Some thoughts on enlightened self-interest as the basis for morality

(What follows is a slightly rambling expansion on some of my comments about morality in the post below. What I'm hoping to show is that enlightened self-interest can provide us with a strong reason to act in a "moral" way. It's intended as a conversation starter rather than a definite pronouncement on the subject.)

Enlightened self-interest is different from sentiment or whim – I may save someone's life because I like the look of them, but such an action does not count as truly moral.

The vast majority of human beings are bound together by certain innate desires (security, companionship, contentment, procreation, etc.) which are harder (or downright impossible) to realise outside of the social setting. These desires, as well as forming the bedrock of all civilisation, provide the foundation of secular morality.

Immoral acts constitute those which undermine the realisation of these desires.

For example: I desire safety for myself and those I care about. If I make a habit of killing those who get in my way then I not only provide no reason for others to help keep me alive, I actually provide them with a reason to kill me – as I represent a significant threat to them and their loved ones. The best way to realise my desire is to promote the safety of all in the expectation that they will, in turn, ensure my safety. If I kill, or tolerate killers, such an arrangement is impossible to maintain.

This differs from whim in that reason is employed to consider the total effect of my actions. If someone makes me angry whim may tell me to kill them while reason tells me that such an action will be counter-productive.

(Obviously, most people aren't that keen on killing in the first place, no matter how angry they get – but I'm assuming worst case scenario to show the strength of enlightened self-interest).

As another example: I'm able to provide for myself and my loved ones much easier in a social setting than on my own. Bartering services and goods allows me a much comfier lifestyle than I'd enjoy in isolation – catching and cooking your own food (not to mention building a house, dealing with illness, etc.) is much harder than turning up at work each day and sitting in front of a computer. In order for bartering to work there has to be a basic level of trust between individuals. If I go around lying about everything then people will cease to trust me and so cease to work with me. (The social aspect of my life will also be significantly reduced). So not only do I have a strong reason to be truthful but also a strong reason to promote truthfulness in society as a whole.

Etc.

An immoral individual is one at war with the rest of society – undermining their chance to realise significant desires.

Two podcasts worth listening to:

Colin McGinn:

(Click here for MP3)

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Colin McGinn explores various kinds of skepticism, giving his concerns about radical fallibilism and certain post-modern critiques of knowledge. He explains how he is certain that ghosts and Gods don't exist. He details how atheistic the profession of philosophy is, and how the tolerance shown while philosophers criticize each other serves as a model for good citizenship. He tells the reasons that led to his religious skepticism and atheism. He examines William Shakespeare as a philosopher, the problem of evil in Shakespeare's plays, and other philosophical subjects found in Shakespeare such as epistemology, ethics, life after death, happiness and the meaning of life. He also explains how getting into Shakespeare as a professional philosopher impacted his philosophy.

Richard Norman:

(Click here for MP3)

Can non-believers make sense of the world? How can there be morality without God? In this episode of Philosophy Bites philosopher Richard Norman, author of On Humanism, contributor to What is Humanism? and member of the Humanist Philosophers Group, explains how it is possible to lead a good life without religion.

Links:
Point of Inquiry
Philosophy Bites

Priorities

Pickled Politics has another post on the anti-theistic tone of the British 'National Secular Society', who I've also complained about in the past.

I'm an atheist, and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon. But it's pretty obvious that religious belief, in its many forms, isn't going to just disappear off the face of the Earth in the near future. What groups like the NSS need to do is look at and promote ways in which everyone, regardless of their metaphysical beliefs can live with minimal conflict. The fact that key figures in the organisation seem to prefer pissing off non-atheists at any opportunity seriously damages their credibility in doing that.

Secularism, like humanism, isn't an exclusively atheist position: many religious believers also want to see freedom of thought defended against authoritarian and intolerant organisations. The NSS only weakens its position by pushing them away.

QUICK UPDATE:

Just spotted this on the 'Atheist Ethicist' blog and thought it was appropriate:

Bigotry consists, in essence, in creating a ‘group’ category and condemning or praising individuals in the virtue of their membership in that group, regardless of individual contributions.

Read the rest.

"What did she ever do to me?"

I don't want to draw attention away from the debates on Just Thinking's post below, but I'd like to point people towards this article (found via Friendly Christian) on remembering that at the heart of all contentious issues are human beings just like us:

I enjoyed the attention I was getting. The newsletter of a local cult awareness expert described me as a ‘heroine of the faith’. I felt like I was doing something worthwhile by warning people about this heretical leader. I hoped she would repent and realize her beliefs were wrong. However she entrenched and sent out newsletters about how she was being persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

Around the beginning of December I made the mistake of thinking about the leader as another human being. I realized “Wow, I am being so mean – what did she ever do to me?” I had taken her workshop some time before this and it actually had some tips in it I found helpful. I also realized that holding up one particular measuring stick against her gave very distorted results – it was unfair. If I was honest, I knew from the workshops that she had great trust in God and great faith in him. He was her loving Father – there was no doubt about that.

Once I realized how mean I was being I couldn’t continue. I took down my Trinity website page and posted an apology to the leader in place of it. I sent her a written apology in the mail. I received a response back from her with a photo of her family. That response meant more to me – and still does – than all the acclaim I received for my stint in the doctrine police.

I don't want to come across as all Kumbaya on you, but one of the things I've learnt through debating both off- and on-line is that a little humility goes a long way...

Now how about a group hug? ;-)

Some rambling thoughts on religion and education

Friendly Christian highlights what seems to me to be a slight over-reaction to a proposed Bible-reading in a school:

Wesley Busch is a kindergarten student at Culbertson Elementary School in Newton Square, Pennsylvania — and all he wanted to do was have his mother read aloud from his favorite book, the Bible. The book reading was part of a classroom assignment called “All About Me,” the purpose of which was to provide students an opportunity to identify individual interests and learn about each other through the use of items such as stuffed animals, posters, books and other mediums.

Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the school district had a big problem with Wesley’s favorite book. “When Wesley told his mom ‘I want you to read the Bible, that’s my favorite book,’ the school said no — even though they let every other book reading go forward… [they said] but here, read this book on witches and Halloween instead.”

Separation of church and state is something that I think is incredibly important. I believe that every individual has to arrive at their view of the world on their own terms – without pressure from outside forces.

It's not the job of the state to do the church's work for them. But I also don't think that it should try to pretend that religious beliefs don't exist.

The relationship between the church and state in the UK is a fairly complex one: There's no formal separation (the government funds religious schools, religious figures are guaranteed places in the House of Lords, the monarch is head of both the state and the church of England – though the roles are largely ceremonial), but it's generally agreed that too much religious influence over politics is a bad thing. His PR advisers went to great lengths to downplay Tony Blair's Christianity as it was felt it might alienate a significant part the public.

At primary school we sang Christian hymns in assembly and I can vaguely recall the headmaster reading out certain parables (such as the Good Samaritan). I can also (just about) remember a group giving a little talk and then handing out copies of the New Testament.

Yet at the same time my school was pretty secular. The point of the hymns and parables wasn't to make us believe in what they described (I don't know anyone I was at school with who actually holds to the Biblical view of the world) but more to instil in us a particular set of values: be good people, respect others, enjoy beauty in the world around you, etc. When it came to specific classes, religion never entered into it (with the obvious exception of Religion Education).

By the time I moved up to secondary school I – like most people - had a pretty decent understanding of Christianity alongside the awareness that it was just one view of the world amongst many.

I've always been quite glad of that knowledge. Although I don't believe the Christian view of the world, I can at least understand the people that do. I think I'd be a lot poorer without that. The only thing I regret is that I can't say the same for other religions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

If it was up to me all primary school children would be made aware of the diverse range of beliefs out there – through singing their hymns, hearing their stories and immersing themselves in the different cultures. Not only would it encourage tolerance (we fear less the more we know) but it would also put people in a far better position to decide which path was the right one for them.

This for me is the point of education: not just to provide us with the tools for understanding the world, but making us aware just how rich and diverse a place it is.

Unfounded fears

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.
- Bertrand Russell, ‘Why I Am Not A Christian’.

I realise this post could be seen as vaguely insulting, I can only say that it’s not intended to be so.

Reading through some of the comments by theists on the posts below, it seems to me that the same objections to atheism keep reoccurring, objections which put me in mind of the quote which I’ve used to kick-start this post.

I want to try to deal with the three main (as I see it) objections. My apologies for being a little brief, but most of them have been dealt with at great length elsewhere, so this is really just a “summing up”. When I get a chance later I’ll put in links to the bits of the site which deal with them in a more comprehensive manner.

Fear of nihilism: As God is the source of all meaning, without Him we’re condemned to a meaningless, unhappy existence.

Meaning is not, however, something which is external to human existence; it is something which we project onto the world: for an object or situation to be meaningful it simply has to mean something to us. Life is often beautiful, bewildering and intriguing – all things that appeal to me on an intuitive/emotive level – and therefore incredibly meaningful to me (especially considering the only alternative: non-existence).

People all over the planet find life to be more than meaningful without depending on a divine power in any way. The theist may counter that life with god is more meaningful, but then it’s incumbent on them to demonstrate that this is so. (A particularly tricky task, given that it would involve quantifying meaning).

Alex adds:
The misunderstanding here is that you take it that I am saying if there is no God it is impossible for anyone to feel a sense of meaning and we all must live miserable lives. This is of course a silly position to take if one believes there is no God. As you point out quite clearly, we exist and we find things to be meaningful. End of story. Believing there is, or is not a God doesn't change that in the least. It's not even a part of the equasion.

However, there is a subtlety to my argument that I feel must be pointed out clearly. The point I have been trying to make is that without God there is no ground for any of our meaning other than our own personal experience. (It is worth pointing out that modern psychology is working hard to write personal experience out of existence as well.)

So it is not that I see the absence of God as causing the absence of happiness, (to be precise, I would regard the absence of God as the absence of anything) but if we choose to imagine a world that exists without God, I would argue that any meaning that would result from this world would be false and would need to be maintained through self-deception.

Matt rejoins:
If you say that any meaning which doesn't come from a higher source is "false", then yes: humanistic meaning is false. But most non-theists would simply reject that definition. All that is required for something to be meaningful - in a "true" way - is for it to mean something to me. So there's no self-deception involved.

Alex re-rejoins: I will respond to this argument here.


Fear of social collapse: Without God sitting in judgement, people will have no reason at all to be good.

If this were true, we’d expect that the more secular the country the higher the crime rate. Yet, not only is this not true, but some have suggested that the opposite may actually be the case.

The reason that most atheists don’t go on rampages of pillaging and murder is that there’s an incredibly strong pragmatic case for supporting certain notions of right and wrong: ask any random person whether they’d rather live in a society governed by law and order or one in which people were completely free to do what they like and, regardless of their metaphysical beliefs, you’d get an incredibly high percentage going for the former.

The reason for this is that it’s in my own self-interest to live in a society which respects individual rights. Not only am I much safer, and therefore able to achieve more of my goals, but the same applies to those I care about. This is the concept of reciprocal altruism, or, to put it more simply, I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.

Alex adds:
I must say I am not worried a bit that more "religious" countries have a boatload of social problems. I would be perfectly willing to go along with the charge that "religion" can in fact do more harm than good. Luckily for me I'm not arguing for religion.

I also don't really tend to the fear of social collapse. Most countries that are of a more secular flavor tend to nurture a dishonest view of godlessness. They play down the logical conclusions that are the result of having no God. Even if the bare bones meaninglessness and hopelessness of that ideology were promoted full force, no one would accept it. We are not wired to life lives like that. As you well know we are built to find meaning. We are built to believe that love is true and is the ultimate joy we can achieve in this life.

So again it's not that I so much fear social collapse, it's that without God a societies success depends on how well they maintain their delusion that people have value, that love is true, and that their lives have purpose and meaning.

Matt rejoins:
Again - you're defining things like love and value in a way that most non-theists would reject as pointless. People have "value" if we care about them - which acts on an intuitive/emotional level and has little, if anything, to do with our views on God.


Fear of determinism: If we’re just biological machines, as the theory of evolution seems to suggest, then we’re subject to a strict determinism which obliterates the concept of free will.

This may indeed be true, but religious belief offers only a cheap, and ultimately unsatisfying way out of it.

Whenever I go to make a choice, certain background factors inevitably come into play. If I were trying to choose between two pizzas, then the decision would be made on a number of – fairly predictable – factors such as taste, how much effort I wanted to expend, what I’d recently had to eat, etc. All of which can be seen as determining my choice.

Yet, the existence of a soul, separate from my physical body, does nothing to change this. Unless, of course, we say that God somehow allows us to make choices which, while not determined by our pre-existing preferences, isn’t purely random. But this is a somewhat lazy way out of the problem.

Alex adds:
And now for determinism. First off, I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with the idea of a soul separate from the body. At one point, that was my position, but revvvvd challenged me on that one and I have since done some more reading that has caused that position to be a bit less tenable than it used to be. I would now suggest that we are souls. We are biological bodies, but the trouble comes when we say we are "just" biological bodies. We are body. We are spirit. Different aspects not different substances. Anywho, enough on that.

If, as Matt suggests, This indeed may be true, regarding a strict deterministic world view, how can you live your life without an extreme dose of self-deception? Speaking of laziness, if you were to internalize the concept that you had no free will the level of apathy one would be forced to maintain would be what we now call a type of neurosis. It is impossible for us to have a healthy mental state and truly believe that we have no control over our life, decisions, or actions. To believe that everything will simply be what it will be and we are powerless to affect change of any sort, imparts a feeling of despair that you simply cannot avoid without lying to yourself.

Now the charge that all Christianity has to offer is a cheap, and ultimately unsatisfying way out of it. needs to be demonstrated.

Here's my position: We are created by God. God has told us who He is. He has told us he created us for joy and the fullest of life. He tells us He created us for a love so great we cannot now conceive it. We are free to make our own choices and are responsible for our actions. We are free to affect change in the world for better, or worse. Our thoughts really are our thoughts. They are not simply chemical noise. I can say of my own free will "Matt you are a person I respect and I very much enjoy our conversations."

The deterministic position: We are the product of a mindless explosion. The conditions at this precise moment were determined by the precise conditions at the time of the massive explosion. We are the effects of an uncaused cause. We are complete slaves to the conditions surrounding us. Even our own thoughts are results of causes beyond our control. Our futures are determined, we cannot change it. Matt cannot say, "Alex you are a nice chap.", but the big bang can, not that it really matters since no one is listening anyway.

I don't know about you, but I know which one leaves me feeling unsatisfied.

Matt rejoins:
I didn't say that it was "all Christianity has to offer" - but I've yet to see a convincing theistic argument which demonstrates the existence of the type of libertarian free will suggested here. Either our actions are determined by our preferences (whether God-given or evolved) or they're random.

Creed

An interesting sarcastic rant composed by Steve Turner a British music journalist, biographer, and poet.

This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.


"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.