoint. Being smart, I choose to relinquish them rather than be shot; however, I come back a few nights later and burn the house down with you in it, thus paying you back for taking it from me--I may not have it but neither do you and I have the satisfaction of revenge.

Therefore, let us presume--for the sake of argument only--that no afterlife of any sort exists. History teaches us that we human beings simply cannot all coexist peacefully all the time; at some point some of us will get into a fight and that fight may spread to include other people.

In short, even the idea of an afterlife helps us to curb our base instincts and work together; this is a state of existence that is more successful than all of us thinking that this life is all there is.

This might seem like some combination of the "slippery slope" and "false negative conclusion" logical fallacies but I do not believe that it is.

[wayfriend]

Your original premise is correct--if we presume that there is no afterlife then the only logical conclusion is to get what you can in this life, even at the expense of someone else.

Nietzsche said God is dead. Therefore no one has the authority to dictate morality; therefore make up any morality you want; therefore happiness is your only guide to your own made-up morality; therefore you should take whatever you decide you should be able take; therefore strive to be an overman who takes from whomever you want; therefore the master race which rules over the rest; therefore Nazis.

So you take away God, you end up with Nazis.

I lean toward keeping God. (After all, it's not heaven that keeps us in line, it's the God who gatekeeps it.)

[aliantha]

Wow. Really? The only choices are the stark, black-vs.-white, "either God scares us into submission or we all live like predators"?

I can't buy that. We have documented proof from the animal kingdom (a.k.a. "wild animals") of cooperative social behaviors, from the mutual grooming that apes engage in to the trumpeting of a grief-stricken elephant over the corpse of its mate. Are *they* doing these things because they're afraid God will smite them if they don't? In Christian theology, they don't even *have* souls.

No, I think that we have both "good" *and* "bad" traits hardwired into us. In other words, we have the native capacity for both nurturing/caring behaviors and selfish behaviors. A belief in *any* god simply codifies and enforces a given society's "good" behaviors. And yes, I put "good" and "bad" in quotes because I consider them to be subjective terms defined by society.

EDIT to add: Oh, and a blessed Imbolc!

[Fist and Faith]

You're right, ali. Self-interest and personal gain is not the only logical conclusion. "At the expense of others" and "screw your neighbor" even less so.

And I disagree that things have gotten worse. Individuals, rulers, and cultures that do evil have always existed, in abundance.

[Orlion]

Granted what you say is true Damelion, but these remain just examples. What I am looking for here are some logical refutations (that will withstand robust critical examination) of the proposition that "In the absence of an after-life the most advantagious game-plan to pursue in life is one based on self-interest and personal gain".

How are the morals based on an after-life lacking in self-interest and personal gain? Particularly the after life you described in your original post. In such a case, it would be in your self-interest to avoid doing things that would cause you to burn forever and you have personal gain in that if you are good, you go to heaven.

Self-interest and personal gain has always been in morals, the trick would be to find a set of morals where they are absent.

[ussusimiel]

Good topic, Peter. I suspect the heavyweights in this area will be along in due course to give you a crash course in Existentialism Since I believe that we are both spirit and body I have no motivation to immerse myself in its more profound depths and so I'm not steeped in it as some others are.

I will offer a couple of thoughts. Firstly, I think that you are right, in the absence of God (or some other supernatural element to our existence) morality becomes problematic. Now that's not to say that belief in God necessarily leads to good results; the Inquistion, religious wars, female oppression to name but a few of the obvious bad ones. There is even a strong argument that the current dominant economic system has some of its roots deep in Protestantism (see Max Weber's, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). In some early versions of Protestantism, to demonstrate that you were one of the Elect, you had to be materially successful in this life; the richer you were the clearer it was that you would go to heaven.

In the absence of some supernatural elements I am aware of two systems of Western thought that offer ethical/moral guidence: Existentialism and neo-Enlightenment*. (Basically Nietzsche v Hegel, I think!) To the best of my knowledge the difference between these two is that the first focuses wholly on the individual while the second focuses on the individual in relation to society. One says that you should attempt to be as free as you possibly can as an individual; the other says that because we are formed within society we have a duty to uphold the social contract which is an unavoidable constraint on the individual.

One concept that crosses both these thought systems is that of authenticity (similar to Socrates' 'Know Thyself'). Within Existentialism to be a free individual you must know all the things that constrain you. Within the neo-Enlightenment system you must know yourself to know what your duties to society are. (When I think of authenticity I often think of it being embodied in the statement, 'Be True').

When I meet or engage with someone who is being authentic, regardless of what conclusions it has led them to, I recognise that quality. When that happens, even if I disagree with them completely, I am always moved to respect for them. The quality of authenticity does not allow a person to be dishonest with themselves. And once a person has made an honest sustained effort to examine themselves, the forces that shape them and the responsibilities that life has placed on them then that person deserves to be treated with respect. In my experience that kind of person is always more ethical and more moral than an inauthentic person.

This is a source of comfort for me because it leads me to hope that beneath language, philosophy and thought there is a moral bedrock that unites authentic people even when they seems completely philosophically at odds. (Ever the optimist )

u.

*I'm referring to the Frankfurt School here.

[Avatar]

What I am looking for here are some logical refutations (that will withstand robust critical examination) of the proposition that "In the absence of an after-life the most advantageous game-plan to pursue in life is one based on self-interest and personal gain".

There is no logical refutation of that statement. There are however moral or ethical ones.

If you want to pursue that sort of game plan, it's just as valid as one which does not seek personal gain.

The choice is yours.

God doesn't make me moral. I do.

WF: Nietzsche did not envisage the Übermensch as somebody who takes whatever they want. He envisaged it as a goal humanity could set for themselves, to become the dynamic arbiters of their own morality and choice.

The fact that Nazi ideology chose to interpret this as racial superiority does not mean that the lack of god produces Nazis.

--A

[deer of the dawn]

What I am looking for here are some logical refutations (that will withstand robust critical examination) of the proposition that "In the absence of an after-life the most advantageous game-plan to pursue in life is one based on self-interest and personal gain".

There is no logical refutation of that statement. There are however moral or ethical ones.

If you want to pursue that sort of game plan, it's just as valid as one which does not seek personal gain.

The choice is yours.

God doesn't make me moral. I do.

--A

I've started a couple discussions with the hidden agenda of people coming to the conclusion that without God, we are f&$%ed, that there is no rational basis for doing good.

However, God made a backup plan, since He knew many would reject Him: love. Why love? It makes no sense. It's love, though. "Love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away."

[peter]

Thanks Guys - some really interesting and pertinant stuff there. This post stems from a book I am reading on mankinds endless quest to defeat the inexorable shadow of death, first taken up by religion and subsequently by science - the one atempting to establish a 'life' beyond death - a life after life if you like, the other by extending life and defeating the actual process of death itself.

The maxim I proposed is one I find abhorent, but as a number of you have said difficult to refute - and this makes me afraid for the future. I think I believe in a creator (but at times I cant be sure of this), I have no idea about an afterlife - I have trouble enough dealing with this one, but I still want to be good. I don't believe (sorry Ali) that good and bad are just what any given society says they are - I think for example in the Nazi era of German history many people would have *known* that what was happening around them was inherently wrong despite what they were told. For myself, weak and indecisive as my beliefs are, I still want to live a moral life. I have no desire to run roughshod over my peers in order to secure benefit for myself, but again there is an element of self-interest in this because I am not good at dealing with guilt. Also could this not just be an example of the 'afterglow' I spoke off, a sentiment that would seriously disadvantage my children if I were to atempt to pass it on to them.

The 'coercive' aspect of belief is one that has to be acknowledged and accepted for what it is. Carrot and stick has ever been a means of regulating human behaviour - quite possibly the only effective one going - and may not be all bad for that (how else does one get ones children to behave in the supermarket!). I think Hashi Lebwohl comes close to the situation by stressing the importance of the *idea* of an afterlife etc as a device for curbing humanities baser instincts - were science to be able to *prove the non-existence* of one I dread to think of what the long-term consequences could be.

Again thanks Guys for your posts - ridiculous as it sounds, for some reason (like some victorian tent-preacher) this stuff bothers me .

[Fist and Faith]

What I am looking for here are some logical refutations (that will withstand robust critical examination) of the proposition that "In the absence of an after-life the most advantageous game-plan to pursue in life is one based on self-interest and personal gain".

There is no logical refutation of that statement. There are however moral or ethical ones.

If you want to pursue that sort of game plan, it's just as valid as one which does not seek personal gain.

The choice is yours.

God doesn't make me moral. I do.

WF: Nietzsche did not envisage the Übermensch as somebody who takes whatever they want. He envisaged it as a goal humanity could set for themselves, to become the dynamic arbiters of their own morality and choice.

The fact that Nazi ideology chose to interpret this as racial superiority does not mean that the lack of god produces Nazis.

As Av says. peter, you have it backwards. Your proposition needs to be logically established. There are a number of possible moral stances one can take in the absence of an afterlife. On what grounds do you declare that particular one to be the most advantageous?

[deer of the dawn]

Good point, FaF; because it would depend on what you consider "advantageous".

[aliantha]

I don't believe (sorry Ali) that good and bad are just what any given society says they are - I think for example in the Nazi era of German history many people would have *known* that what was happening around them was inherently wrong despite what they were told.

I would argue that the Nazi government doesn't qualify as "society". Hitler's edicts were an attempt to redefine the existing society.

[Orlion]

I don't believe (sorry Ali) that good and bad are just what any given society says they are - I think for example in the Nazi era of German history many people would have *known* that what was happening around them was inherently wrong despite what they were told.

I would argue that the Nazi government doesn't qualify as "society". Hitler's edicts were an attempt to redefine the existing society.

It's also easy to critique something we know from history is a very bad idea for society. How do we know slavery's bad? Because we're better off without it. How do we know focusing resources to following a Nazi like cleansing is bad? It failed in Germany and other countries have had to abandon such an approach or change governments. It has been shown that such actions are bad for a society.

So to refine: the needs of a society do define morality. The morality that creates the strongest society survives. In this case, respecting different cultures lead to a stronger society. Look at the difference between Assyrian and Roman empires. The Assyrian empire tried to eliminate the cultures they conquered directly. They failed, collapsed, and now no one remembers much about them except they attacked Israel once. The Romans allowed a diversity of culture, and is the longest lasting Empire in the history of humanity.

Heck, the Babylonian Empire allowed divergent cultures within their empire, and they have a better reputation than the Assyrian empire.

[Vraith]

Ya know, I'm searching like crazy to find the studies...but the statistics show the premise is false. Societies with lower rates of heaven/hell/one God adherence actually behave more ethically across the board from individual behavior to the justice system.

[Orlion]

Ya know, I'm searching like crazy to find the studies...but the statistics show the premise is false. Societies with lower rates of heaven/hell/one God adherence actually behave more ethically across the board from individual behavior to the justice system.

I'm not sure how that work, though. Ultimately, to me, religion tends to reinforce the morality of the society it was formed in. Hence in Greek society, shooting the messenger is a bad thing, so it is reflected in Greek religion by making Zeus in charge of messengers... you mess with them, you mess with the most powerful of Greek gods!

Likewise, as America's ideas of tolerance have increased, so has American Christianity (based on personal observation, I could be completely wrong). If you look at the most versatile of Christian religions (evangelical) you'll find that there is a general shift away from Paul and his more stringent teachings to John and this idea of Christ is love, love is good, all we need is love etc.

Ultimately, any morals from religion are only as good as the morals from the society it was based on.

[Avatar]

...that there is no rational basis for doing good.

There are lots of rational bases for doing good that don't depend on there being a god.

In fact, if there is a god, there is only one rational basis for doing good: God will punish us if we don't.

That's like telling your kid, share with your brother or I'll hit you. *shrug* Is the kid doing good by sharing under those circumstances?

--A