Ethical Restriction

[scameter]

I have another dilemma that has been plaguing me since I gave up Christianity. If a person does not believe that life is purposeful, with a personal will behind it giving things meaning, what, truly, would deter a person from doing what they want to do, whatever emotional craving comes to them? For instance, if an atheist saw a woman he found attractive and had the desire to have sex with her, whether she wanted it or not, and he was strong enough to do, why shouldn't he? Morally, I mean. I know that there would be legal consequences, but if there weren't, what would restrict him? He would have no thought of his actions having a bigger significance, no thought of an ultimate will beyond life giving his actions significance. Life, to an atheist, is just a chemical accident, and we're just insignificant specks on an insignificant spot in existence, as they often recite. So, if it is meaningless, what morally should restrict anything an atheist does? And, furthermore, with religions that think life matters but nontheistically, such as Buddhism and spiritual Taoism, why should a person attempt to follow what those religions teach, even if they're apart of it? If there is no meaning-giver to life, then what does it matter what we do? We may suffer, or cause others to suffer, or be reborn, but so what? I've heard many American Buddhists even act like rebirth is fine, and they rarely ever talk about escaping from it through Enlightenment as Asian Buddhists do. So what besides things like it feeling good, culture, etc., motivate someone to follow a nontheistic/impersonal religion?

[Chan Tiger]

Hi Scameter,

A good starting point may be to consider that all human beings want happiness. This is as true for atheists as it is for Christians. And it is this desire for happiness which drives all human activity. Ethics can be understood, broadly speaking, as the science of "the good life" or of what will bring us happiness.

To answer your first question, there is no reason to believe that giving into every emotional craving will make us happy. While this yields temporary satisfaction, it doesn't provide lasting fulfillment. There's always a new craving that longs to be fulfilled, and another. This swiftly becomes a form of enslavement. One doesn't have to believe in God to conclude that happiness can't be found in such behavior.

[kris]

If a person does not believe that life is purposeful, with a personal will behind it giving things meaning, what, truly, would deter a person from doing what they want to do, whatever emotional craving comes to them? For instance, if an atheist saw a woman he found attractive and had the desire to have sex with her, whether she wanted it or not, and he was strong enough to do, why shouldn't he? Morally, I mean. I know that there would be legal consequences, but if there weren't, what would restrict him? He would have no thought of his actions having a bigger significance, no thought of an ultimate will beyond life giving his actions significance. Life, to an atheist, is just a chemical accident, and we're just insignificant specks on an insignificant spot in existence, as they often recite. So, if it is meaningless, what morally should restrict anything an atheist does?If a person not believe life is purposeful or meaningful, he will do whatever he wants to do. There are people like this and we do have crime - rape, robberies, murders, etc. There cannot be moral restrictions for someone who thinks life is meaningless.

And, furthermore, with religions that think life matters but nontheistically, such as Buddhism and spiritual Taoism, why should a person attempt to follow what those religions teach, even if they're apart of it? If there is no meaning-giver to life, then what does it matter what we do? We may suffer, or cause others to suffer, or be reborn, but so what? I've heard many American Buddhists even act like rebirth is fine, and they rarely ever talk about escaping from it through Enlightenment as Asian Buddhists do. So what besides things like it feeling good, culture, etc., motivate someone to follow a nontheistic/impersonal religion?Like Chan Tiger says, we all want to be happy. We just go about finding happiness in many different ways. If meaning giver is needed to give meaning to life, there must be a meaning giver. Some of us strive to know the meaning and the meaning giver.

[scameter]

To Chan Tiger: For one, though, what does happiness matter? Just because everyone wants it, doesn't make it mean anything. And, for two, why do alot of religions, such as Hinduism and Christianity/Judaism, teach things like asceticism and many laws and restrictions that would definitely hinder one's enjoyment, such as saying masturbation is wrong, if they're ethical goal is happiness?

To kris: For your first reply, there are also many atheists who are not criminals, in fact I'd say most of them are, and most criminals are probably not atheistic or religious, they just don't think about it at all. They're driven more by emotion, i.e. the desire for pleasure, power, etc. So, believing life is meaningless doesn't *necessitate* that a person will do bad things, but on a more philosophical level, I ask *should* a person who believes life is meaningless feel any genuine restriction for doing whatever they feel like. And for your second one, but many people attempt to strive for happiness even when they do not believe in meaning or a meaning giver. My question is why would happiness matter to them, and why would they have any kind of moral restriction other than external things like fear of punishment.

[Chan Tiger]

Hi Scameter,

For one, though, what does happiness matter? Just because everyone wants it, doesn't make it mean anything.

Happiness "matters" because it is an end-in-itself. You don't want to be happy for some other, further end---you want happiness for its own sake. Other objects appear desirable only because we judge that through them, we will attain happiness.

How to attain happiness, and whether it is possible to attain it (or if it is something that must be "attained" at all) is debatable. But what isn't is that happiness is the root of all goal-directed behavior.

And, for two, why do alot of religions, such as Hinduism and Christianity/Judaism, teach things like asceticism and many laws and restrictions that would definitely hinder one's enjoyment, such as saying masturbation is wrong, if they're ethical goal is happiness?


The most obvious answer is that these religions teach that there is an afterlife of some sort, and that indulging in certain pleasures now will result in suffering (possibly eternal suffering), while abstaining from now will guarantee happiness (ultimately, eternal happiness). But one doesn't even need to believe in an afterlife in order to see, as I pointed out in my last post, that simply giving in to every craving will never bring happiness. Likewise, it is also possible to be a theist and see things without the simplistic punishment/reward schema.

But setting aside the issue of religion entirely, you seem to be conflating pleasure with happiness. They aren't necessarily the same thing. Although some people (like Epicurus and Aristippus in Ancient Greece) claim happiness is achieved through pleasure, we have no reason to simply assume that this is the case.

[scameter]

Chan:Happiness "matters" because it is an end-in-itself. You don't want to be happy for some other, further end---you want happiness for its own sake. Other objects appear desirable only because we judge that through them, we will attain happiness.

Hm. True.

Chan:But setting aside the issue of religion entirely, you seem to be conflating pleasure with happiness. They aren't necessarily the same thing.

I was, inaccurately. Happiness is indeed quite different from pleasure. To me, I think that pleasure brings brief, momentary satisfaction, like a mirror-image form of happiness, which essentially just fuctions that make the mind focus on it rather than the negatives of their life. But, I think that happiness is moreso an inner peace and stability. However, I have also sometimes wondered if happiness is not merely an ideal that isn't even always good. It seems to me that life is full of negativity and that despite our perception, it is not always bad. Negativities, such as death, pain and anger, can oftentimes lead to a better situation, and furthermore, they are also expressions of our subconscious. But, these may just contribute to happiness.

[kris]

For your first reply, there are also many atheists who are not criminals, in fact I'd say most of them are, and most criminals are probably not atheistic or religious, they just don't think about it at all. They're driven more by emotion, i.e. the desire for pleasure, power, etc. So, believing life is meaningless doesn't *necessitate* that a person will do bad things, but on a more philosophical level, I ask *should* a person who believes life is meaningless feel any genuine restriction for doing whatever they feel like.I was not talking about atheists. I was saying that those who do not think that life is purposeful or meaningful will generally not feel any moral restrictions. Only fear of man made laws can keep such people from committing crimes. Many and perhaps most atheists find meaning in life and define purpose for their lives.
And for your second one, but many people attempt to strive for happiness even when they do not believe in meaning or a meaning giver. My question is why would happiness matter to them, and why would they have any kind of moral restriction other than external things like fear of punishment.I think happiness matters to all whether or not they believe in meaning or meaning giver. Our most basic nature is to want happiness.

[scameter]

Honestly I'm beginning to think that purpose and meaning in a person's life can actually be a restriction. It seems as if people do it because they are afraid, and because they want happiness but they want to be able to do other things in this life and wait for happiness afterwards, rather than confronting their problems here and trying to be happy and encourage others to do the same. They also tend to place their happiness on intellectual thought and belief, rather than inner peace and proper living. I think that happiness, as Chan has described, is truly the objective of humanity, despite how complex and intricate the layers of a person's happiness and how to get it is. The best method to be happy, then, is truly the issue of living.

[DaD]

Ethics must be retained...........many people abandoned it................but if it wouldn't be any ethics............ Earth wouldn't be worth livng at................it is a sacrifice we all should do so we all can have a good life..........