“Immoral” interactions between people are mostly interactions that reduce the total pie. So groups that are best at suppressing such interactions within the group (while maybe still allowing harm to outsiders) end up with the biggest total pie—the nicest goods, the best weapons and so on. That’s why all Earth is now ruled by governments that reduce murder far below hunter-gatherer level. That doesn’t explain all niceness we see, but a big part of it, I think.
I understand why there is niceness. I don’t understand why I should be nice if God doesn’t exist.
I mean, you could argue that being nice has many perks, but why should I desire these perks ? For the moment, the main reason I desire truth is that in general, truth is good (and I think I know this because I’ve been told so by my educators).
So consider other social animals, eg rats, apes, wolves. All clearly exhibit pro-social behaviours (“nice”). They are not being “nice” because of believe in God. Their “should” comes from inherited genetic tendencies—an evolution adaptation because cooperators produced more breeding offspring. Do you think those genes are missing in humans—or has self-awareness allowed us to make some calculus on not being “nice”?
I would say that you would be “nice” even if you never heard of God, in part because that it is the ways are humans are wired—it feels right, and partly because societies that work as iterated prisoner dilemma need to sanction free-loaders. If you are not nice, you tend get excluded from societies benefits (including breeding) by rest of society.
I understand why there is niceness. I don’t understand why I should be nice if God doesn’t exist.
Because being nice feels nice. Humans are a social species. We can’t survive alone, and so we evolved gut feelings that make us behave nicely to each other (at least inside the in-group).
I understand why there is niceness. I don’t understand why I should be nice if God doesn’t exist.
I mean, you could argue that being nice has many perks, but why should I desire these perks ?
You should desire them because they are good.
The buck has to stop somewhere. You suggest that the buck stops with “because God said so”. I suggest that the buck stops with some specific “terminal goods” being good. So, what’s the problem? (I’m hoping that you are still responding to stuff on this post.)
The only way I can connect ‘theism’ to morality, is that God is supposed to provide perks in the afterlife (or in the present world). I don’t see how the existence or nonexistence of any entity can create a non-perk justification for niceness.
“Immoral” interactions between people are mostly interactions that reduce the total pie. So groups that are best at suppressing such interactions within the group (while maybe still allowing harm to outsiders) end up with the biggest total pie—the nicest goods, the best weapons and so on. That’s why all Earth is now ruled by governments that reduce murder far below hunter-gatherer level. That doesn’t explain all niceness we see, but a big part of it, I think.
I understand why there is niceness. I don’t understand why I should be nice if God doesn’t exist.
I mean, you could argue that being nice has many perks, but why should I desire these perks ?
For the moment, the main reason I desire truth is that in general, truth is good (and I think I know this because I’ve been told so by my educators).
Should is a quite interesting word. Living a life dominated by should isn’t central to having a good life or helping other people.
http://mindingourway.com/should-considered-harmful/ is a post by Nate Soares that goes into more detail on why should is problematic.
So consider other social animals, eg rats, apes, wolves. All clearly exhibit pro-social behaviours (“nice”). They are not being “nice” because of believe in God. Their “should” comes from inherited genetic tendencies—an evolution adaptation because cooperators produced more breeding offspring. Do you think those genes are missing in humans—or has self-awareness allowed us to make some calculus on not being “nice”?
I would say that you would be “nice” even if you never heard of God, in part because that it is the ways are humans are wired—it feels right, and partly because societies that work as iterated prisoner dilemma need to sanction free-loaders. If you are not nice, you tend get excluded from societies benefits (including breeding) by rest of society.
Because being nice feels nice. Humans are a social species. We can’t survive alone, and so we evolved gut feelings that make us behave nicely to each other (at least inside the in-group).
For the minority of humans for whom being nice doesn’t feel nice, is it okay for them to do whatever feels nice to them?
Yes, but it’s also okay for the the rest of us to avoid them, warn others about them, or imprison them.
You should desire them because they are good.
The buck has to stop somewhere. You suggest that the buck stops with “because God said so”. I suggest that the buck stops with some specific “terminal goods” being good. So, what’s the problem? (I’m hoping that you are still responding to stuff on this post.)
The only way I can connect ‘theism’ to morality, is that God is supposed to provide perks in the afterlife (or in the present world). I don’t see how the existence or nonexistence of any entity can create a non-perk justification for niceness.