Just to be nitpicking, I said "functional society", not "civilized society". Although the distinction make no effect on your argument.
>Are you suggesting that morality has no purpose other than to provide a civilized society? That's one view on morality, but it's not that common nowadays.
Yes, that's what I meant (roughly). And while your example (don't harm other so you won't be harmed) sounds selfish, how about "help others in needs so you will be helped in time of need" sounds? To quote Wikipedia: "Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.". It does not necessary have to be because people are selfish, but because there are many many possible behaviors, and a universal standard (morals) allow us to know what to expect. The complexity of dealing with a large group of people (society) can get really messy real quick, just because of the sheer number of possible possibilities . That's also why many people believes that when it comes to two adult with sounded mind dealing directly with each other, any thing goes.
I'm well aware of utilitarianism, and that's actually (partly) where I got the idea of moral standard as a basis for a functional society, but I digress. It seems like the difference between your and my argument was how we tallied up the happiness sum. I draw the line at "being human", and you have a bigger one that encompasses "sentient being".
> Ok, then what happens if you decide a certain person or certain group no longer reasonably belongs in the category of "one another"? For example, how some Sunnis view Shiites, and how Hutus view Tutsis. That group is no longer seen as a vital part of civilization and can be treated in any way at all, because behavior cannot be intrinsically good or bad.
I was about to say that that there is no difference between, let's say Sunnies and Shiites, except their belief, in the sense that except for historical accident, an eternal war between the two won't end. But I just realized where that argument would lead to (and I don't like that). I guess I will have to think a bit more on vegan-ism :-)
Non-religious moral philosophies, at their core, do generally try to optimize for reducing harm and promoting helpfulness wherever possible.
Even if one does not subscribe to a specific moral framework, or a group of people subscribe to different ones, there are still some activities that they can agree are immoral. That's why it's okay for vegetarians/vegans to think that something is wrong even if they may not have developed it in the context of an existing moral philosophy. To say that something is immoral is merely to say that "I have subjective reason to believe that [something] is causing more unnecessary harm than good for other lifeforms".
I wouldn't lump all non-religious moral philosophies into the same group like that.
There are plenty that do not optimize for reducing harm or promoting helpfulness. Many seek to ensure fairness or equality. Others legitimize strength. Most of the ones I'm aware of set humans as preeiminent to the moral construct and seek to find ways to maximize the human condition.
FYI, Nietzsche was the king of non-religious philosophers in the early 20th century and was interested in neither of those things.
Rand's Objectivism is probably the second best known and it too has no interest in either of those things.
>Are you suggesting that morality has no purpose other than to provide a civilized society? That's one view on morality, but it's not that common nowadays.
Yes, that's what I meant (roughly). And while your example (don't harm other so you won't be harmed) sounds selfish, how about "help others in needs so you will be helped in time of need" sounds? To quote Wikipedia: "Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.". It does not necessary have to be because people are selfish, but because there are many many possible behaviors, and a universal standard (morals) allow us to know what to expect. The complexity of dealing with a large group of people (society) can get really messy real quick, just because of the sheer number of possible possibilities . That's also why many people believes that when it comes to two adult with sounded mind dealing directly with each other, any thing goes.
I'm well aware of utilitarianism, and that's actually (partly) where I got the idea of moral standard as a basis for a functional society, but I digress. It seems like the difference between your and my argument was how we tallied up the happiness sum. I draw the line at "being human", and you have a bigger one that encompasses "sentient being".
> Ok, then what happens if you decide a certain person or certain group no longer reasonably belongs in the category of "one another"? For example, how some Sunnis view Shiites, and how Hutus view Tutsis. That group is no longer seen as a vital part of civilization and can be treated in any way at all, because behavior cannot be intrinsically good or bad.
I was about to say that that there is no difference between, let's say Sunnies and Shiites, except their belief, in the sense that except for historical accident, an eternal war between the two won't end. But I just realized where that argument would lead to (and I don't like that). I guess I will have to think a bit more on vegan-ism :-)