Please help me understand non-religious metaethics.

[Mopsus]

The basis for ethics is facts and circumstances of being human, as established by the laws of physics and biology.  We have a limited life-span, we experience pain, we have emotions, we share basic characteristics with other humans.  Those are just the circumstances of being human as they happen to be.  They inevitably lead to a set of ethical precepts which all humans seem to agree to.

To be honest, this comes across as a shallow justification for your preconceived moral beliefs; in effect, what you're doing is appealing to human tradition and to "science" as the basis for your morality. But what if I made a conscious decision to break with human tradition and with my biology, and commit an act that, according to you, those things should lead me to believe is objectively immoral? What would you say to convince me that this is the improper course of action?

[Mopsus]

The basis for ethics is facts and circumstances of being human, as established by the laws of physics and biology.  We have a limited life-span, we experience pain, we have emotions, we share basic characteristics with other humans.  Those are just the circumstances of being human as they happen to be.  They inevitably lead to a set of ethical precepts which all humans seem to agree to.

To be honest, this comes across as a shallow justification for your preconceived moral beliefs; in effect, what you're doing is appealing to human tradition and to "science" as the basis for your morality. But what if I made a conscious decision to break with human tradition and with my biology, and commit an act that, according to you, those things should lead me to believe is objectively immoral? What would you say to convince me that this is the improper course of action?

It's hard to say if you're not specifically saying what action you're taking. 

And, I think you're misinterpreting me.  I don't think science creates an ethical framework.  I think the basic facts surrounding our human existence inform our basic ethical intuitions and give them content.  It's not so much "science" as the material facts of our human community and relationships. 

I'm certainly not going to argue that our experiences don't inform our conception of right and wrong; what I disagree with is the assertion that our experiences will necessarily lead everyone, everywhere to conclude that a common handful of things are immoral. For example: a hunter-gatherer has a self-interest in cultivating a sense of empathy and compassion towards fellow members of his tribe. However, he also has an interest in denying those same virtues to members of an alien tribe. How would you go about convincing this individual to value the lives of his competitors to the same degree that he values the lives of his neighbors and his kin?

[Mopsus]

The basis for ethics is facts and circumstances of being human, as established by the laws of physics and biology.  We have a limited life-span, we experience pain, we have emotions, we share basic characteristics with other humans.  Those are just the circumstances of being human as they happen to be.  They inevitably lead to a set of ethical precepts which all humans seem to agree to.

To be honest, this comes across as a shallow justification for your preconceived moral beliefs; in effect, what you're doing is appealing to human tradition and to "science" as the basis for your morality. But what if I made a conscious decision to break with human tradition and with my biology, and commit an act that, according to you, those things should lead me to believe is objectively immoral? What would you say to convince me that this is the improper course of action?

It's hard to say if you're not specifically saying what action you're taking. 

And, I think you're misinterpreting me.  I don't think science creates an ethical framework.  I think the basic facts surrounding our human existence inform our basic ethical intuitions and give them content.  It's not so much "science" as the material facts of our human community and relationships. 

I'm certainly not going to argue that our experiences don't inform our conception of right and wrong; what I disagree with is the assertion that our experiences will necessarily lead everyone, everywhere to conclude that a common handful of things are immoral. For example: a hunter-gatherer has a self-interest in cultivating a sense of empathy and compassion towards fellow members of his tribe. However, he also has an interest in denying those same virtues to members of an alien tribe. How would you go about convincing this individual to value the lives of his competitors to the same degree that he values the lives of his neighbors and his kin?

How is that different from our view of ethics today?   We still care more about our family and friends and have no absolute rule against conflict with other groups.

What I'm getting at is more than just caring more for members of your own social group than for members of a foreign one. I'm saying that our hypothetical hunter-gatherer has no reason to extend any degree of compassion or humanity to members of a rival tribe - indeed, it's in his interest to dehumanize them, as that makes it easier for him to kill them should he feel that it's in his interest to do so. Are you saying that you find nothing objectionable in this line of thinking?

[Mopsus]

I don't really understand why it's necessarily in a primitive human's interest to dehumanize anyone outside their immediate family and social group. 

It isn't just in a primitive human's interest; it can be in our interest, too.

Let's say that you're a goat herder living in the Negev. A stranger happens to be sojourning in your land, and he asks you for a meal and a place to sleep. You're under no obligation to grant these to him, and since you're unlikely to ever see him again, the discomfort that feeding and boarding him would create outweighs the discomfort that you'll experience while turning him away. Since you don't believe that there's an objectively right way to treat one's fellows, you do turn him away, and you don't feel bad about it, either.

Incidentally, your Bible-believing neighbor happily provides the stranger with what he asks for.

A more modern example would be the homeless man begging for alms. Most of us would move past him with a guilty conscience if we didn't at least give him a token donation, but to the totally rational individualist, recognizing that he derives no material benefit from the exchange renders such feelings of guilt a foreign concept. How would you convince this person that he ought to feel otherwise?

[Mopsus]

Then why is it that I have friends? Why is it that I have a husband? Why is it that these people come from outside my family and my social groups if as you say, it’s in my interest to dehumanise them? After all, they were once people I did not know and had no reason to trust when I initially encountered them. If what you say is true, we wouldn’t go out our way to fraternise with anyone…

Your husband, the people who are now your friends - you had an impulse to bring them into your life, you acted on that impulse, and now they're all a part of your immediate social circle. But not everyone will have the same impulse that you did; some will even feel the impulse to act cruelly towards the people that you know and love. Since you've rejected any objective ground for morality, it would be up to you to argue that it isn't in the prospective offender's self-interest to commit whatever cruelty. When you're incapable of dissuading them, however... that's when problems arise.

I don't follow your logic at all or why you're contrasting Christians with "individualist/rationalist" Ayn Rand types.  I never said self-interest is the sole human motivating force and it evidently is not.

You're right, it isn't. But for some, self-interest is a more important factor in their calculus than feelings of empathy or compassion. That's why the only way that someone with your worldview can convince those people to do the "right thing" is by arguing that doing the "right thing" is in their material self-interest. Which isn't always easy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You get this impression because many religious people adhere to a shallow version of their faith, where they're religious only when they feel that being so serves them materially; at the same time, secularists by and large adhere to religious systems of morality, except that they discard the parts that inconvenience them.