[The Saucepan Man]

Phantom

I'm looking for a reason for everyone to behave morally.

There is no reason for everyone to behave morally.

… suddenly he's immoral where as he was moral before? I don't get it

A person is capable of both moral and immoral actions.

This seems to indicate that moral behavior is merely evolved instinct.

It is in its basic form, yes. But, as I explained above, I believe that we have gone beyond the merely instinctive, so that the pleasure which moral action can bring has become an end in itself. We all eat to survive, don’t we, animals and humans alike? And yet we have taken eating to a new level, beyond that which is simply necessary for survival, by cooking our food, flavouring it, combining dishes, and generally striving towards a more pleasurable eating experience.

… and morality, free will, and choice have been negated.

No more so than if we are compelled by a higher authority to act in a certain way. Indeed, no more so than if you believe (and I think that we all do here, whatever the reason) that humans have a tendency (to put it at its lowest) towards moral behaviour.

In other words, sometimes it's not in the interest of the individual to act in the interest of society (which is true). Why in those situations should they act morally?

They won’t necessarily. If they do, it is because they derive more pleasure from doing so than from satisfying their material desires.

Are we to just accept that some people can't be expected to act morally?

I think that we have to. Although that doesn’t mean that we have to accept immoral behaviour – we have laws to compel people not to perpetrate it in its most extreme form.

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.

This quote has been discussed by others, and I concur very much with what Bêthberry said. I agree that most if not all modern religions (in theory if not in always in their practical application) advocate a basically moral lifestyle. In my view, that is because religion has adopted as its model pattern of behaviour that which has gudied the development of society. But religious faith cannot compel everyone to behave morally because not everyone can be compelled to have religious faith.

Helen

Atheism has no higher authority, and hence, no rules.

If that were the case, then there would be no reason for atheists (or agnostics like me) to act morally. And yet, on the whole, we do.

Sharon

I think folk are trying to come up with a single, magic, controlling key to explain behavior, which simply does not exist.

I firmly believe that there is a fundamental reason why humans tend towards moral action (my “evolution” of society theory). But I wholly agree with you that there are a myriad of different factors (both internal and external) governing whether a particular individual might or might not act in a manner which he or she perceives as “moral”. And I also believe that there are a myriad of different factors affecting exactly what each individual perceives as “moral” or “immoral”. While there are certain types of behaviour which can, I think, be objectively labelled as either moral or immoral, there are a lot of “grey areas” in between.

Mister Underhill

You can’t definitively prove me wrong if I hypothesize that somewhere out there in the universe are a few planets that don’t obey the laws of gravitation. But you’d think me silly for arguing such a point when the vast weight of evidence suggests otherwise.

But where is the weight of evidence to suggest that an immoral person will inevitably be less happy than a moral one?

Your conclusion seems to contradict your theory. An evolutional, societal model of morality would seem to logically endorse the sacrifice of a few (innocent or not) for the good of society.

No it doesn’t. A society which sanctions immoral behaviour, even for the greater good, will not serve the interests of the majority of the individuals within that society (for a variety of possible reasons: less security, increased brutality, increased criminality, greater likelihood of conflict with other societies etc). Often societies such as this will serve only the interests of the (immoral) ruling elite. They are therefore not properly functioning societies and most will suffer the consequences of their immoral character in that they will be unhappy and, frequently, short-lived societies.

Sorry Esty. My next post will be Tolkien-related, I promise. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]