Morals

Posted on 2004/09/17 22:46:42 (September 2004) by john.

A beer fuelled diatribe on the relevance of morality in today's scoiety.

Well, apologies in advance, this could turn out to be a nonsensical alcohol fuelled post, but I have been having a conversation with Kev, and, in my semi-inebriated state, really feel like we have hit on something bordering on a kind of enlightenment, and want to write it down.

We began talking about vegetarianism, which predicatbly, as such a conversation between one vegetarian and one non-vegetarian is likely to go, ended up at loggerheads. After a while though, it progressed into a discussion that was more to do with religion, which I felt made some sort of progress. Clearly the opinion that this was worthwhile and insightful is tainted by alcochol, but I feel the need to distill these findings whilst they are still fresh in my mind regardless.

One of the things thay struck me about my side of the argument on vegetarianism is that it is actually something that has to be propped up by some kind of religion. That is to say, there is a possibility that that existence is purely a biological process. You live for a finite period and then that's it really. If this is the case what really is the point in being moralistic? So long as you can get away with all the bad things you do in you life, what does it really matter? So let's assume eating meat actually is morally wrong, but regardless you spend all of your life a meat eater. What does it actually matter? There aren't going to be any actual consequences for you personally at any point, are they? You're not going to be assaulted by relatives of angry mourning sheep, are you?

The model of most religions is that, if you live your life as a good person, abiding by the rules of that religion, then you will be rewarded at the end of it with admission to the executive lounge - heaven, val halla, watever. The thing is though, if people spend their whole life doing good because they want to get this reward, are they actually good people, or are they in fact very selfish, but with a sense of long term planning...?

It struck me that the best people are in fact complete atheists, who want nothing for themselves, but do good simply because they recognise that the suffering of others is a bad thing and should be avoided.... but then is anyone really that altruistic? Or are they really doing good things because they're hoping this will encourage other people to act similarly, and they'd rather live in a society full of good people than one full of maleovelent arseholes...?

We considered if hermits might qaulify for the ultimate good people, because they can't by definition be hoping to influence other people, but then at the same time, to have conciously chosen this lifestyle is again selfish in a sense. Particularly given that in detaching yourself from the rest of society, you are also depriving your ability for helping other people.

So in the end, you're only left with people who are just plain ignorant that can qaulify as good people, and to be intelligent and think outside of your situation is in fact some sort of curse.

My brain hurts now, and I suspect a lot of this is pure bollocks, so I'm going to stop writing now.

John, I'm an atheist and a pretty good person (I say humbly). Most of the other graduate students in my philosophy department are atheists...and most are good people as well. Consequentialist arguments aside (do good because good will be returned), I suppose I don't go around thrashing people and stealing because I've got no good reason to do it...and I've got lots of good reasons to do otherwise. I s'pose that's it, in a nut shell. Consequently, I'm not a vegetarian but I think I'll likely be some day, when I grow up. I think it's the moral position.

Posted by Travis at 2004/09/18 12:49:28.

The only crime is not to enjoy life. If you find that you cannot enjoy life by eating meat, then be a vegetarian. If you feel that you can enjoy life and still eat meat, then don't!

I agree that after death, all that's left is base elements, no soul or spirit that needs to be audited at the end of your life.

Therefore, lead it in such a way that makes you feel good. If that means following the socially implanted morals that are hardcoded into your life then go with it. Just try and enjoy life and let you morals follow from that.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2004/09/20 15:31:51.

What I *know* to be true is that beer is good. Does that help?

Posted by tom at 2004/09/22 17:33:08.

What if pummelling Brits makes me happy, Lang? What then? What say you?

Posted by Travis at 2004/09/22 18:56:11.

That's right Travis, have at him, my good man.

Posted by John at 2004/09/22 22:13:27.

I eat meat because I don't have to kill it. I have been conditioned to think that slabs of red meat and frozen lumps of bird were never really a cute living thing. But why should a 'cute' hold a greater precedence over 'ugly'

We need a 'Am I going to hell?' web resource (rather like the 'Am I going down?' website) so that we can discover the correct decision with any moral dilema, e.g When can I let go of a door without being rude to anyone?

Posted by Karl at 2004/09/27 01:10:28.

Do you remember the line from HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy? "... 2000 years after a man got nailed to a tree for saying how good it would be if we were nice to one another..." My quote may not be word perfect - sorry. The general idea is sound though. Be nice. (You might get nailed to a tree but people will love you.)

Doing things soley for self - hedonism - is just lazy and inconsiderate. It's all well and good being selfish if others are not - they are the ones supporting your lifestyle.

For example you can't have a computer at home unless you can build one yourself - from the basic elements. You rely on others to produce the components etc. That is their contribution. Being a "user" or a "Passenger" is just plain SAD. Being inconsiderate is worse...

Posted by Alwyn at 2004/09/27 13:04:39.

As a meat eating atheist, I think i am doing all those beasties out there a whole lot of good. If no-one ate meat, we would have to get rid of a lot of animals that currently serve some purpose. I wonder of myself, better to live and then be eaten, than to never have lived at all.

And morals are just a collection of rules that somehow have conferred some advantage on a particular group. An harmonious society with people working together toward some goal, like conquering the neighbouring village, is more likely to be successful than one torn apart by internal squabbles over who slept with who. But then, there are a whole set of evolutionary pressures working to break a few of those moral codes as well.

As for pumelling Brits, all those that could not stand up to a bit of pummelling have long since disappeared from this earth. So pummel away, but watch your back.

As for altruism, there is no such thing. I do stuff for others for the feel good reward, evolution rewards us with good feelings for helping to create a stronger society more capable of warding off pummellers.

And that's all i have to say about that.

I think therefore I am
I dream therefore I become

Posted by Phil at 2004/10/05 02:44:49.

Why is it that people with religious beliefs are always accused of "Being good to get the rewards"? Why is it that atheists can be "Good for no reason other than that they want to"? This seems like a double-standard on the part of the atheists. I believe that religious people are in fact good of their own accord, and happen to have religious beliefs as well. Religion is really not about reward.

Posted by Jimmy at 2005/01/05 09:16:16.

Post a comment