Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker
… There is no argument as to why pain and pleasure should be the starting grounds for moral argument (many other moral systems, including eastern religions, do not include these as starting premises), it's just a given, and then argument proceeds from that point.
|
It might be stated as a given, but I would not say there is no argument for it. An individual can through personal experience determine that pleasure is good and pain is bad, and then infer from observation of others that they generally hold the same views. At that point you simply need to determine that you care about the wellbeing of others and you have your start for Utilitarianism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker
…But if all of moral language is "from below", there is a greater problem, I think. If moral language is merely descriptive of evolutionary advantage, then we have no reason to continue to act "morally".
|
Indeed! Such a moral system has no looming force which will punish for bad behavior so there isn’t any force holding you back from being evil (ineffectual as it might be). Instead people determine their own morals and hold themselves to them purely through their own merit. For many people this would mean that between an ethical atheist and the ethical theist, the atheist would be worthy of much more respect.
In fact you could argue that switching from a religious viewpoint to a godless viewpoint would be a dramatically selfless act. Not only do you give up an assumed “worth” to your spirit or consciousness or whatever, but once given this moral freedom you decide to use it for the betterment of others rather than becoming a hedonist. I mean think about it: Even Jesus’s sacrifice wasn’t his will, it was obedient. He was also assured that he wasn’t giving up anything terribly important because there was life after death.