I’m just curious. How do materialists reconcile their views with moralism? I mean, materialism says that there is no such thing except cold hard lifeless matter. Where does morality fit in? I don’t mean this to be a jab at materialists - I’m honestly curious. In fact, most materialists I’ve encountered are actually highly morally inclined… but I’m not sure how this turns out. So my question is this: how does a philosophy like materialism, which should exclude anything platonic like morality from existence, get along with any stance on morality?
gib - I think you are wrong about that. I am a materialist, and I think I speak for many materialists (if not all of them) in saying that puppies, kittens, and humans are all entirely physical, but not cold, hard or lifeless.
The answer is: Morality is manmade. I believe in nylon. I believe in rayon. I believe in entirely synthetic moral fiber.
Your misunderstanding comes from the way in which you consider the word ‘exist’. Materialism is a form of monist ontology; a theory about the singular basis to the nature of “stuff.” Morality is a “concern” but is not a “stuff”.
Yeah, I didn’t mean to portray puppies, kittens, and humans as cold, hard, and lifeless - I was just going for contrast with “warm fuzzy” morality just to show the gap I see.
So if you believe in synthetic moral fiber, then you must think of it as something we can use - to believe or disbelieve is a choice to use this invention or not. Is that it?
So would you say, then, that morality is more akin to one’s likes and dislikes as opposed to there being an ultimate Right and Wrong?
Gib - Among the entirely useful inventions of humans is the telephone, the computer, wine, marshmallow creme and morality, yes. I don’t like the telephone, but use it, I love my computer, I also love marshmallow creme but can’t in good conscience recommend it, and cannot live effectively without a personal moral code. I have a variety in opinions about various human inventions, not all in opposition to each other, or mutually exclusive. Or even pertinent to each other.
I’m not sure why I added that last part, except that I just woofed a big gulp of black coffee.
blasphemer!
moon pies are manna
-Imp
That’s two questions, really. To the first, yes it is more akin but not exactly like. To the second, I dont see how it is relevant to materialism. There being ultimate right and wrongs is a concern within the concern we call morality.
Morality fits in on a sociological level, I believe. If materialist believe in evolution they may conclude that since our species evolved as social creatures what we call “morality” must be a necessary characteristic for survival of a relatively complex social species.
Well, thanks for your views, everyone.
Based on what everyone’s said, I guess the answer to my question is that materialists don’t feel morality really relates to materialism because it’s not really a philosophical stance for them (like platonic moral principles or religious ones, etc.) It seems like its more a natural instinct or drive for which there is no reason to reject on the grounds that it doesn’t exist in the same sense as matter exists. So if one sees a drowning man and suddenly becomes overwhelmed with a drive to save him, or sees a child being molested and gets filled with rage towards the molester, this is seen as a natural human reaction that one simply accepts.
This actually makes me feel good about our world, and it proves something I’ve always felt - namely, that, for the most part, people don’t have to take official stands on what’s right and wrong. Basic human instincts will take care of this on their own. In fact, it might be the moral stance taking, through up bringing and indoctrination, that leads to conflicts between what one feel naturally inclined to do in morally laden situations and what one has been taught to do.
Well, as a materialist, I do moral actions because I would want moral actions done unto me.
Does it work?
I have another question for materialists: Do materialist tend to want more in life, ie, collect more things?
Also, and this might sound strange, but to materialists lust more after the opposite sex?
I’ve always been curious about that. Thanks for any answers.
I doubt your philosophy has much of an effect on your sex drive.
Is the style of morality being described here related to emotivism? Where expressions of ‘morality’ are simply expressions of emotion. (Mother Teresa is a good person = Yay Mother Teresa!)
When you breath, that’s also emotivism.
Everything living is emotivism.
I’m surprised that no one has pointed this out yet, but there are a lot of different sorts of materialists. You seem to be referring to physicalists, or even a particular brand of physicalists. Dialectical materialism (such as Marx’s) doesn’t for one moment deny the existence of ideas, it merely identifies them as the products of material circumstance (in Marx, the class struggle and economic alienation of capitalism).
- Marx, Introduction to Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
marxists.org/archive/marx/wo … /intro.htm
Enjoy…
Maybe not the drive or instinct, but whether you choose to abstain or full partake, I should say it has everything to do with your personal philosophical stance.
If it didn’t, why would anybody want to be moral?
reminds me of a question: does materialism denigrate humanity, or glorify matter? i’m not a materialist, but if i were, i would say the latter.
and in order to attack morality you must attack all feelings, especially love, compassion, conscience, and all motivation. so the question is more like, why does a materalist get up in the morning, or why does a materialist enter a relationship?
i suppose the magic of life would be an emergent property, or a property of matter.