Magic-Al2

I have been looking to derive a set of ethics or morals from reason rather than religion. I have just taken a few formative steps but I'd like some input. I have posted under this forum because it seems like the best place to go for a moralistic discussion. I do not wish to argue about religious faith. I also do not want to hear an explanation of how morals can't exist without god. This is being written first with the assumption that none of the religions are inspired by god but are human creations. This post is not meant to provoke, if you are religious please ignore it, I do not wish to argue about the existence of god.

Like all animals, we want things. Without desire we cannot make progress. One has to want a faster way to plow before designing a better one, or want shelter to build a house, or want sex to have a baby. Desires are to be embraced, regulated rather than suppressed. All other animals are entirely driven by the instinctual desires. We have taken this world as ours because we can regulate our desires with reason. Religions have given instruction on how to guide our desires with reason but these are not ideal. Religion has given us the drive and guidance to get as far as we have. It also has spawned unspeakable horrors, most importantly the religions are likely untrue.

What is needed is a system of morals and codes derived from both satisfying needs and building a workable honest and progressive society. From a scientific viewpoint morals are a human construction with no external validation. There is no universal truth as far as how humans are supposed to act, that being the case it would be wise to apply reason. Society is so large that we all must rely on each other for survival. To work together most efficiently we need a common code of ethics. These concepts are my first thoughts on the matter.

My ethical code as derived from human desires and reason:

Out of desire for survival, I will not interfere with others survival unless it threatens mine.

Out of desire for economic stability, I will not interfere with others stability unless they threaten mine.

Out of desire to live my life they way I want to, I will respect the lifestyles of others.

Out of desire to have my idea's heard fairly, I will hear the ideas of others fairly.

Out of desire to satisfy natural human curiosity and an inborn ability for logic I will endeavor to train and build my reason through study of the sciences.

Out of desire to procreate and to ensure the best survival for my children I want to help to maintain a society that I would want to live in beyond my death.

Out of desire for objective truth I will use reason and experiment as the sole judge of validity.

You may notice some of these maxims have stipulations such as "unless it threatens mine" Limiting survival based maxims is unfortunate but is necessitated by natural selection, the desire to come out on top. If Bob is planning on killing me, I must eliminate him to ensure my survival. If He robs me, I no longer have issues about robbing to him to ensure my economic stability. Listening to others idea's and respecting different cultures isn't limited like survival issues because perhaps if I listen to Bob ideas fairly he will be more inclined to listen to me, likewise with respect. If I let Bob kill me I am merely dead. There are other logical reasons to respect other cultures. They have each formed in response to different environmental pressures and each have their own strengths. It is not possible to hold one culture above another objectively and therefore it is illogical make oneself a judge. The same goes for ideas, none of us are perfect and even in science nothing can be 100%.

My ethics are most likely flawed and certainly incomplete, I would like additions, changes, deletions and anything that might make the ethics more reasonable.

Daniel

I don't think that you can have a line by line rule of ethics either by religion or reason.

Religiously, the problems are in black and white; people just have different interpetations concerning how they are "supposed" to act.

Reason to me is flawed worse. Sure, we have some given things that we need and must do, but how to go about doing those things makes us individuals.

Your point about animals utilizing instincts is very true. People have instincts also and they use them every day.

the "unless it threatens mine" statement is bad. Who judges if you are being threatened? You? Bin Ladin?

"I will respect the lifestyles of others"

Everybody???? Even if it interfears with yours?

"I will endeavor to train and build my reason through study of the sciences."

You need to define what sciences are. Some people believe numerology is science, some believe their religion is.

"I want to help to maintain a society that I would want to live in beyond my death."

I'd think that I would want the society to be "better" than when I lived. I'd strive to make it better.

"Out of desire for objective truth I will use reason and experiment as the sole judge of validity."

How about history and other's ideas?

Remember that we all have our own way of thinking. Spock may be able to live with a list of ethics, most humans are just too "human".

Daniel

Magic-Al2

Ok, you have some good points

"Reason to me is flawed worse. Sure, we have some given things that we need and must do, but how to go about doing those things makes us individuals. "

First of all, I am intersted in the flaws in reason you are talking about. As far as individuals doing things their own way, one of my ethics was respecting peoples right to thier own lifestyle.

"unless it threatens mine" is a bad statement. I guess I meant it in the context of only if I know someone was going to kill me for sure, would I kill them. How do we decide, or who decides? I guess that is where the reason and scientific method come in, no system is perfect.

And no, good point, I will not respect the lifestyles of those who threaten to eliminate mine. Survival of the fittest I suppose. The key is determining correct threats. Which again I belive is best done with the scientific method.

You are very correct about defining science. I have been working for the past few months on paper on using the scientific method as an upgrade to common sense. An early version is available here.

http://commonsense.iwarp.com/science.htm

"I'd think that I would want the society to be "better" than when I lived. I'd strive to make it better. "

You are correct, I would want it "better" for my children. What I was saying was basically a response to those who say if there is no universal set of morals we have no reason to build a society.

So to rephrase it

Out of desire to procreate and to ensure the survival for my children I want to help to maintain a society and work toward a better one so that my children will have a better chance to succede.

History and other ideas can still be useful. I'm talking judging truth, an idea about gravity that wasn't true 500 years ago still won't be right today. Old ideas are still to be subjected to reason As far as us not being Spock, just because a system of ethics is hard to follow doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

deadhed

I really do not attempt to develip a holistic philosophy asv you have, however. When I was a lad, I thought about such matters in great depth, but I could never agree on the slightest point that I could be consistent on. Instead, I make rational judgements without a rigid philosoplhy to follow.

What interests me far more, and seemingly offers more concrete answers, is the study of the role of government. Not only is it more conducive to debate, but I think that it will eventually lead to a consistent personal philosophy for many people over time. Just as we study plants and animals first and then move on to cells, proteins, DNA, etc... when studying biology, I think that resolving the fundamental issues of self-government will eventually let us deal with the intricacies of personal philosophies.

Good to see you start another thought-provoking thread, Magic-Al2. I truly enjoy hearing your ideas

Magic-Al2

I too asked many questions and eventually found that there could be little to be sure of. I then discovered science have since changed my mind. I belive that truth in its most objective sense can be found in science. For further information follow my previous link.

Without defining what it means to rational judgement it means very little to claim having it. Just because a philosophy has definitions does not make it rigid in nature. The scientific philosophy is rigid in definition yet allows for change in practice.

I also disagree totally in your assumption that government provides some some of answers. Government is a creation with a specific philosopical intent. Without a ideal government to study we can derive no ideals from it.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with biology. The progression of the study of biology was mainly directed by the instruments available at the time, not a philosophical method of investigation.

You sir are the one who is being holistic if you think that the inner workings human nature can be obtained from by looking at the greater societal government. But there is no generic "government" that exists aside from our conception of it, I do not understand how we are to derive individual ethics from a larger government. Also, verbal debate is an art which the truth may have no bearing on who wins and is therefore a nonscientific form of finding things out.

My viewpoint is that of reductionism, which is that the greater system can be understood by first understanding the basics and building up. From individual self regulation, to behavior in small groups to roles in greater societies.

I will restate that I think a relatively objective set of ethics can be derived from anthropologic principles of human nature and the scientific definition of reason.

deadhed

I do believe in the validity of science, after all, I do have a BS in biochem (If I may put a little wind in my sail )With my biology alalogy, I was refering to the order that primary and secondary students learn about life. They start at the top and work their way down to the basics of life. I think that the study of government can do exactly the same. I believe that we, as humans, are moving towards progressively more perfect forms of government. We can observe the changes that have happened in government and deduce from them basic facts about human nature, thus leading to a sound moral philosophy. Starting with basic anthropological principles (grumble...soft science....grumble ) as you say may let one develop certian basic ideals, but more than likely these will not hold water in the real world. Starting from where you have and trying to develop a coherent philosophy would be for me like explaning how the chemistry of Shakespeare's brain made him a great author. I view it as an absurdist form of reductionism and I can not imagine making any working philosophy from it.

I leave you with an oft repeated quote that I think has some amount of validity to it.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Peace,

~deadhed~

Magic-Al2

You may have learned biology from the top down, but this does not mean ideals can be derived from government. I learned computers from the bottom up, logic gates, to flip-flops- to more and more complex things and finally a big computer. It can be learned from the whole computer and moving down too I suppose its just teaching philosophy. I Do not think the teaching philosophy for biology is a good comparison to survival based ethics. In biology and computers we have a final product that we are attempting to understand. Without a final ideal government we cannot derive ideals from it. If I have a machine and I don't know what it does, then I ask you to tell me how it works your will have problems. With biology we have a completed form, a human, or cat, or whatever. We know the final form works and therefore its inner workings are valid. Government is far from perfect, even though you are correct that it evolves. Government was built from the bottom up in the beginning. We didn't just have enourmous states, we had small bands of people. They had to adopt certain behaviors for society to work. Over time, the bands turned into chiefdoms and eventually states. It makes no sense to derive ideals from government, since goverment comes from ideals to begin with. There is nothing new to learn about logic gates from looking an already built computer.

I am a physics major, and I don't place much faith in the "soft sciences" either. Nevertheless, anthropolgy does offer some insight into human matters. If a incest taboo is universal in all cultures, and it is, then that may mean something. Environmental resitictions on food, often corelate with lower population, and a particular form of government the best supports that. It has been found that a number of different variables contribute to what form of government works best for a given culture. This being the case, a bottom up approach is applicable.

I don't agree with the shakespere comparison, its more like trying to understand it sentence by sentence, to build an understanding of the whole. Would you perfer absorbing the works all at once?

You say that forming a working philosophy cannot be done from simple taking instinct and reason into account. Try this one and see if it works. Is it reasonable?

1. We all want to survive - nature
2. In a society so large, we must cooperate to survive. - reason
3. If I kill those that support me I will not be supported. -reason
4. If I am not supported, I will not survive. -nature
5. I will therefore not kill those who support me -reason

We live in a stratified society, which means people have specialized jobs. In hunter gatherer societies everyone does pretty much the same thing. Hunter gatherers can have a max of about 50 people before the system breaks down. In our society you can be a biochemist because you don't have to worry about making your own food or building your own house. The society only functions as a whole because everyone (ideally) is contributing toward making it work. Therefore, I do not wish to cause harm to others since the society we create benefits us all. If someone is going to kill me, I have to refer back to #1 That I want to survive, it supercedes the others and therefore within my ethic system it is ok to kill those who will kill me.

I will not kill people for those reasons. It seems to work, or am I forgetting something? I think a philosophy can be derived, I just am not sure about how objective it could possibly be. I think my survival ethic is pretty objective, does anyone have any disagreents with it???

The Stoned Philosopher

Hmm,sounds like a Communist-Anarchist utopia idea to me
And you just made your own religion since after all,religion is practiced ideas or philosophy. (not the traditional definition that i can see that your writing against)

__________________
Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers
increase. This is as true of humans in the finite space of a planetary
ecosystem as it is of gas molecules in a sealed flask. The human question is
not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence
is possible for the who do survive.
- Frank Herbert

The Stoned Philosopher

Magic-Al2

Please explain the communist-anarchist relationship, I don't see how you connect them these ethics.

I think you are wrong about the definition of religion. ollowing a set of rules does not constitute a religion, by your definition science is a religion. Religion includes supernatural elements. I am not claiming that my ideas about ethics are some kind of preordained universal spiritual truth as a religion would. I'm just trying to present rational reasons to regulate behavior.

The Stoned Philosopher

Well in your ethics you pretty much give back to society in order to get something from society and there is no greed, which is what Marx envisioned. And i was not saying science was a religion,anyway science is just a tool,its just you ethics can be created into one. (nothing wrong with that really)