Why act morally?

[PaulConventionWV]

I wrote this post as a response to the question, "Why should we act morally?" in my philosophy course. It is responding to Chapter 12 of Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics, but you do not need to read it in order to understand the post. If anyone wants to check it out, I would recommend reading it. I don't agree with much of what Peter Singer says, but he does address the core of the issue, and he's also just a good writer. I found it enjoyable.

With that, I would like to open the above question up for discussion. I believe what is morally right cannot be determined from a secular point of view, and that any attempts to do so are hopelessly obscured by the circular reliance on one's own consciousness to answer questions about their consciousness. Why, then, should we act morally? Notice I do not directly mention God, but I do imply that it is necessary to believe in a higher power in order to determine an absolute morality. Although I personally believe in God, I do not frame it in this way to avoid being cast as an evangelist. I am a philosopher, and I have reached the conclusion that God must exist through reasoning. I did not, as many have done, simply taken God for granted and not wondered why I should accept this belief. Without further adieu, this is what I wrote. Feel free to offer constructive criticism or provide another answer to this all-encompassing question.

When asking why one should act morally, it is important to consider what reasons you would accept. Peter Singer's last chapter addresses the various reasons why one might act morally. Understandably, however, he does not come up with a definitive answer. After all, who can claim to know the reason for his own existence, much less anyone else's? Man did not bring himself into the world, so it is only natural to wonder what, and futhermore, whose purpose life serves. For some, it is simply not enough to say life has meaning because of what one chooses to do with it. The meaning of one's life, it would seem, cannot be self-contained. On the other hand, some avoid inevitable appeals to a consciousness beyond their own that controls their entire existence because the responsibility of finding out who it is and what they want is simply too much to bear when faced with the decision to either seek it out or idly wallow in a confusing paradox between pleasure and pain until it is over.

I would submit, now that the ultimate question has been reached, that there is no reason for acting morally that can be contained within our ability to reason. It is hopelessly circular to conceive human consciousness as the ultimate arbiter of what is real, much less what is right. We must appeal to something beyond our own consciousness if we are to find a good reason to act in any specific way beyond our short-sighted interests.

Furthermore, I would suggest that, if life is finite, the answer to any ethical question is hopelessly obscured. Any question concerning morality must, in order to be absolutely true all of the time, have consequences that would matter for eternity, or else the effects of any motivation to act would wear thin as one approaches the end of their existence, however long that may be. Beyond life, there is no reason to act any certain way, or indeed, to act at all.

In this assessment, I do not attempt to provide one with any argument for accepting a higher power such as God, but only to assure people that any life without the same is completely devoid of reason, and no motivation is sufficient to compel one to defy his own will or immediate satisfaction in the interest of any concept of a 'greater good.' I do not, of course, attempt to convince anyone that it is impossible for them to act morally. It is clearly the case that human beings, what Singer calls "members of the species Homo sapiens" contain the necessary components which allow them to act more or less according to a general set of rules. All this proves is that humans have the capacity to determine rules, and the motivation to figure out which rules are the best. If ever the search ends, however, the question "Why should I act morally?" simply cannot be answered by appealing to one's own established set of rules. It is not my intention, therefore, to tell anyone that they cannot act morally without some faith in a deity, but that there is no convincing reason to act morally if this belief is not accepted.

This brings me to my final comments on the last chapter of Singer's book. He really only touches on the crux of the issue: the idea that virtue will be rewarded and wickedness be punished. He makes it clear that such a reason for acting morally would also require that one believe we will survive death in some form and that the rewards and punishments will be in accordance with how we acted in this life. He is wrong, however, in assuming that we need knowledge of this in order to act accordingly in this life. When all other theories fail to provide a convincing reason to act morally, only this reason can provide an escape from the hopelessly circular reliance on one's own ability to reason. Since we do not have absolute knowledge of what is beyond this life, it behooves us to search for something beyond it because, all things considered, there is a compelling case to be made for the idea that we owe our existence to something greater than we can fathom beyond the dimensions of our limited existence.

 

[fr33]

But why would you ask this question unless you believe that there is a reason to act morally? You don't have to reference heaven or some type of afterlife in your thesis without the rest of us understanding what you are doing and the point you are trying to prove... Many civilizations and religions predate Christianity and Yahweh. And they acted within a code of ethics through both voluntarism and coercion. We today are not so unique that our definition of morality is anything new.

We here already have the luxury of knowing that you care about earthly politics and government functions. Why is that? Is government part of your religion? You could be moral according to your adopted doctrine without participating in something you obviously find to be largely immoral.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I have wandered toward the Ignostic / Igtheist banner. I don't get what the heck God is even supposed to be. Or which God one may be referring to. Yahweh? Lord Brahma? Ahura Mazda? Allah?

Aside from Absolute Morality, it's not absolutely clear if there is a single correct God/Religion or if any of them are the one true God.


I also wonder a lot about this, because if I ask a Priest/Cleric/Rabbi about a moral issue, isn't it likely they'll just give me their interpretation of God's Morality based on study of scripture? Even if there was an Ultimate Absolute Morality, it seems like we're very likely still guided by human morality anyway.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But why would you ask this question unless you believe that there is a reason to act morally? You don't have to reference heaven or some type of afterlife in your thesis without the rest of us understanding what you are doing and the point you are trying to prove... Many civilizations and religions predate Christianity and Yahweh. And they acted within a code of ethics through both voluntarism and coercion. We today are not so unique that our definition of morality is anything new.

It really is just a matter of how you frame it. If you come across as preachy (many people have said this about Ron Paul) it turns people off. Also, I want to approach this more as a philosophy question than a religious question. The goal isn't to convert people, it's to show the reasoning with which I reached my conclusion. That's how philosophy is done, so that's how I did it. As for the other religions you mentioned, I'm really not sure what your point is...

We here already have the luxury of knowing that you care about earthly politics and government functions. Why is that? Is government part of your religion? You could be moral according to your adopted doctrine without participating in something you obviously find to be largely immoral.

Why would you ask me that? Just because I happen to believe in God, does that mean I should just skate through life? I would actually think that politics is a pretty important topic for religious people. It doesn't have to be part of their religion. What an absurd thing to say.

I'm not "participating" in government. Just because I'm interested, that doesn't mean I'm "participating." Even if I were, that wouldn't mean I was participating in the evil that government is well-known for. Again, I honestly don't understand your comments.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I have wandered toward the Ignostic / Igtheist banner. I don't get what the heck God is even supposed to be. Or which God one may be referring to. Yahweh? Lord Brahma? Ahura Mazda? Allah?

Aside from Absolute Morality, it's not absolutely clear if there is a single correct God/Religion or if any of them are the one true God.


I also wonder a lot about this, because if I ask a Priest/Cleric/Rabbi about a moral issue, isn't it likely they'll just give me their interpretation of God's Morality based on study of scripture? Even if there was an Ultimate Absolute Morality, it seems like we're very likely still guided by human morality anyway.

I don't address that question. Someone with knowledge of the Bible or biblical history might be able to tell you more about why they believe the Christian God is the true God.

As for the interpretation of scripture as it has to do with morality, we may be guided by something completely different. That's not my point. My point is that you can't have absolute morality without some kind of absolute moral arbiter. I never said which God is the true God, although I do personally believe in one. It doesn't matter what the priest/rabbi/cleric's interpretation is. The point is that we should try to find out what's right and wrong because without God, there is no absolute morality, and no reason to act morally.

Can you live according to a set of rules and standards you set for yourself? Sure, but know that those are arbitrary, and they give no answer to the question, "Why should we act morally?"

 

[amy31416]

It really is just a matter of how you frame it. If you come across as preachy (many people have said this about Ron Paul) it turns people off. Also, I want to approach this more as a philosophy question than a religious question. The goal isn't to convert people, it's to show the reasoning with which I reached my conclusion. That's how philosophy is done, so that's how I did it. As for the other religions you mentioned, I'm really not sure what your point is...



Why would you ask me that? Just because I happen to believe in God, does that mean I should just skate through life? I would actually think that politics is a pretty important topic for religious people. It doesn't have to be part of their religion. What an absurd thing to say.

I'm not "participating" in government. Just because I'm interested, that doesn't mean I'm "participating." Even if I were, that wouldn't mean I was participating in the evil that government is well-known for. Again, I honestly don't understand your comments.

Who says RP is preachy? I've never even heard that from the liberals who hate him.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Who says RP is preachy? I've never even heard that from the liberals who hate him.

Are you kidding? I heard it all the time in the last two elections. Even if that's not the right word, you know what I mean, right?

 

[amy31416]

Are you kidding? I heard it all the time in the last two elections. Even if that's not the right word, you know what I mean, right?

I know what the word preachy means, I don't know the word you can't think of. So, no, not kidding. He doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve or use it to try to gain political advantage.

 

[tod evans]

Why act morally?

So you can have a superiority complex and look down your nose at those who don't share your morals....

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It is hopelessly circular to conceive human consciousness as the ultimate arbiter of what is real, much less what is right. We must appeal to something beyond our own consciousness if we are to find a good reason to act in any specific way beyond our short-sighted interests.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Why would it be circular to assume that there's a real universe out there that we perceive?

It is not my intention, therefore, to tell anyone that they cannot act morally without some faith in a deity, but that there is no convincing reason to act morally if this belief is not accepted.

But the assumption of a deity doesn't tell you what ethical rules the deity has established as absolute morality, and since the deity is supposedly completely beyond our consciousness how would one ever be able to determine what these rules are?

 

[Demigod]

Detective Rustin Cohle: If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit; and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.

I have been an atheist since I was a kid,had real problems accepting the fact that I am going to die one day for a period but I recall no time that I though why should I act decently if I am going to die.I don't even find them connecting.Also you fail to mention a large group of people which are justifying their immoral behavior with religion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I wrote this post as a response to the question, "Why should we act morally?" in my philosophy course. It is responding to Chapter 12 of Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics, but you do not need to read it in order to understand the post. If anyone wants to check it out, I would recommend reading it. I don't agree with much of what Peter Singer says, but he does address the core of the issue, and he's also just a good writer. I found it enjoyable.

With that, I would like to open the above question up for discussion. I believe what is morally right cannot be determined from a secular point of view, and that any attempts to do so are hopelessly obscured by the circular reliance on one's own consciousness to answer questions about their consciousness. Why, then, should we act morally? Notice I do not directly mention God, but I do imply that it is necessary to believe in a higher power in order to determine an absolute morality. Although I personally believe in God, I do not frame it in this way to avoid being cast as an evangelist. I am a philosopher, and I have reached the conclusion that God must exist through reasoning. I did not, as many have done, simply taken God for granted and not wondered why I should accept this belief. Without further adieu, this is what I wrote. Feel free to offer constructive criticism or provide another answer to this all-encompassing question.

For a short piece on a broad subject, this is quite good. I like how you avoid pseudo-intellectual-speak in favor of clarity. You ought to save this in your portfolio or something. It can be expanded on a lot if you need to write on a similar subject later.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Detective Rustin Cohle: If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit; and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.

I have been an atheist since I was a kid,had real problems accepting the fact that I am going to die one day for a period but I recall no time that I though why should I act decently if I am going to die.I don't even find them connecting.Also you fail to mention a large group of people which are justifying their immoral behavior with religion.

Meh. A lot of people, religious or atheist, don't ponder these things. This is what distinguishes philosophy from typical thought.

 

[VIDEODROME]

The point is that we should try to find out what's right and wrong because without God, there is no absolute morality, and no reason to act morally.

Can you live according to a set of rules and standards you set for yourself? Sure, but know that those are arbitrary, and they give no answer to the question, "Why should we act morally?"

I am very perplexed by this. We have to actually try and figure out what absolute morality is? What if there are many interpretations of absolute morality or how to apply it to our lives? How is that absolute and not arbitrary?


What if there is an Absolute Morality, but we humans are only guessing at what it is. We don't really know, so we make up our own rules and claim they're inspired by Absolute Morality of some God to give them more weight.

 

[Deborah K]

Off the subject a tad, but you know Peter Singer advocates for infanticide, right? http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/peter-singer-weighs-in-on-infanticide-paper/28885

I don't really think anything this creep has to say about morality should be given any weight. Regardless of how "well" he writes.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I know what the word preachy means, I don't know the word you can't think of. So, no, not kidding. He doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve or use it to try to gain political advantage.

Preachy doesn't always have anything to do with religion.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Why would it be circular to assume that there's a real universe out there that we perceive?

It's not. It's circular to think we can trust our own minds to determine rules that should apply to everyone, including ourselves. It is circular to say that human consciousness can determine how humans ought to act. We can determine how the universe is, or appears to be, but we cannot determine how it ought to be since that implies an ideal and we do not know everything, which we would have to in order to conceive of an ideal universe.

But the assumption of a deity doesn't tell you what ethical rules the deity has established as absolute morality,

I didn't say it did. All I said was that, in order for there to be absolute morality, an absolute moral arbiter/creator/deity must exist, or else the morality we claim to believe in is arbitrary.

and since the deity is supposedly completely beyond our consciousness how would one ever be able to determine what these rules are?

He tells us. (I know I am assuming maleness, but bear with me).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Detective Rustin Cohle: If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit; and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.

That assumes a particular definition of "decent", which can vary from culture to culture. How do we determine what's right? If we each decide to act morally, how can we ensure that our definition of being moral is the same as the next person's?

I have been an atheist since I was a kid,had real problems accepting the fact that I am going to die one day for a period but I recall no time that I though why should I act decently if I am going to die.I don't even find them connecting.Also you fail to mention a large group of people which are justifying their immoral behavior with religion.

Your conscious awareness of it has no effect on the implications of it. If there is ever a time where we simply cease to exist, forever, then there are no consequences for anything we do in this life other than temporary ones. That's simple logic.

And no, I don't "fail to mention" people who justify immoral behavior with religion. Why should I be required to explain their actions when all I am trying to do is determine why someone should act morally? Saying that there is immoral behavior assumes a certain definition of "immoral." How can you know what's immoral if your idea of morality is completely dependent on your own consciousness? How can you say that what you think is immoral is actually immoral for anyone else?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

For a short piece on a broad subject, this is quite good. I like how you avoid pseudo-intellectual-speak in favor of clarity. You ought to save this in your portfolio or something. It can be expanded on a lot if you need to write on a similar subject later.

Thanks. I doubt I'll have to write about it again since I'm graduating in a week.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I am very perplexed by this. We have to actually try and figure out what absolute morality is? What if there are many interpretations of absolute morality or how to apply it to our lives? How is that absolute and not arbitrary?

Yes. I don't claim to know exactly what absolute morality is for the sake of this argument. The point is that there IS an absolute morality that exists, not necessarily that we know what it is.

What if there is an Absolute Morality, but we humans are only guessing at what it is. We don't really know, so we make up our own rules and claim they're inspired by Absolute Morality of some God to give them more weight.

I don't address that. The only thing I am determining here is whether or not there is an absolute moral standard that determine how people ought to act. Ought is the key word. The existence of an ideal moral condition that we should strive for does not depend on our ability to know what it is.