Rusting Car Bumper

This is a different question than "What is the source of morality" or "How do I decide right from wrong?"

Kai Nielsen says that this is not a moral question. That is, the answer rests outside a moral system. If one where to try to answer it using the tenets of a moral system then one would be comitting circular reasoning.

He also say the theist is in the same boat as the non-theist with regard to "Why be moral?"

For example, if you might ask a theist, "Why be moral" and he/she would answer, "Because god commands it."

You then ask, "Why do I care what god commands?"

"Because god is the source of all that is good?" or whatever. He claims that eventually you get down to personal preference that a particular state of affairs is preferable.

How do you answer "Why be moral?" What do you think of Nielsen's claim that it's not a moral question? What do you think of his analysis that it could get down to personal preference?

DC

PS:Please grant that I've oversimplified his claim here so don't take my expression as the be all and end all of it. Please note that I may be over extended his point with regard to the third question.

[edit to add missing pronoun.]

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

The AntiChris

Pragmatic self-interest.

Chris

Pomp

Yeah, what he said.

There cannot be a moral answer to the question "Why be moral?" because, as you note, that would lead to a circular mess. One would have to accept that one ought to be moral before one could accept the justification for being moral. Obviously, any answer to the question has to be a nonmoral one. I would say that I behave in what most would consider a moral fashion for much the same reason that I do anything else: self-interest or, in other words, because it seems to make me happier or enrich my life in some fashion.

Nikolai

Well a theist COULD answer that punishment will be done by God if he behaves immoraly... Also, if you state that the basis of morality is what allowes the society to exist (murder is wrong becuase society would not be able to funcion if every personal contact caried a large risk of death, theft is wrong because economic systems would not work if it was commont) than it is simply progmatic that everyone follow it. Now the qoesition of why I should follow this code is harder to answer, yet I feel it lies in the same idea

Rusting Car Bumper

That is merely acting because of coercion. Its not acting morally.

so when a theist answers "Why be moral" then merely saying "to avoid punishment" is not a good answer.

DC

Kachana

Interesting. To play devil's advocate, here's an answer I can imagine theists may respond with to the question "why be moral":

Because moral actions are not only good, but are also the correct and rational ones to perform. I take it as axiomatic that the principles that God decrees are correct and that I should follow accordingly to be rational.

Is this still personal preference? It seems to me that it is now not a personal preference for a particular state of affairs (e.g. actions and ideals held by people), but a personal preference to do what is rational; which few people would take exception to.

tronvillain

I would say that Nielsen is right to claim that it ultimately reduces to personal preference. What else is there?

idiom

It is exactly personal preference.

The theists would answer: Because you love God.

If you chose not to love God then that is your call.

Theists consider not loving God as being hell. However many might consider loving God as hell.

According to the Bible 1/3 of the angels in heaven chose not to love God while having never experienced evil.

Therein lies the question: What is wrong with God that loving Him is NOT a forgone conclusion?

Thomas Ash

I don't quite see why. By definition, if there is a source or morality, it follows that we should be moral because of that source of morality...

braces_for_impact

Well if god is the source of morality, then if god were to order the slaughter of countless innocents, this would be a moral act, which doesn't follow for me.

If god acts morally by definition, and is always in line with moral actions, then there is another objective standard for morality that god follows, and that puts us back to square one.

I agree in that it's a matter of personal choice, often for selfish reasons. Society functions better by following the golden rule, for instance. Societies that champion the individual and their rights flourish, while those that do not fail. I believe history has shown this to be true.