Since the beginning of time, essays have started with this phrase.
This essay will elaborate on the "rationalist morals" introduced in my most recent note "Agnosticism: A basis for Rationalist Morals."
One of that essay's arguments will serve as the introduction for this essay.
"Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest and purest morals. To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence. They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience. More importantly, they're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
The introduction presents four theses; I'll elaborate each one in turn.
1) "Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals."
Every belief system has different sources of moral strength. For Christians, it's faith. For Islamists, it's submission. For Jews, it's the word/study.
However, for Agnostics, the source of moral strength is will. Why "will?" Well, most beliefs and creeds incorporate will into their moral strength. For example, for some denominations of Christianity, will is central because of the importance of having a "free will" to merit theology.
Although most beliefs and creeds share will as a component of their moral strength, Agnosticism is the only system of thought that I have encountered where moral strength is almost entirely determined by strength of will.
Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals because of the nature of will. Will is the only ability that we all share that has no substantive limits; the presence and use of will is rational; the use of will, such as Nietzsche's will to power, is intrinsic to the human being; finally, human beings had will long before they had faith, submission, or the word. Will is innate.
In sum, as something all human beings share from birth with no substantive limits, will presents an opportunity to have stronger morals. (Edit: in hindsight, this argument is actually relatively weak as there's arguably no substantive limits to faith or submission either.)
2) "Agnostics have the potential to have the purest morals."
I must state from the outset that when I talk of purity, I'm referring to degree of logic, reasoning, and consistency.
As stated in my previous note on this topic, Agnosticism is founded upon reason. Reason is one of, if not, the best method(s) of knowing available to humanity. Most other beliefs and creeds rely on "weaker" methods of knowing, such as revelation or authority. (Ironically, the two former methods or knowing are often interrelated) These methods of knowing: revelation and authority, share the same problem with theism and atheism --- they are incredible by definition.
Not only are theist/atheist morals sometimes illogical and unreasonable, they also tend to be inconsistent, at least relative to rationalist morals. There are many examples of this - just look at the Bible - see Bertrand Russel's 'Why I am not a Christian'/go google "inconsistencies in the Bible." In addition to their logic, reasoning, and consistency, rationalist morals draw their purity largely from their simplicity. They are derived from basic reason based on basic experiences --- there are no complex/farfetched external variables such as faith or submission etc. Rationalist morals are Occam's Razor'ed morals.
In sum, rationalist morals are based on the most rational and simplest methods of knowing, and as such, have the potential to be the purest.
3) "To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence. They're 'objective' in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience."
"3)" was essentially covered in the previous paragraph - so I'm going to leave it for now.
***Edit*** Yeah I think I'm actually going to address this.
I'd argue that rationalist morals are exclusively empirical. They essentially avoid the metaphysical as much as possible, with the possible exception of human feeling. (The question as to whether or not emotion serves as a metaphysical exception is based on whether or not one thinks emotional affection rational.)
As a product of empiricism, rational morals have high transferability between peoples as almost all our cognitions are based on empirical evidence. Also, rational morals gain credibility from their positivist roots - which, importantly, include objectivity: the susceptibility to change opinion, perspective, or argument based on new evidence. This objectivity presents an enormous advantage over the many beliefs and creeds that remain dogmatically static, such as many sects of Islam. A rationalist morality only becomes static (i.e. absolute) when it reaches full development, which would essentially require every possible experience ever.
4) "They're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
Of all my points so far, this is undoubtedly the most important.
Allow me to illustrate. There is, as of yet, only one universal language shared by all peoples, at all times, in all places. I'm speaking of course of mathematics. It's no coincidence that mathematics and rationalist morals are almost universally applicable to and by all peoples. They are both founded upon the same Occam's Razor'ed principles: those of reason, logic, and experience. Rationalist morals present another universal language, or at least an excellent contender for a universal language. I realize the latter argument could be used for any other language such as English etc., however, there is an important distinction between the language of mathematics and most other languages. Most languages have cultural overtones and values that distort and vary their meaning from person to person and group to group. However, mathematics/reason/logic are largely neutral and impartial. Culture doesn't/shouldn't get in the way of rationalist morals.
In sum, rationalist morals are almost completely transferable between people(s), because they're founded on shared experiences and cognition.
Well, now that I've described the criteria and skeleton of rationalist morals, I thought I'd end this note by fleshing out one - one of the most basic and universal "Do on to others as you would have done to you." The Golden Rule. Almost every belief and creed shares it, in some form.
Why is the Golden Rule a rationalist moral?
The answer lies in the reasoning for the rule: empathy. Empathy, or the presence of empathy, is one of the most fundamental rationalist morals - that of understanding, or the ability to understand, a person's feelings and values, and how they affect them. The Golden Rule is a direct projection of empathy, i.e., don't do things to other people that would make you feel bad if they were done to you. Thus, the rationalist moral in this instance, is not the projected Golden Rule, but empathy. Without empathy, there is no logical reason to follow the Golden Rule.
I'll create another note outlining some other key rationalist morals later --- I still have to finish researching for that essay I mentioned in the last note.
P.S.
(Here's a hint for finding rationalist morals - they're usually the morals that almost every belief and creed share.)
No comments:
Post a Comment