My Morality of Humanism

[elte]

I rewrote the simple morality of humanism to make it more accurate.

I believe that people should cooperate on the goal of everyone having a happy life:

1. Avoid competition against all other people.
2. Cooperate to protect everyone from being hurt by harmful things of nature.

As we compete against each other, the harmful things in our universe that affect us defeat every one of us. We all die, so lose the most critical battle.

With simple morality there would be less confusion in the world that wastes the available energy humanity has.

 

[birch]

1. Avoid competition against all other people.

makes sense, unfortunately people take that to mean all competition. not all competition is bad, it's whether someone is competing with an idea or standard for betterment and not against an actual person unless they are a threat or uphold a threatening value that is undermining. that type of competition is degenerative as it just brings down other to have the appearance of betterment. it just lowers or stagnates progress or it is less efficient anyways kind of like a sore loser at chess might beat or kill the winner. in a base definition, it works but it's just not the best or really honest though. unfortunately, nature allows for that too.

 

[elte]

Thanks.

in a base definition, it works but it's just not the best or really honest though. unfortunately, nature allows for that too.

You have lost me on these last two sentences.

The type of competition that you mention I seem to refer to as competition *with others. Then we work to advance our and others' work for everyone's benefit. An example of that is open-source design work.

 

[Fall Caesar]

Why not simplify that to one axiom: all that is moral is self-interested.

It's not an avoidance of others insomuch as it is a glorification of the individual, and it's not so much cooperation as it is a mutual benefit in which both individuals are acting in their self-interests to achieve a given goal.

It's an equally simple morality, which correlates nicely with human behavior. In fact, I'd even go further to say that all human behavior is moral. Now, it may not be rational or ethical, but it is moral.

 

[cosmictraveler]

The better you treat yourself, the better you will treat others. Making certain that you are OK and have what you need will go a very long way in helping others do the same thing because then everyone is doing the same thing and striving for the same goal...a better life.

 

[Fall Caesar]

How can you be so certain that we're all striving for a better life?

 

[elte]

Why not simplify that to one axiom: all that is moral is self-interested.

It's not an avoidance of others insomuch as it is a glorification of the individual, and it's not so much cooperation as it is a mutual benefit in which both individuals are acting in their self-interests to achieve a given goal.

It's an equally simple morality, which correlates nicely with human behavior. In fact, I'd even go further to say that all human behavior is moral. Now, it may not be rational or ethical, but it is moral.

That looks pretty much like a neutral type of morality whereas society should do better with something more positive, and indeed, involving ethics. It does well concerning simplicity, however.

I'm not sure correlating with human behavior helps make morality better since many things in nature are harmful to us, and natural human behavior often falls into that category.

If I understand you, I agree that personal glorification as in the esteem of others has advantages over material profiteering as a reward in a moral system. I find it very important and more satisfying than material reward.

I have a boiled-down phrasing of my morality:

Fight disease, hunger, natural disasters, etc., rather than other people.

 

[elte]

The better you treat yourself, the better you will treat others. Making certain that you are OK and have what you need will go a very long way in helping others do the same thing because then everyone is doing the same thing and striving for the same goal...a better life.

I see an aspect of what goes around comes around there.

 

[cosmictraveler]

How can you be so certain that we're all striving for a better life?

I'd say most people are for I haven't met anyone as yet that wants to build a worse life for themselves, have you? :shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

So, if I have to cooperate on building a flood abatement system to protect my fellow people from environmental disaster and that doesn't make me happy, how is this resolved?

 

[elte]

One resolution might involve considering that it can make other people happy.

 

[keith1]

So, if I have to cooperate on building a flood abatement system to protect my fellow people from environmental disaster and that doesn't make me happy, how is this resolved?

Demand a raise or walk?

 

[Fall Caesar]

That looks pretty much like a neutral type of morality whereas society should do better with something more positive, and indeed, involving ethics. It does well concerning simplicity, however.

Morality ought not be inherently biased in a positive or negative fashion, and as such a neutral definition of morality must be sought out. Additionally, a behavior may be moral yet still be unethical. Ethics have no bearing on determining what is moral and what isn't. In fact, it's impossible to rule out the existence of an absolute moral standard on the basis of ethics (and perhaps not by any other basis, too).

I'm not sure correlating with human behavior helps make morality better since many things in nature are harmful to us, and natural human behavior often falls into that category.

You're under the notion that morality is "good" or "positive", when it's very well inherent and natural. Perhaps you're trying to advocate an adherence to ethical values of a society. Morality need not be 'better', morality only needs to be.

If I understand you, I agree that personal glorification as in the esteem of others has advantages over material profiteering as a reward in a moral system. I find it very important and more satisfying than material reward.

Fight disease, hunger, natural disasters, etc., rather than other people.

Indeed, society would be in favor of fighting disease, hunger, natural disasters...what you are attempting to describe I believe is ethics, not morals. Other people find material reward more adequate and just, though that is generally not an ethically sound preference. In fact, Darwin would probably argue that disease, hunger, etc. are necessary for a society to function. Morally, I feel that they shouldn't be eliminated.

I'd say most people are for I haven't met anyone as yet that wants to build a worse life for themselves, have you? :shrug:

"Better" in one man's eyes may equate to "worse" in somebody else's. For more understanding, please see the difference between: Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa. I'd actually argue that they are moral equivalents. The key words you said are "for themselves", which is no different than my argument for morality defined on the basis self-interest. :shrug:

 

[elte]

Morality ought not be inherently biased in a positive or negative fashion, and as such a neutral definition of morality must be sought out. Additionally, a behavior may be moral yet still be unethical. Ethics have no bearing on determining what is moral and what isn't. In fact, it's impossible to rule out the existence of an absolute moral standard on the basis of ethics (and perhaps not by any other basis, too).



You're under the notion that morality is "good" or "positive", when it's very well inherent and natural. Perhaps you're trying to advocate an adherence to ethical values of a society. Morality need not be 'better', morality only needs to be.



Indeed, society would be in favor of fighting disease, hunger, natural disasters...what you are attempting to describe I believe is ethics, not morals. Other people find material reward more adequate and just, though that is generally not an ethically sound preference. In fact, Darwin would probably argue that disease, hunger, etc. are necessary for a society to function. Morally, I feel that they shouldn't be eliminated.

You've gotten me wondering a lot about the definition of morality and WordWeb tells me that ethics is a synonym and that morality means "Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" or "Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct."

 

[Fall Caesar]

You've gotten me wondering a lot about the definition of morality and WordWeb tells me that ethics is a synonym and that morality means "Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" or "Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct."

All hail the almighty WordWeb, what it says is TRUTH! :bugeye:

I actually see all behavior as moral. Scary thought. But, notice how your definitions say "right or wrong". It's basically saying morality is "right or wrong", but isn't all behavior either right or wrong? (God forbid we define those terms). The criteria used in the definition describes ALL behavior.

I'd go even so far as to say that 'behavior' is a closer synonym to 'morality' than is 'ethics'.

 

[elte]

All hail the almighty WordWeb, what it says is TRUTH! :bugeye:

I actually see all behavior as moral. Scary thought. But, notice how your definitions say "right or wrong". It's basically saying morality is "right or wrong", but isn't all behavior either right or wrong? (God forbid we define those terms). The criteria used in the definition describes ALL behavior.

I'd go even so far as to say that 'behavior' is a closer synonym to 'morality' than is 'ethics'.

The normal sense of the word is that good behavior like kindness is moral while bad behavior like genocide is immoral. I'm trying to help society out with a simple behavioral guide and that's why I use the word morality that way.

 

[Fall Caesar]

The normal sense of the word is that good behavior like kindness is moral while bad behavior like genocide is immoral. I'm trying to help society out with a simple behavioral guide and that's why I use the word morality that way.

What is 'normal'? How is kindness good? How is genocide bad?

Is it moral to write a behavioral guide? How will it help society out? Does society need help? What authority deems it necessary that they need help? How can you ensure that the behavior you condone is 1) beneficial to society, 2) free from bias, 3) functional in all contexts and scenarios, et cetera.

Sorry, I had a few questions.

 

[cosmictraveler]

"Better" in one man's eyes may equate to "worse" in somebody else's.

When I said to make their own lives better I meant that they keep mentally fit, physically strong and whatever else they think is necessary to be better to themselves, not what others want them to be but what they need to be. Every man and woman must take care of themselves and stay healthy , as examples, or else they will become worse and perhaps become ill.

 

[elte]

What is 'normal'? How is kindness good? How is genocide bad?

Is it moral to write a behavioral guide? How will it help society out? Does society need help? What authority deems it necessary that they need help? How can you ensure that the behavior you condone is 1) beneficial to society, 2) free from bias, 3) functional in all contexts and scenarios, et cetera.

Sorry, I had a few questions.

I ask your pardon because I can't do anything that can answer everyone's concerns and questions.

 

[Fall Caesar]

When I said to make their own lives better I meant that they keep mentally fit, physically strong and whatever else they think is necessary to be better to themselves, not what others want them to be but what they need to be. Every man and woman must take care of themselves and stay healthy , as examples, or else they will become worse and perhaps become ill.

I agree on the concept of "think is necessary to be better to themselves", but not on the specifics. Only when they feel it is in their interests to be healthy, fit, strong, et cetera do they need to be healthy, fit, or strong. It is conceivable that it is not always in your self-interests to have those attributes. Imagine, for example, an eating contest, where whoever gouges down the most hot dogs wins a huge chunk of money -- health goes out the window because the value is not on health, but on wealth.

Perhaps the fat man is still moral.