Naturalistic morality (an anarchist's perspective)

Just over four years ago, having formerly been a devout Christian, my life was really shaken up as I became an atheist. I now faced the challenge of having to totally re-think my moral code. In particular, I had to answer the following questions:

What is it to be good?
Why should I be good?

I needn't bore you with the details, but my Christian belief system had provided me with answers to these questions, which had satisfied me for some time. After losing my faith, and thinking about these questions for a while, I eventually stumbled upon the is-ought distinction. I had now come to believe that I should base my beliefs on reason and evidence. But how could I, by observing the world and reasoning about it, come to any conclusions about what one should do? I can come to conclusions about the way things are. I can conclude that the sky is blue, and that the Earth orbits the Sun. But what observable facts about the world tell me that I shouldn't hit someone, or steal their bike?

There is no way to reach an ought conclusion without making an ought assumption.

One can say that if someone ought to do one thing, then they ought to do another. If someone wants to become good at tennis, then they should practice tennis. But the statement that someone ought to practice tennis can only be considered to true on a conditional basis.

When it comes to morality, one can define a system of ethics wherein actions meeting some criteria are called "moral", and actions meeting other criteria "immoral". There are many ways you could do this. But then the problems remains, for any individual, why should they act morally according to your definition?

A common approach is to tell people that they must do something, or not do something, because it is absolutely morally right or wrong. But no such absolute moral standards can exist, or at least, there is no way to find that out just by observing the way the world is. All you can ever say is that if you want to act morally according to some particular definition, then this is how to do it.

Let us assume for the moment that morality has something to do with behaviour that is beneficial to society as a whole. It may be the case, then, that everyone would be better off if everyone behaved morally. However, it may also be the case that, all else being equal, it benefits any given individual to behave immorally (e.g. to steal someone's bike). If this were the case, then if everyone recognized that they are not actually obligated to abide by this moral standard, they would act in their own interest in an amoral fashion, and everyone would be worse off as a result.

One can then envision a society in which some small number of elites recognize the non-existence of absolute morality, and thus do not hold themselves to moral standards, but manipulate people in the rest of society into believing that such absolute moral rules exist, for their own selfish gain.

Those elites could be the heads of religions, cults, or indeed, governments.

There is one type of ought statement in particular, which most people believe in, that demonstrates how something like this may be true of most human societies.

Children are indoctrinated from a young age to believe that they must obey authorities, whether they be religious leaders (on behalf of the gods) or government officials (on behalf of the state). While obedience to the state (or "obeying the law") is not often thought of as a moral issue per se, it is an ought that children are taught from a young age as though it were simply true. But what reason is there to believe that such obligations truly exist? I put it to you that there is no good reason, but we have been manipulated into thinking that there is.

What I realised, however, as I mulled this over, is that while there is no reason to believe in absolute moral standards, or to believe in religious or statist authority, I would not be happy living in an amoral way. We have an in-built conscience (for evolutionary reasons no doubt), and as a result it is actually in one's own interest to have moral standards. But we are also endowed with the capacity to reason, and intentionally shape what we perceive as being good. One's desire to be good need not be a weakness, leaving one open to manipulation.

There is plenty of reason to live according to moral standards. Living amorally would damage one's relationships. You can't have a happy and harmonious relationship with someone you are intentionally manipulating for your own gain. Living in the modern world also means we have the luxury of much more choice over who we associate with, and one may be able to associate with much higher quality people by developing virtue. But the question is, bearing in mind that there is no absolute moral standard, due to the is-ought distinction, how should one go about being "good"?

A wide variety of approaches to ethics have been proposed over millennia. Even if none are absolutely true, some are still better than others. Bearing in mind the reasons for wanting to be moral, such as having good relationships and a cohesive society, surely one should try to adopt ethics that fulfill those purposes.

I have some thoughts as to which approaches do this best. However, the purpose of this post is not to convince anyone that the moral approach that I have adopted is the best one. My suggestion is simply that in encouraging people to be good and moral, one should not insist that there is some absolute standard of morality - as set out by you, the moralist - that they must abide by. This is false, and in any case, such a confrontational approach is unlikely to be effective.

Rather, I would propose that one makes an effort to sell their ethics to individuals by explaining how adopting such an ethic would be in their interest. Not merely their material interest, but also how it would make them happier, and improve their relationships. We should sell people ethics in order to help them to improve their lives. If we do that, then the rest of us will surely benefit as well.