SUFFERING SUCKS!

greetings, geeks!

well, with no further ado, here it is: my first post. in this instance, the topic is morality; specifically, the "source" of morality, or rather, the basis for what we consider "absolute morality", as far as it's possible to have such a thing. indeed, i do agree that there is such a thing, but my theory is that, as moral issues and ideas become more complicated, individual morality becomes more relativistic, based on each individual's conception of "suffering", and which steps to take regarding the management of suffering. i originally posted this comment on ray comfort's blog, as a response to one of the more closed-minded christian apologists(sye tenb), who seems to be convinced that without a moral "lawgiver"(i assume he means ONLY the judeo-christian "god", "yahweh"), we would all be running wild in the streets, eating all the children, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam(pun...intended.) :P

now, let me be clear: the purpose of this post was not to insult christians. my main motivation behind this post was to explain to christians(all religious people, in fact) that atheists are not inherently immoral people(it feels weird even having to say that, as if people didn't actually KNOW that already). i have seen so many different apologists use this argument, for many different reasons, usually either trying to convince people that we "need" religion/"god" to be "good", or simply trying to insult atheists. first of all, let me just tell you: when you use such an obviously specious argument, you insult no one but yourself(and incidentally, you demonstrate that even WITH religion, morals can still be sorely lacking, and there's no "no true scotsman" fallacy that can dodge that bullet). whether or not the following post convinces you of that, i hope you'll abandon your petty tactics.

so, on to the post. and one more quick disclaimer: i certainly do not speak for all atheists, and there will probably be some objections to my arguments, but i hope that the main point of my thesis is clear: that human morality is based on an understanding of suffering and a natural, evolved sense of empathy. also, i don't go into the "source" of morals, e.g. parental guidance and upbringing, since this article describes WHY we are moral at ALL. however, i would like to mention that it's an important part of human nature that babies are particularly susceptible to instruction, and are naturally inclined to trust everything they hear and see(at first). then, of course, they begin to enter the "why" phase(i'm sure every parent can relate to that). anyway, it's important, regardless of one's upbringing(especially a lack thereof), that one seriously analyze one's motivations, and contemplate the source of one's own morality, no matter what his/her beliefs(religious or otherwise).

-------------

sye:

i don't even know why i'm bothering to explain this to you, as you seem to be closed to all of the excellent explanations provided by other commenters, such as Jœl and Laura. it seems like you just accuse people of your own faults; for example, YOU are the one "begging the question" by inserting your conclusion into your premises. also, you [seem to] love to *try* to poke holes in evolution, morality, etc., but you don't provide any PROOF of your alternative viewpoint.

anyway, i'll try to make this short and sweet(but still, i don't want to leave any dark, dank, stinky corner for you to wriggle into). here's an absolute basis for a fundamental system of morality. SUFFERING SUCKS. yes, we've all experienced suffering, and we all know it sucks. there are, for example, many responses to pain stimuli, involving the instinctual need to avoid pain at any cost, that have (dare i say) evolved. the reasons for this are obvious(mainly, that the experience of pain is a signal that damage is being done to the organism, thereby threatening its survival). on a larger(societal) scale, these inherent "pain-fearing" traits are projected onto the "community" of a more advanced organism, whereby the organism "senses" that damage done to its fellow organisms represents a "bad" thing. yes, and here's where the word "bad" comes in. originally, and in the simplest terms, "bad" is anything that is detrimental to the survival of a species. of course, individual organisms don't actually go through any mental process of considering what is best for their species(it would be ridiculous to think that). rather, natural selection has favored those species whose members exhibit behavior which is beneficial, not only to themselves, but to their species as a whole.

when i say the organism "senses" its relationship to other members of its species, i am referring to the evolved trait of empathy, which is crucial for certain organisms, but not so crucial for others(for example, those which reproduce en-masse). that should answer your question as to why we don't just go around killing "willy-nilly", as other animals SEEM to do. still, there are organisms that DO produce en-masse, and yet still seem to have VERY stable "moral codes"(such as ants and other colony-type insects), whereby they cooperate VERY well with each other, and have very stable societies. basically, you don't seem to understand how "morality" works in favor of maintaining the health of a species. as for "absolute morality", it's insane to judge animals for killing for food, when if they didn't, they'd starve to death. you seem to think they just kill for the sheer pleasure of it. it seems to me that the only animals who ever kill for the sheer pleasure of it are humans. and yes, i believe, strictly speaking, that such people are maladapted to live in a healthy society.

unlike other animals, which apparently only have a sense of empathy that they seem not to understand, we humans, now that we have developed such advanced brains, CAN consciously think about what is best for our species as a whole(should we so choose), and our evolved sense of empathy(which trait obviously originally served the purpose of maintaining the health of a community of organisms) has extended itself to ANYTHING that we, as individuals, consider to be "suffering". this, of course, includes physical pain, but naturally, it also includes ANYTHING else that we, as individuals, have determined to be "suffering". individuals may not consciously realize it, but such feelings of empathy were obviously just traits that we inherited from our ancestors, which helped us(as a species) to survive. also, it just so happens that, now that we live in a technologically advanced society, we have the luxury to ponder such questions as morality. now, even though we ALL have a solid basis(the knowledge of suffering) for our individual opinions on morality, the application of this knowledge varies from person to person.

now, THIS is where the "relativism" that you fear SO much comes into play. yes, every individual has a different idea of what "suffering" is(and to different degrees than other individuals), and different opinions on how best to alleviate suffering(some, for instance, believe that inflicting suffering on those who cause suffering is "right", whereas others believe that inflicting suffering is ALWAYS "wrong"). there are even some people(psychopaths, sociopaths) who don't even CARE about the suffering of others. this says NOTHING about some theoretical "system of moral relativism", it only speaks to the malformation of the brains of these individuals. by what basis can i(and others) judge that these people's brains are, indeed, malformed? by the realization, as i explained before, that "suffering is bad". any person with a WORKING brain can easily determine that: "if suffering is bad for me, then it must be bad for others." by extension, there is an INBORN, EVOLVED mechanism which compels healthy individuals to shrink away from causing harm to fellow members of their species. in some individuals' cases, this empathy even extends to other animals that they deem to be "sentient"!

as you can see, on a more complex scale, more and more variations occur in individuals' personal moral structures, according to what they deem to be "suffering", and how best to alleviate it. however, in the brain of every NORMAL individual, there is an inborn knowledge that "pain hurts", and "suffering is bad". actually, i'm quite surprised that you don't seem to recognize that complex morals(by and large) ARE relative, and we(as a species) need to DEAL with that fact, instead of ignoring it, and resorting to an ancient(and contradictory) set of beliefs. i won't even get into what various religious texts say about slavery, misogyny, and about various deities committing genocide, and ordering it to be committed by their followers. i think that any moral person would consider these things "wrong", because they cause MUCH more suffering than they alleviate. it's as simple as that. you don't need to be "given" a set of morals to recognize when you see something that causes suffering. on a side note, i DO believe people should seriously contemplate such issues, since it's not all "cut-and-dried", as you seem to think.

as i said, i won't get into the condemnation of any specific religious belief system. what i WILL do is admit one thing. now that i have presented my case for a NATURAL origin of morality, and therefore the basis for a system of ethics(which, as i have admitted, can be difficult to formulate, based on different opinions regarding suffering), i will grant that you can insert any explanation you choose as to WHY this is the case. you can worship any deity you want, and imagine that s/he/it waved a magic wand and created these natural survival instincts in each organism. but i think that you should accept the fact that i have, indeed, presented a SOLID basis for a NATURAL set of morals, not contingent upon any "lawgiver", but contingent merely upon the knowledge that "suffering sucks". i think we can ALL agree on that point(assuming we have working brains), and therefore take steps to alleviate suffering in all its forms.

certainly, there are disagreements as to what FORMS suffering takes, and how best to alleviate it, but why can't we have an intelligent discussion about it? what's so wrong about establishing a SOLID code of morals on our OWN, using the brains that we have? unlike you, i truly do not believe that we HAVE established this "perfect system" yet. fine, if you insist on believing that it already exists, and that it was created by a lawgiver, then i won't quibble with you over minutiae. basically, i think we can all agree that there is SOME possible system of ethics which would be beneficial to the most amount of people, and harmful to the least amount of people(and by "people", i mean sentient people, who have the capacity to experience suffering, not a puddle of semen or a collection of cells in a petri dish). i say this system doesn't exist yet, and we should formulate it. if you say "it already exists", then we can just change the language, and say let's "discover" it! because obviously nobody has "enlightened" us to this "perfect" system yet, so i'm sure you wouldn't object to trying to know the mind of this creator you believe in.

now, speaking of creators: despite the fact that i don't believe in a sentient, intelligent, anthropomorphic creator of the universe, i would still agree that, IF such a being existed, and if such a being were omnibenevolent, and it wanted us to be omnibenevolent too, then we should indeed strive to be omnibenevolent! but let me also ask you this: IF such a being did NOT exist, wouldn't we still have VERY GOOD REASONS to try to be omnibenevolent anyway??????? that is absolutely the MOST shockingly ignorant part of your comments that i've seen. namely, your speculation that if such a being doesn't exist, then we would have NO reason to be good??? it's...ridiculous! outrageous! laughable! as for people with WORKING brains, i think it's obvious why we should try to be good(um, maybe for all the reasons that i've given here regarding suffering sucking?). but even for "average evil joes", there's still a reason to at least TRY not to be bad! uh...can you say "criminal justice system"? by the way, i think it's a lot easier to convince people of the existence of a terrestrial criminal justice system than a celestial one. just FYI.

regardless of the existence of an established system of justice, once again, as any rational mind can discover, those who inflict suffering will MOST LIKELY eventually experience suffering BECAUSE of the suffering that they have inflicted. obviously, this is not always the case, and there is no "natural" system of balance whereby each and every perpetrator gets punished for each and every crime. some people would like to think that this happens in "the next life"(and of course, the types of things that are considered "crimes" vary wildly and often have little to do with ACTUAL human suffering), but this is extremely lazy thinking, and it prevents people from dealing with REAL suffering in THIS life. in fact, that is WHY justice systems have been created: out of the realization that suffering sucks, and is harmful to societies; therefore, systems must be established IN THIS LIFE whereby the inflicting of suffering IN THIS LIFE is discouraged. of course, we are FAR from establishing a perfect justice system, and we won't get anywhere until we start seriously thinking about the REAL foundations of moral principles, and stop shirking responsibility by attributing moral foundations to some creator, basically saying "it's out of my hands, it's already been decided for me".

anyway, i've already gone on far too long. besides, judging by your previous posts, i have the sinking feeling that all of this is going to go in one ear and out the other. i just hope that someday, you can learn to have a civilized, rational dialogue about morals and ethics, and try to consciously use your OWN brain to formulate a system for yourself, whereby the greatest number of people benefit, and the least number of people suffer. does there really need to be an "answer" deeper than this? because suffering sucks, and preventing suffering is the right thing to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

peace,
-b