Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 4:58 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 3:34 pm
Every ethical system—including yours, whether you admit it or not—starts with at least one unprovable value assumption. That’s unavoidable. But those assumptions don’t come out of nowhere. They’re caused by noticing life experiences and their outcomes, by observing what leads to harm or well-being, by seeing patterns emerge around us over time.
So yes, the first step is technically an assumption—but it’s not arbitrary. It's shaped by the same causal universe we’re all embedded in.
And this isn’t hypocrisy—it’s just how reasoning works. Physics itself operates on a hypothetico-deductive model. We assume certain things (like the laws of motion or conservation laws), then test predictions. If the predictions fail, we revise. That’s science.
Mathematics and logic are different—they’re axiomatic deductive systems. They don’t deal with the real world; they operate within closed symbolic frameworks. But when it comes to applying ethics in reality—where outcomes matter—you better believe we need evidence.
So no, it’s not “congratulating ourselves” for being evidence-based. It’s recognizing that once you care about anything at all, you’ve already stepped into the world of values. The only honest question is: are your values responsive to reality, or just anchored in ancient stories and untested dogmas?
Actually, the first assumptions about ethical "oughts" are shaped by cultural norms. And cultural norms are often shaped by religion. The dogma of religious morality may be based on.myths -- but it is far from "untested". Indeed, it is because such ethical norms as "do unto others" have stood the test of time that we renounce them at our peril. There's no reason these norms should be abandoned simply because we cannot accept the religious foundation on which they are based. If we don't believe in God does that mean it's OK to covet our neighbor's wife? Or kill? Or bear false witness?
Of course we should look at evidence to see if our behavior is consistent with our deeply held (and non-evidence-based) moral principles. Who would deny it? But inventing the principles without reference to history, cultural norms, and time-tested ethical systems smacks of dangerous hubris.
You're absolutely right that cultural norms play a massive role in shaping early ethical assumptions. But here's the thing: those norms, including religious ones, didn’t descend from the sky. They were formed by human beings responding to the challenges of survival, cooperation, and social cohesion—in other words, shaped by cause-and-effect patterns observed over time. Religion just happened to be the dominant explanatory framework at the time.
Yes, “do unto others” has stood the test of time. Not because it was delivered by divine decree, but because it works. Empathy, reciprocity, and cooperation are pro-social behaviors that lead to more stable, peaceful groups. That’s not myth—that’s evolutionary psychology and anthropology.
The idea that we must retain religious foundations just because certain values happened to be expressed in that form historically is like saying we should still explain lightning with Zeus because ancient people happened to stumble upon some good fire safety rules while fearing him. We can keep the helpful insights and ditch the superstition.
And no—disbelieving in God doesn’t mean anything goes. It means we take responsibility for evaluating our principles in the light of reason and evidence, not fear of divine punishment. We don’t need a cosmic parent to know that lying, stealing, and killing usually have destructive consequences. We observe that they do, across cultures and centuries.
Referencing history and tradition is wise. But blindly preserving what’s “time-tested” without questioning its origins, its purpose, or its truth? That’s not humility. That’s inertia. And in a world facing new global challenges, we can’t afford to navigate using outdated maps.