Quote:

---

It's a fact about human nature that the possession of these virtues makes people happier.

---

Quote:

---

They should want to have them because it would make them happier, and happiness is good. It has nothing to do with "circumstances".

---

Quote:

---

@Mvass

Below I have edited and expanded an answer I gave on the question of the basis morality some time ago. I hope this helps you understand what I believe.


Deity, humanity, and morality

Why there is no basis for morality if there is no God

Morality poses a very difficult problem for a materialistic atheistic world view. Certainly atheists can be moral people with great integrity. Most believe in the concepts of right and wrong. However, these concepts are illogical and inconsistent within a worldview in which God does not exist. When a materialistic atheist uses the concepts of morality and immorality he is borrowing from a theistic worldview. If the universe came into being from a steady state of absolute nothing without a cause that means evolution is non-theistic--there is no guiding hand behind it which means there is no basis for morality.

Non-theistic evolution
1) is based merely on chance--random events.  It is a blind, with no purpose other than to benefit the propagation of one’s genes.  
2)  is merely survival of the fittest with the weak dying out or being exterminated to make way for "the strong ."
3) implies there is no such thing as a moral or immoral action.

In a world without God there is no absolute morality. No objective standard by which to measure what is ‘good’. What is moral or immoral is merely a matter of personal opinion and indeed the concept of morality makes no sense.  "Might" is "right." The strong exterminating the weak is natural. There is no basis in such a worldview to say a person who kills another to take what is wanted committed an immoral act. Might is right.

Hitler (the  ultimate "strong" person in Germany)  decided to exterminate the Jews, who were in no position to oppose him (they were "weak.") So, on what basis would an atheist say Hitler committed an immoral act and on what basis is that the objective standard for judging morality? There have obviously been people who agreed with Hitler and people who disagreed with Hitler. Neither group's position is moral or immoral if morality is not absolute. It is obvious that morality based on societal whims or personal whims is inconsistent and contradictory.

4) The concept of charity, essentially "the strong" helping "the weak," is counter to the idea of non-theistic evolution. A person who helps a random stranger with no expectation of personal gain is foolish for expending his resources without gain, making him weaker and less likely to survive.

Does this mean those holding to non-theist evolution cannot live a moral, ethical life? No. But when they see unethical behavior by others, they have no logical grounds on which to judge that behavior as wrong. It may be their choice to be faithful to their spouse, and to do good to others. But it may be another’s choice to sleep around on his spouse, or to take advantage of everyone around them in order to get ahead. If non-theistic evolution is true, then neither position is right or wrong. Just different choices. In a world without God it can't be justified to call rape, murder, theft, or anything else morally wrong. The concept of morality simply can't be justified in a world view in which God does not exist.

Either morality is absolute or morality does not  exist. Subjective morality is nothing more than opinions. Subjective morals change with time, differ between places, and  differ from person to person.  If morality is subjective raping and murdering a baby is not less moral than stopping to assist a stranger who is lying unconscious on the street.


The Foundation of morality

The Bible begins with, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and goes on to say God made man in his image. As creations of God we are obligated to live according to his standard. Moreover, because man was made in the image of God (though that image in man is now marred) man is a moral being who partially reflects the character of God. The Bible teaches that God has written his Law on man's heart(Romans 2:15). Man has the ability to discover moral principles through contemplation of himself and the world around him and through fellowship with God.

The foundation of morality is God's will and his perfect and unchanging nature..Actions that are in opposition to God's permissive will or character are immoral.

As I have stated in other discussions, when God gave the Ten Commandments he was not giving a new revelation of morality but saying, "these moral principles that you know are the way I created you to be and I will hold you responsible for living by them." The Hebrew people already knew it was wrong to lie and murder before the Ten Commandments were given. Now they were told they were accountable for living that way and that God was the very reason for the existence of those moral precepts. Thus basic moral principles are God-given, written in human nature, recognizable by human reason, and applicable to all of humanity everywhere humankind lives.

Above I said that man has the ability to discover moral principles. Man does not have the ability to make moral principles. Morality is objective, not subjective. Neither the political rule of the many nor the rule of "religious elites" can by decree make something moral or immoral. Congress can't pass a law tomorrow saying that it is ok to rape babies and actually make it morally ok to rape babies.  A society based around hating and killing Jews would not make hating and killing Jews in fact moral. Legality does not establish morality. Likewise, religious leaders can't make moral principles. A denominational church board or a pope can't declare that adultery is no longer immoral and make it in actuality a moral action.

A purely materialistic worldview rationally has no standard of morality. If one makes a claim that morality is based merely on man's genetic makeup and that the genetic makeup had no divine hand in it several questions are raised.

1) Which DNA stand encodes morality?

2) If such a strand exists, by what standard can we recognize that what is encoded is right or wrong?

3) If Mao Tse-Tsung’s DNA strand says murdering millions of Chinese people is morally permissible for him then is what he did wrong or right?

4)  If genes determine morality why was slavery considered moral 200 years ago but then suddenly it began to be considered immoral, at least in the West. Did man have an evolutionary leap where the genes of even living person suddenly changed? Are the people in societies that still have slavery less evolved than people in the parts of the world that don't approve of slavery?

5) If genes determine morality are people who disagree with society about what is moral genetically defective or more evolved, and on what standard will you make that judgment?

Why did God "write" certain moral standards within man?

1) Because he wanted to have other beings like himself to fellowship with. Thus man was made in the image of God so he could fellowship with God.

2) So man could fellowship with each other. There is an absolute standard on which societies can be built and prosper.

3) People are precious to God. God desires the best for each of us. God designed us and knows what is best for us.

4) So everyone who wanted to know how God wants us to live can know how God wants us to live. The internal standard God has written within man that is knowable by man and God holds man accountable for living by those standards.


Summary

To summarize, absolute morals are based on the perfect and unchanging character of God. God has internalized moral precepts in man and made it possible for moral precepts to be known by man and man is held accountable for living a moral life. The fallen nature of man imperfectly reflects the character of God.  The Christian worldview can logically claim morality is absolute since Christianity views morality as being based on the perfect, unchanging nature of God. The atheistic worldview cannot claim absolute morality because it can only offer only a morality based on personal opinion or the whims of society--such a morality is relativistic: inconsistent and self-contradictory across time and places mankind lives.

---

Quote:

---

JJ:
But I have the same human nature as a slave. If the effects a state of being (in this case, being virtuous) has on someone is dependent on their nature, and their nature is the same, then we can say what effects it would have on someone who hasn't experienced it. Also, I never said a slave couldn't be happy.
I don't understand what you mean when you say happiness is relative. I'm going to have to ask you to clarify. I've given you plenty of examples that back up my claims, but you're overlooking them.

When asking questions about moral hypotheticals such as "two people drowning in a river", you should assume that they're identical in every way apart from the difference specified. So they're both strangers. But you also said that you'd save someone you know over someone you didn't. Is that because you place a higher value on someone you know? In that case, you don't believe all people are equal either.

---