Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Anyone want to chat about morality without God?

74 replies

MMMarmite · 20/08/2012 21:16

Where do you think morality comes from? Are there right actions and wrong actions, or are we all just doing what makes us feel good in the end? Can there be an absolute morality, or can something be right to some people and wrong to others?

I've been an agnostic for years, and am unconvinced by the claims of religions. But it bothers me that although I have quite strong views on many moral issues, eg. I support gay rights, am against most wars, I don't really understand the basis for morality underneath it all.

OP posts:
crescentmoon · 21/08/2012 22:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dreamofwhitehorses · 21/08/2012 22:41

Oh yes I agree with that completely Juggling, I'm thinking in completely personal terms. Because I do feel I should do more to actively prevent suffering, but mainly I don't, because its hard/boring/upsetting/timeconsuming/expensive/easytoignore. And if life is ultimately just a biological fluke that ends in dust does it matter if I do?

JugglingWithFiveRings · 21/08/2012 22:49

Actually if I spent less time going to churchey stuff maybe I could put more of my energies into some things that might make a real difference, such as campaigning for WaterAid, or training with The Samaritans. - Just two things that particularly appeal to me as worthwhile enterprises that could make a difference.

garlicnuts · 22/08/2012 00:27

Essay warning! I've given in to the urge. Sorry, everyone!

My current 'bible' (an ill-chosen word on this board, really) is Paul Gilbert's The Compassionate Mind. I have been 'working' it for nearly two years.

Eight years ago, I joined a 12-step programme (long story). I drink now, but continue to 'work' my steps as I consider them a very sound foundation for a morally and emotionally healthy life. A lot of people have issues with the program, some of which are reasonable, but it should be noted that the Higher Power wording in British versions is "God as we understood Him." Very few of the London groups I attended used the word god at all. They said "higher power" which can be anything you like. It's intended as a psychological device to lift damaging cycles of self-blame.

Compassion theory also uses this concept: Gilbert borrows from buddhism, while making it clear the reader may choose any 'compassionate focus' they like and change it as often as they wish.

I don't want to get too massively into the psychology of it all; I want to stress that Gilbert's work is solidly grounded in neuropsychology. It goes roughly like this:-

The human brain comprises every brain our species had throughout our evolution, in layers starting from fish. The 'fish brain' (brain stem, medulla) does the autosomal functions like breathing, heartbeat, etc. The 'reptile brain' (amygdala) controls the basic instincts: feed; fuck; fight; flee; family. After that we build through various cognitive and reasoning functions until you get to apes, which have been adding large amounts of forebrain. Humans have increasingly well-developed frontal lobes (we're still evolving). This area handles reasoning, forward thinking, social behaviours, evaluation, motivation - the qualities we're used to saying make us human.

Ever since we were apes, we've been evolving groups and communities, with 'morals' to help us work in teams and keep our numbers up. We're pretty crap at running, are not very strong and have extremely blunt senses compared to our would-be predators. However, we have opposable thumbs and the ability to think. As long as we maintain strength in numbers, we can work together with our hands and minds. This makes us powerful.

Of course, the different areas of the brain don't operate in isolation. Although our forebrain is the biggest area, the tiny 'fish brain' keeps us alive by responding to information fed back to it by other areas and sending out instructions. Interestingly, the next most powerful part is the 'reptile' amygdala. We were reptiles for far longer than we've been mammals. The amygdala has direct lines to all other parts of the brain, and some directly to the body. It controls what we call our animal instincts. Not only is it constantly communicating with the newer parts of our brain, it can override them.

Reptiles haven't been observed to show any signs of what we'd call compassion, though they have basic 'morals' of the type displayed by Phil Mitchell in East Enders (!) They protect their young, for example. Once you start looking at mammals, they do exhibit morals and compassion. The more sophisticated their group structures, the more compassionate behaviours are observed. You also see morality-based emotions, like shame and pity. There are some fantastic films of wolf packs displaying both. This goes to show that morality is hard-coded in our brains as part of our survival strategy.

The invention of the PET scanner has revealed some remarkable things. One is that the brain is extremely changeable. Every new experience (or thought) you have creates a new synapse. Old ones can be smoothed over. You can do this consciously by means of rehearsed thinking. You can grow more brain, and alter the distributions of your brain areas, by doing and thinking. Emotions - which are 'thoughts' as far as your brain's concerned - have tremendous impact on your brain configuration and function. A happy, enthusiastic brain is more efficient than a miserable, bored one. These effects are lasting. Emotions experienced by a pregnant woman also affect the brain of her foetus, and so do emotions experienced by babies too young to 'think' about what they're feeling.

Compassion theory is about encouraging the newer parts of the brain to maximise the efficiency of the whole. This is done by, basically, bringing the community-based imperatives to the fore: consciously developing one's sense of care, concern, reason and belonging; working deliberately to improve two-way communication between the frontal lobe and amygdala to enhance smooth functioning.

The 'higher power' element of all this hasn't been scientifically explained as far as I know, though it has been proved to assist healthy development. It's likely that all daylight creatures experience the sun, for example, as a higher power as it's essential to our survival - this part of our thought/feeling base might actually be sited in the amygdala, as reptiles cannot generate warmth internally and die without sunshine. Where the compassion work is concerned, a 'higher power' is used to dissipate shame-based feelings such as self-loathing and fear. 12-step programmes do the same. Shame-based feelings stunt the brain and inhibit its functioning. I don't pray as a christian does, but I do have imaginary chats with a made-up "compassionate focus", and/or with myself, when I need to sort out my head :)

So. According to this very long post, morality is hard-coded in our brains; we thrive only to the extent that our community/society thrives. Sophisticated morality is also hard-coded and is fairly new in evolutionary terms. Because it's new, it's prone to under-performing - which allows the 'old brain' to trample over it - and to turning on itself. It's very open to change and development. It can be trained to train the older parts, too: the parts all work together. Quite dramatically, compassion is the key to higher functioning. I've now read reams of research around this and am quite convinced.

JugglingWithFiveRings · 22/08/2012 08:01

Wow, thanks for sharing all of that garlic - very interesting Smile

I reckon I'm going to carry on praying in spite of becoming increasingly sure that
my God is an "As if" God as Lionel Blue might say ( So, imagining things were as if I had a loving Father who could help me from heaven ) ... so, this morning I was still praying I'd be able to find my way to Birmingham when I take DD over to stay with her friend ! When I worked nights as a student nurse I felt terrible never seeing any daylight ... so maybe my amygdala brain was missing it's higher power warmth and light from the sun !

Juule · 22/08/2012 08:15

MMMarmite I have just started reading The Moral Landscape although I have read articles that Harris has written about it. Which is how I became interested in reading the book. You might be interested in the following video:
Sam Harris speaking at TED 2010

Juule · 22/08/2012 08:20

garlicnuts thanks for that post. I've put that book onto my wishlist and will look at it more closely when I get time. Seems well worth a look.

MMMarmite · 22/08/2012 11:35

Juule - thanks, I'll have a look at the video later

OP posts:
MooncupGoddess · 22/08/2012 14:10

That's interesting garlic! I do feel sometimes that too much of my life is controlled by my inner lizard, especially when it's sunny and I just want to lie on a rock and fall asleep Blush

garlicnuts · 22/08/2012 14:16

Oh, mine too, Mooncup! Lizards have quite a nice life, really - well, apart from the risk of being eaten alive. Which could be a downside.

Thanks for the link to the Moral Landscape, people. I'll get it and read it on a sunny rock. :)

DuelingFanjo · 22/08/2012 14:25

not every religious person is a moral person. Not every agnostic person is a moral person. Morality has nothing to do with either.

crescentmoon · 22/08/2012 18:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

garlicnuts · 22/08/2012 18:27

Interesting question, crescent. I'd say they are different things - Bill Clinton is a fine citizen, but not all that moral. 'Morally upright' sounds like a weasel phrase, to my ears anyway. It makes me think of rules to be observed, requiring no personal judgement or responsibility.

crescentmoon · 22/08/2012 18:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MMMarmite · 22/08/2012 20:07

I'm not sure - to me 'civic responsibility' implies just obeying the rules of society and 'doing your bit', whereas moral duty is wider than that, and would include challenging unfair practices in society and possibly disobeying unjust laws.

OP posts:
garlicnuts · 22/08/2012 20:59

People who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany were committing a capital offence against the laws of their country. They were in direct contravention of their society's accepted moral code. In order to do it, they lied and stole. Did they do they moral duty? Were they good citizens and/or morally upright?

JugglingWithFiveRings · 22/08/2012 22:11

Yes I agree with garlic that all those terms - "fine citizen", "doing your moral duty", and "being morally upright" all sound a bit like you wouldn't rock the boat - you'd do what was considered the right thing in a fairly conservative way. You'd probably get rewarded by society for that sort of morality, which can be OK - but I think to truly do what is right you have to be prepared to stick your neck out a bit more, be prepared to go against the tide, sometimes get yourself in trouble with the authorities. Hiding the Jews in Nazi Germany, or protesting about war are good examples I think of people prepared to put themselves on the line to help others and do what was truly right.

garlicnuts · 23/08/2012 16:22

Re-opening this conversation with a different slant. Last night, I did some reading of respected islamic philosophers (including Mohammed) on the matter of right & wrong. What I came away with is a slightly better understanding of shame/disgrace/humiliation.

As I understand it, Islam places shame and honour, respectively, in the slots our cultures reserve for guilt and honesty. Guilt, to us, is a kind of self-knowledge that makes us feel bad when we have hurt someone. We can fix it by coming clean and making good: being honest. Shame, by contrast, is inflicted by breaking social rules. Of course we have shame, too - if you come to my house and see the state it's in, I will be painfully ashamed - but the moslem variety is horrendous, life-crushing, and inflicted by thousands of rules. Shame doesn't require self-appraisal; it is automatically invoked by one's culture.

There are several different degrees of shame in islam. Minor sorts can be rectified, like our guilt, with a confession and appropriate recompense. Really big shame is horrendous and can be invoked by things we'd consider "wrong" but not exactly life-threatening, which it is to a moslem. Worse, shame can be done to you by somebody else breaking a rule that impacts you. If they've caused you a really big shame, it can only be fixed by killing them. This is behind 'honour killings' and explains why the maximum sentence for an 'honour' murder is one year.

The difference goes on to honesty compared with honour. While both cultural systems require honesty, there are modifications in islam where honour might be compromised. We have this too but, again, the islamic take on it is more extreme. One of the teachings said: "When it is possible to achieve a praiseworthy aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible ? and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory."

Built on top of the complicated honour system, this permission for white lies goes much further than ours. If someone asks you to do something, you shouldn't refuse because that would shame them. So you can say you'll do it, then not do it! (There are caveats on this in business, btw.)

Explanations for such differences tend to be along the lines that Arabic societies are very cohesive: conformity is the absolute aim, so there are squillions of rules on how to conform absolutely. It is enforced by the imposition of very powerful shame, which can lead to your being completely shunned ("cast out") and/or killed. Our society is more about ground rules and self-policing: what we call morals. It strikes me, however, that both christianity and judaism were like this in the past. Islam is about 1200 years old. If you look at christian practices in the 13th century, when christianity was the same age, you find the same characteristics - a kind of feudal siege mentality, with dreadful shame being used to impose obedience and ghastly consequences on losing 'honour'.

I'm not drawing mammoth conclusions from this. I was reading around it because, having been a shamed child, I recognise that shame still holds too much power over me and want to understand it so as to handle it well. It struck me that looking into guilt shame and honesty honour could help explain different takes on morality between those who follow religious teachings and those who perceive morality as a largely personal value.

Sorry, another overlong post Blush

crescentmoon · 23/08/2012 17:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

crescentmoon · 23/08/2012 17:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

garlicnuts · 23/08/2012 17:51

YY, I did think about Oriental "face" but I can't read (or post) everything at once! I like what you said about asking and guessing. As you yourself said, crescent, the 'guess' people depend on a tightly-knit society with a deep web of mutually understood rules. This is also necessary for shame/honour to work. Religions, I think, create and administer these rules. In some ways they're like parents overseeing children. I would be inclined to say atheist morality is more like adulthood (but then I would say that!), when behavioural baselines have been absorbed and the individual is expected to use independent judgement within that.

I wasn't attempting a comparative evaluation of christianity and islam. This thread discusses morality with and without religion. When I said "we" I was referring to a predominantly secular British society. I certainly feel christian churches impose strict rulesets and (variably) impose shaming penalties on followers who break their rules. Because these rules are imposed, following them doesn't look like morality to me - as I understand it. Obedience isn't the same thing, imo.

However, most religious organisations would say obedience is morality. So the argument gets a bit circular (which is why it's problematic on a personal level for me).

MooncupGoddess · 23/08/2012 19:01

That is really interesting, garlic. Personally I think that far more of human behaviour than we admit comes from the fear of shame (hence those psychological studies where subjects inflict pain at the instructions of the experimenter, because it is too potentially shameful/embarrassing to rock the boat and say no).

In Western society, though, it would be seen as much more shameful to kill your daughter than to let her have sex with someone unsuitable. So partly I wonder if it's just that the rules for what is shameful and what isn't are different between cultures...?

garlicnuts · 23/08/2012 19:35

Good posts! I need to take a break, possibly with beer. There's something I'm too tired to think through, Mooncup, about one kid of shame being internal - that you are shame - and another that you've committed a shameful act. I don't know whether a murderer's life is thereafter poisoned by the belief "I am a murderer". I know the angry muslem father's self is poisoned by "My daughter has robbed my family of all honour." I know my dad poisoned my 'self' with shame.

I've got to leave this in a state of unprocessed rambling atm! Crescent, I do like the word 'principled' but am unsure whether it implies a more intellectual - shallower? - set of principles than something like 'moral compass' Confused

[beer]

crescentmoon · 23/08/2012 20:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

crescentmoon · 23/08/2012 21:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.