What stops me doing wrong in a materialistic universe?

[windsurfer-sp]

Keep this on topic. This is not a religious debate. Please answer the question within the assumptions given.

Question: If you view the universe as made up of only atoms, then what stops one from doing wrong to another?

Example: Why should I not kill off an isolated tribe of people in Africa? Why should I not rape children? If I had a nuclear bomb why should I not detonate it?

What I consider to be wrong anwsers (please feel to prove me wrong):
Its bad for the human race, its not nice, its agianst your DNA, you wouldn't want it done to you, we as a society say you shouldn't, you will be killed etc....

Alternately worded: If there is nothing beyond this life then why should I not harm others?

[Artic_counter]

Because you need the others. You can't live without the others. This is why we have created society and within this exact society, people have created some rules so that individual like us that are part of the society get our public life advantaged and, at a certain point, our private life too.

I might add a BIG paragraph about what I just said later. Right now my internet is pretty ****ed up =_=

[Kekeb]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

Question: If you view the universe as made up of only atoms, then what stops one from doing wrong to another?

I understand your question, but the quoted sentence doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how viewing the universe as made up of atoms makes the argument of doing wrong, which I think is subjective anyway, any more invalid or valid. The two are seemingly unrelated, and I just want some clarification.

EDIT: It makes sense if the statement was used to avoid saying "if you don't believe in God and objective morals".

[devonin]

Nothing stops you from being able to do that. Barring things like the cost of travel, acquiring and training to use weapons etc, you could in fact go kill a tribe of people. You could go rape children, you could go do all of those things.

There is nothing stopping you from acting in any way you desire in the causative sense, barring those things which are impossible due to the constraints of the universe (You can't kill people by thinking at them, or jump 500 feet into the air etc)

What you're trying to fish for is "If there are no objective ethics, if there's no point to life, why don't we do whatever we want?" And the answer is, despite your putting them as answers you don't 'accept' "Because you allow your actions to be limited by your society in order to properly function in that society."

You can make the free choice to go murder somebody for no reason. And while the justice system might be 'wrong' to you if it says you did wrong for moral reasons, it still has the power to lock you up or depending on where you are, kill you for it.

The reason you don't do these things is either a) you respect the boundaries set up by society out of a desire to have others respect those boundaries with regards to you or b) you're more afraid of the consequences of acting in that fashion than you are desirous of acting in that fashion.

To use your exact formulation "If there is nothing beyond this life then why should I not harm others?" the answer is "No reason, but you can't complain if someone does it back, and then some."

[MrRubix]

Society as we know it has formed over time as a way to provide humans a way to live well. Society falls apart if we go around killing people at will, and so the system needs a way to punish those that disturb the peace and cause damage.

So, nothing's stopping you from killing anyone, but realize that there are simply going to be consequences. If I go kick over some kid's sand castle, I can't be so surprised if he starts chasing me with a shovel or something.

Society is made up of everyone involved, and they'd all rather work together and have better lives collectively as opposed to killing each other off in needless, unproductive genocides. If people are going to screw around, society's going to put them back in their place. If someone spams the crap out of these forums, they're going to be punished, for instance. Sure, it might be fun for us to go around spamming and causing chaos at our whim, but it disturbs the environment that is otherwise trying to produce something of value to all involved, and detracting from that is just making yourself a target for punishment.

I don't believe there's any objective meaning in the universe, no, but we are humans and we are able to feel utility, as well as the lack of it, and we're lucky enough to be able to make rational decisions. You find out real quick that being free to do whatever you want means others will do the same back, and so it's better for everyone to cooperate and build. Deviants are just hindering those efforts, and so they'll be dealt with.

[Patashu]

Social contracts and evolution.

Because all life on earth undergoes a process of evolution, where genetics (and epigenetic qualities) are modified slightly from generation to generation and those more suited to their surrounding environment and conditions are more likely to live on and pass on those traits, we will find that, time permitted, negative traits will be supressed and positive traits will spread. This is a bit of a naive view, but it will do for our purposes.

Let's take humans. Humans are not too much unlike any other animal; we are, too, subject to evolution. One of our greatest strengths is our ability to act socially and in groups; we're not particularly strong or fast but we have great brains.
For a group to form, every member of the group must be willing and able to cohere to the group and act/contribute to it; we have what's called a 'social contract' which is never written down but encouraged by evolution. If everyone acts responsibly towards others, they will act responsibly towards you as well. So long as a majority of the members enforce this contract, the group can continue to function. This is why a deterrent to doing 'bad things' exists, even in a 'materialistic universe'.

Let's imagine that you DIDN'T stop doing bad things; humans existed but weren't prone to helping others. Unable to form groups, the human race would surely perish, but if any groups of it were more prone to co-operating, they would be among the last to survive, and THEY would now compose the human race.

With the human race as it is today, however, 6 billion people all across the planet, with the internet and telephones and airplanes and multinational corporations, it's very easy to think that doing something bad doesn't matter if it never personally effects me. This isn't a problem with the idea of a social contract but with the enforcement; we don't yet have a way to force responsibility on everyone in the planet. Everything that happens on Earth still effects you, eventually or for our next generation.

[bubblechamber]

I agree with devonin and MrRubix that there's no objective truth stating that you shouldn't hurt others/do wrong. In fact, the phrase "do wrong" doesn't even make much sense in this context. There are plenty of things that society and religious groups deem to be wrong - but if you're invalidating society, religion, and human nature as answers to your question, how do you even decide what counts as wrong?

I'm guessing you picked your examples of genocide, child rape, and unprovoked nuclear attacks because they're things you personally believe to be wrong - and irrefutably so. I agree with all three of those choices, but I'd be interested in how you decided that these were wrong without using any of your off-limits answers. In a purely materialistic world, I simply can't come up with an answer that doesn't involve social experience, genetics, or self-interest.

Additionally, there are people out there who kill and rape regardless of consequences. There's nothing stopping them, except their ability to keep going.

To add onto previous answers, though, even if you ignore all of the negative consequences of the actions you mentioned, you still have to consider whether the positive gains are worth the effort of taking the action. For most people, raping a child just isn't appealing. They either aren't interested at all, or find that consensual sex with an adult would be much more rewarding, and therefore more worthy of their time and energy. Right now, a lot of us are browsing the forums or playing FFR; most of us are here because we like it, and it's convenient - not because we would rather be raping someone, if only we weren't so afraid of the consequences. Our personal preference on how to spend time also plays an important role in stopping us from "doing wrong."

[Reach]

If you view the universe as made up of only atoms, then what stops one from doing wrong to another?

Oneself stops one from doing wrong, quite obviously. The power of reason.

On a more detailed note, before I answer the question I'll tell you about me. There are a number of reasons for me personally.

Let's start with the most superficial - There are serious repercussions involved in doing wrong to others. Man made laws give me, personally, ample incentive not to.

On a slightly deeper level: I was raised by my parents to hold certain values, and over time I adapted those values into a customized moral framework I operate on daily. I would feel bad if I broke that moral framework, because it's something I've internalized and that means it's important to me. Doing something that goes against what I stand for and what is important to me would obviously be emotional and undesirable.

On a very deep level: I wasn't born with a blank slate. Rather, as a human being I'm primed in certain ways to develop certain kinds of behaviors and am predisposed to acting cohesively as a group with others. When this was combined with my upbringing and my internalization of certain moral guidelines, I was able to create the mental framework I currently have.

In addition to this, I was also born with the genes that gave me the brain I currently have, and thus the cognitive capacity to develop these types of mental frameworks in the first place.


Also, as part of that framework, the future of my species is also important to me, and as such it's in my best interest to look out not only for people that mean something to be, but everyone else as well.


So, what about you, and others? Well, that depends entirely on what framework YOU develop. Nothing is stopping you from doing bad things per say. Nothing is stopping anyone, save some laws that might make some things nearly impossible or impossible to do. Inevitably, what you end up doing depends on the decisions you make, and those are influenced greatly by many of the things I just discussed.

As such, due to the framework I currently have, it's in MY best interest for you to look out for me, since I'm looking out for you. If we don't cooperate, we don't have civilization. It's your choice, really, and thankfully many people make the right one (With a little help from predispositions like our genes, culturally transmitted information etc, as I discussed).

Obviously, however, many people do bad things to other people. Often times this has to do with social pressures though, i.e. people that are morally similar to myself could be driven to do bad things by factors outside of themselves. Or, sometimes it just is the person themselves. There is no objective moral framework for the universe - we create that framework. It's not objective and clear cut for everyone, and thus we have the world we currently have now.

[Izzy]

Well since the vast majority of people will probably not like you rapping babies, it might come back to get you killed. So in the self interest of survival you should probably not kill alot of people.

If you are planning on suicide or whatever then there is nothing stopping you.

[windsurfer-sp]

Originally Posted by devonin

To use your exact formulation "If there is nothing beyond this life then why should I not harm others?" the answer is "No reason, but you can't complain if someone does it back, and then some."

This has pretty much answered my question. I was just wondering if there was some other way around it. Some other anwser.

I guess personally I look at this anwser and to me the consequences of this anwser scream out that there needs to be something more out there to provide justice.

Basically there is no definite justice on this Earth. Justice to me is so important. I feel like justice is built in to us as human beings.

As for this thread, I guess everyone here has helped answer my question. There is no definite materialistic reason to not do wrong.

If people want to discuss the consequnces (or more likely argue the lack there of) I am happy to, but it may wander down the religous argument path, which I have tried to avoid. But if people are mature enough to discuss it (most poeple in this therad are) then lets do it.

[Patashu]

Justice is a placeholder that we use in the absence of being able to perfectly co-ordinate human resources and minds. The idea is that we punish people who do wrong as a deterrent, but the problem is that most crimes are driven by irrational reasons (sociopathy, anger/other emotions, not thinking that the consequences will happen, a perception that the justice system is flawed or unfair or alternatively non-functional (which it might be) and a refusal to accept its legitimacy) or, alternatively, because crime is the only choice that person has left; a chance at jail time might be better than definitely starving on the streets. Humans are far from perfectly logical beings and even if we had perfect, unerring Justice we would still have people commiting crimes.

One alternative route we can take is, instead of punishing, rehabilitating criminals; figuring out WHY they did the things they did from a psychological/physiological perspective (considering personality, background, conditions and such) and working to right these wrongs so that the makeup of society is less inclined to commit crimes via social and cultural reform. Still then, though, preventing all crime would be impossible as while some people can be given the things, knowledge or lessons they require to contribute productively to society once again, some people are incapable of seeing the points of view of others (sociopaths). It's pretty clear that we can never achieve a perfectly functioning society, but we can try.

[dsliscoo]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

This has pretty much answered my question. I was just wondering if there was some other way around it. Some other anwser.

I guess personally I look at this anwser and to me the consequences of this anwser scream out that there needs to be something more out there to provide justice.

Basically there is no definite justice on this Earth. Justice to me is so important. I feel like justice is built in to us as human beings.

As for this thread, I guess everyone here has helped answer my question. There is no definite materialistic reason to not do wrong.

If people want to discuss the consequnces (or more likely argue the lack there of) I am happy to, but it may wander down the religous argument path, which I have tried to avoid. But if people are mature enough to discuss it (most poeple in this therad are) then lets do it.

Uhm, trying to keep a little calm because this entire thread annoys me alot. Materialism isnt the point of this world, period. Using your desire as "the best for yourself" is not a valid excuse for any action. its a fake out excuse lol. but besides that there actually is materialistic reason.

Survival is why you dont do it. Doing any of those atrocities you spoke of near me would make me want to kill you. For a variety of reasons, but the one your looking for is behavior like that is suicidal in whole and a threat to my personal security. Survival is materialistic and selfish. That is the justice in it.

Now on a different level there is virtually no consequences for softer crimes because it doesnt trigger raw actionable emotions. If it is not a threat directly, reasons for acting in certain ways are obscure and can only be explained in trying to provide a more complicated society then what you imagine in a "materialistic" world. Things like caring for others probably doesnt count in the society you imagine, but in this society well it does.

I object to you thinking any of that stuff is remotely justifiable even in the most sickest and twisted of terms.

[devonin]

It occurs to me that I maybe should have left ShAiOnEi's profanity and flaming in the thread, since he provides a very nice object lesson: Lacking any objective morals, he felt there was nothing wrong with coming in here and flaming other users, and from a moral standpoint, I have no real objective grounds to say it was 'wrong' of him to do that, and yet because of the social contract we mutually agreed to, to play nice, and the fact that I'm in a position of authority and power, he has now been removed from the discussion.

You "can" do anything you want, you just "can" also have to deal with the consequences.

[Patashu]

Aw, why'd you take it out? I felt like it helped refine my point on some level.

[windsurfer-sp]

Originally Posted by devonin

You "can" do anything you want, you just "can" also have to deal with the consequences.

If you are willing to do something above all materialistic consequences then why shouldn't you?

Eg. I hate the world and to get my revenge will kill as many children as I want. I do not care about anything you can do to me on this Earth, so I will do it, untill I am physically stopped.

The fact that these children (and parents and family) had to suffer real suffering due to the intentional actions of the killer, to me is is just not right.

To me only something truely higher then materialism can make this right.

(I also suspect that most people would agree that the intentional actions of the killer to cause pain ideally should not go unpunshied. Whether not this leads to a belief in something more then materialism is far more subjective.)

[windsurfer-sp]

dslicoo, surivial is not a valid anwser. If I do not care if I live or die, then I do not care if I am killed for my actions (sucide bombing is a relevant action).

Also behind this all mate, it is some what obvious I am trying to think out and justify a proof for this universe as being more then materialistic. (But lets keep this disscusion orderly by sticking to this particular train of thought at hand and not the wildly larger discusion of the big pitcure.)

[devonin]

To me only something truely higher then materialism can make this right.

Your question wasn't whether it was right or wrong, since you started from a position of "There's no such thing as right and wrong" so there -is- no right and wrong.

If you don't care about the consequences, you do it, and you pay the consequences. I'm not really seeing what further point you're trying to raise here.

[windsurfer-sp]

Ok, so far we have concluded:
If there is only materialism then there is nothing to stop someone from doing wrong.

From this:
How does this effect the idea of materialism? Does materalism contradict the idea that many people have that there should be justice. That ultimately no crime should go unpunished.

I guess even if you belive in an afterlife where evil doers is punished, what is there to say that the person who didn't care about the consequences on Earth will care about the consequences after death?

Actually the more I think about it the more I think the angle of this disscusion dosn't really link into the next point of disscussion im trying to make here. Your right Dev.

[Patashu]

I would like to reiterate that justice is a system we use in the absence of more preventative methods. Imagine if you had a mind changing device; whenever someone commited a crime, you could take them in, alter their personality to correct whatever flaw made them commit the crime, then give them the resources/skills needed for them to integrate back into society. This is clearly better than justice, but impractical because we do not have the methods necessary to fix the thinking processes of any possible criminal; it is, however, an ideal that we can sometimes fulfill through counciling, re-education of criminals, supplying them with a new job or resources, etc. as opposed to treating them like scum and giving them nothing useful for when they're finally let out again.

[devonin]

Does materalism contradict the idea that many people have that there should be justice.

There's a bit of a cognotive disconnect here. How would that be a contradiction of something you know to be true? People -do- have the idea that there should be 'justice' so there's nothing contradictory going on.

What you're saying really, I suppose is, "Does materialism mean that a desire for 'justice' is nonsensical, because there's no such thing as 'justice'" to which the answer is "There's no -objective- basis for the -source- of the justice people have formulated, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is nonsense."

People mutually decide on a set of rules and consequences, elects people to enforce and police those rules, and mete out those consequences, at which time it really doesn't matter what the basis was for why they did so.

It doesn't matter whether morals come from religion, or social contract, or a drunken fever dream, when someone with the desire and ability to punish you decides to exercise that power.