"Morality becomes relative." There is a difference between cause and purpose. I think this misunderstanding comes down to the same one that plagues economics, that is assuming that value is objective. The alternative to objective value isn't relative value, it is subjective value. Just as Menger moved economics forward with his recognition that the value of material things is subjective, we must now recognize that higher order values are also subjective to have any hope of demystifying the true nature of morality (from the atheist perspective anyway). The mistake that these godless heathens make over and over is assuming that morality can be objective. Without God, this is logically impossible. We know the cause of morality if we do not believe, the cause as with everything else, is natural. But what of the meaning? This is an entirely different question. While nature must have produced our own subjective values, the purpose and meaning that has emerged is real, and it is our own. My perspective is that nature has endowed us with the capacity to build ourselves into beings of virtue and character. This ability must have provided an adaptive advantage, and it is up to evolutionary psychologists to play around with exactly how this works. Fun topic for discussion I'm sure. Regardless of exactly how it works, this is what happened. To recognize this, you only need let the RHB take the wheel. The thing is, being a dimorphic sexually reproducing species there isn't only one strategy that was selected for. This is where the recognition of subjectivity comes into play. Some of us are blessed (or cursed, depending on your perspective) with preferences much better aligned with pro-social, positive sum yielding behaviors. To use a simple example contract long and short term mating strategies. These are mutually exclusive strategies that very clearly manifest themselves phenotypically in human society. Should I feel holy and superior to those with short term strategies that are likely consequences of innate preferences? This is where the hard questions lie. Can we progress socially to a point where we can appreciate the fact that some people have preferences that cause them to behave in ways that don't resonate with our own subjective values? I think we can, but we need technology to do so. This is why I advocate for the non-aggression principle and voluntarism as a common value that must be upheld regardless of our innate preferences. Strategies based on coercion, violence, and fraud can't be tolerated for another reason: because they are hypocritical. This is why the seven sins and virtues resonate with people, because they allow us to strive towards a life without hypocrisy. This might sound like an objective morality, it is not. It is still based on subjective preferences. In the case of hypocrisy we can generally hang out hat on the assumption that everyone has their own subjective preference to not be on the receiving end of coercion, deceit, or fraud. Lots more to expand on, just some quick initial thoughts. The bottom line is that I think the human mind has an innate tendency to conceive of value as objective, and this lures the darwinians and communists into psychic traps of logical inconsistency. Your example of trying to believe a and b simultaneously above demonstrates this brilliantly. B is true, A is not. Altruism is real, but to be maximized, we must deliberately align in with our subjective preferences. This is how I think of Paul talking of being justified/aligned with the Spirit FWIW.
Oh dear, there is a lot in there and it probably needs to sink in. The two questions that came to mind are: 1. How do we change our values, and in what direction should we change them? 2. What provides us with the motivation to do so, because it is so incredibly hard? In your picture, maybe what you mean by values are our deepest, often buried values, and so it is not so much about changing those, but getting in touch with them by decluttering all the nonsense we have accumulated. And the motivation comes from the realization that it is the only option for contributing something meaningful to others, and find fulfillment doing so. The hard thing is to get that first "break-through", to have these realizations, and use the shock about our previous existence as fuel and motivation for change.
"maybe what you mean by values are our deepest, often buried values, and so it is not so much about changing those, but getting in touch with them"
That is precisely what I mean. Down the road, mental agility can be employed to see how committed you are and/or how flexible the values you uncover might be, but the 1st step is getting in touch with them. Motivation is the master of reason. We can't be moral if occult motivations have control of our reason. As for contributing something meaningful, I think that is a very useful level of analysis. If you are able to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others, chances are, you will mean something to them. It is easy to see how meaning something to people within a community confers many advantages. Evolution by natural selection might have ensured that we experience intense satisfaction from helping others, but that doesn't mean that we do it in the hopes of it being reciprocated, just like we don't often make love for the sole purpose of producing children. There is something beautiful about the nature of most humans buried here that is difficult to articulate, and is not widely appreciated. In order to uncover it requires bitter work looking inward and asking the hard questions. I'm hoping that we can figure out a way to convince most people that this effort is worth it, because I have faith that if they do, they will finally be able to see this beauty and have the energy to abandon the delusion that mankind is doomed and join the fight for a better world.
"Morality becomes relative." There is a difference between cause and purpose. I think this misunderstanding comes down to the same one that plagues economics, that is assuming that value is objective. The alternative to objective value isn't relative value, it is subjective value. Just as Menger moved economics forward with his recognition that the value of material things is subjective, we must now recognize that higher order values are also subjective to have any hope of demystifying the true nature of morality (from the atheist perspective anyway). The mistake that these godless heathens make over and over is assuming that morality can be objective. Without God, this is logically impossible. We know the cause of morality if we do not believe, the cause as with everything else, is natural. But what of the meaning? This is an entirely different question. While nature must have produced our own subjective values, the purpose and meaning that has emerged is real, and it is our own. My perspective is that nature has endowed us with the capacity to build ourselves into beings of virtue and character. This ability must have provided an adaptive advantage, and it is up to evolutionary psychologists to play around with exactly how this works. Fun topic for discussion I'm sure. Regardless of exactly how it works, this is what happened. To recognize this, you only need let the RHB take the wheel. The thing is, being a dimorphic sexually reproducing species there isn't only one strategy that was selected for. This is where the recognition of subjectivity comes into play. Some of us are blessed (or cursed, depending on your perspective) with preferences much better aligned with pro-social, positive sum yielding behaviors. To use a simple example contract long and short term mating strategies. These are mutually exclusive strategies that very clearly manifest themselves phenotypically in human society. Should I feel holy and superior to those with short term strategies that are likely consequences of innate preferences? This is where the hard questions lie. Can we progress socially to a point where we can appreciate the fact that some people have preferences that cause them to behave in ways that don't resonate with our own subjective values? I think we can, but we need technology to do so. This is why I advocate for the non-aggression principle and voluntarism as a common value that must be upheld regardless of our innate preferences. Strategies based on coercion, violence, and fraud can't be tolerated for another reason: because they are hypocritical. This is why the seven sins and virtues resonate with people, because they allow us to strive towards a life without hypocrisy. This might sound like an objective morality, it is not. It is still based on subjective preferences. In the case of hypocrisy we can generally hang out hat on the assumption that everyone has their own subjective preference to not be on the receiving end of coercion, deceit, or fraud. Lots more to expand on, just some quick initial thoughts. The bottom line is that I think the human mind has an innate tendency to conceive of value as objective, and this lures the darwinians and communists into psychic traps of logical inconsistency. Your example of trying to believe a and b simultaneously above demonstrates this brilliantly. B is true, A is not. Altruism is real, but to be maximized, we must deliberately align in with our subjective preferences. This is how I think of Paul talking of being justified/aligned with the Spirit FWIW.
Oh dear, there is a lot in there and it probably needs to sink in. The two questions that came to mind are: 1. How do we change our values, and in what direction should we change them? 2. What provides us with the motivation to do so, because it is so incredibly hard? In your picture, maybe what you mean by values are our deepest, often buried values, and so it is not so much about changing those, but getting in touch with them by decluttering all the nonsense we have accumulated. And the motivation comes from the realization that it is the only option for contributing something meaningful to others, and find fulfillment doing so. The hard thing is to get that first "break-through", to have these realizations, and use the shock about our previous existence as fuel and motivation for change.
"maybe what you mean by values are our deepest, often buried values, and so it is not so much about changing those, but getting in touch with them"
That is precisely what I mean. Down the road, mental agility can be employed to see how committed you are and/or how flexible the values you uncover might be, but the 1st step is getting in touch with them. Motivation is the master of reason. We can't be moral if occult motivations have control of our reason. As for contributing something meaningful, I think that is a very useful level of analysis. If you are able to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others, chances are, you will mean something to them. It is easy to see how meaning something to people within a community confers many advantages. Evolution by natural selection might have ensured that we experience intense satisfaction from helping others, but that doesn't mean that we do it in the hopes of it being reciprocated, just like we don't often make love for the sole purpose of producing children. There is something beautiful about the nature of most humans buried here that is difficult to articulate, and is not widely appreciated. In order to uncover it requires bitter work looking inward and asking the hard questions. I'm hoping that we can figure out a way to convince most people that this effort is worth it, because I have faith that if they do, they will finally be able to see this beauty and have the energy to abandon the delusion that mankind is doomed and join the fight for a better world.