Where Non-theists get Their Morality

Status
Not open for further replies.

fullbookjacket

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
276
Reaction score
29
Location
Florida
I've only read the first couple of comments, but I really have to make an input right now!

What the blip blip blip does smoking and drinking have to do with morals????????????

And if so; what about all the other things people do; gambling, shopping, eating, bragging, cheating, lying, etc, etc, etc. Is everything human immoral? And if so - Why this thread?

Morals, as it seems to me, are a set of rules set by either religious, philosophical or ethical rules determined by a kind of society, political or religious power that happens to rule rather a narrow part of the map which people just happen to inhabit.

So my being a smoking, drinking, apolitical, atheist, nonconformist, heterosexual, twice divorced, left-my-child-in-the-care-of-his-father, reactionary, republican must seem like the very lowest of the low dirt to you, oh soooo moral people.

Well, I tell you what;

I've never cheated, I don't lie, I volunteer hours on end for good causes, I donate money, I think through every choice, I respect (most) people, I firmly believe in every humans right to choose whatever religious or political conviction that is right for them, I applaud gay marriage and I honestly believe that to choose your own time of death is your right.

But because of my smoking and drinking etc, I am immoral to you??????????????????

Get a grip, people!!!!!!!!

Wow, where did that come from? I don't think anyone here said smoking or drinking makes you immoral.

For the record, I drink (because I likes it). I don't smoke (because I hates it).

As for the rest of your post: "apolitical"...not immoral, but I'd say it's amoral. And then you say you're a Republican, so you must not be apolitical.

"Nonconformist"...that's not entirely accurate, unless you're a bag lady. 99.999% of us conform to convention in some degree.

"Heterosexual"...did someone actually say that's immoral?

"Twice divorced"...not immoral in itself, unless there are shady,deceitful reasons, like marrying purely for money and hefty divorce settlements.

"Left my child, etc..." see above.

"I've never cheated..." at what?

"I don't lie..." Everyone lies. Lies aren't always bad.


Sounds like you're a good person on balance, although maybe overly sensitive.
 

bluebell80

Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
38
Reaction score
3
  • Do you see yourself as a moral relativist? Does your morality shift according to the situation? Why or why not?
  • Is there a problem with moral relativism? Or is it a sensible, good way to live? Why?
  • If you feel that there is some sort of relativism in your morality, how do you avoid applying the benefit of that relativism to yourself, and the cost to others? Or is that not an issue for you?
  • Against the context of your morality, what if anything, does 'evil' mean to you?
  • Is it a personal, relativist definition or an absolutist one, or can you not define it at all? Why?
.

1. No, I'm not a moral relativist. I have my own set of things based on personal responsibility that I feel are either a choice I would make, or one that I would not. For me something like Abortion, is not a choice I would make, because that would be an easy way out of taking responsibility for having had sex and producing a child from that union. Either don't have the sex, or make sure it''s protected to prevent an unwanted child, but there is still the responsibility should something happen and a child is produced...thus I would take responsibility for my actions. Should I push this view on others? No. It's my own person view, and if others want to have abortions, then so be it.

On the flip side of that, I would kill someone in self-defense. I have no problem taking a life if that said life is threatening mine. It's survival of the fittest. And if zombies come...I'll have no problem killing people for what I need, or shooting zombies in the head.

2. I think it depends on if there is a double standard, which moral relativism implies. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. My morality doesn't change based on the external circumstances, it is grounded within my own code of ethics, based on the necessaries of living in a society, and within myself. For example, stem cell research, should we be producing embryos to cure people? I say yes. I don't see a slippery slope with that one, so long as it is regulated to not go beyond that point of growth. Growing full blow humans for transplants and other such stuff (like The Island movie) would seem wrong to me. Clones wouldn't be a commodity, they would be actual humans with actual feelings, and as such should be protected by the same laws that protect all humans. Embryos, before they are to the point of surviving outside the womb, are not, to me, classified as humans needing law protection. It is a clump of cells that could not survive outside the host.

However, what one person views as morality, is completely subjective according to their relative background and their perspective.

3. No, I don't feel I am a relativist. Most things are black and white, and the places that fall into the gray are made gray by our own feelings. Take for instance the ethical question I had in college class: A man's wife is dying from a disease. Another person has her cure but refuses to sell it to the man, or is offering it at such a high price the man can't afford it. The man has now broken into the place where the cure is and doesn't know if he should steal it or not. What should he do?

Here in lies the emotional connections. The woman this man loves is dying. He is willing to break the law by breaking into this facility, and now is torn as to if he should go on to break the law even more by stealing the cure.

Well, he shouldn't have broken into the facility in the first place. While the other man, unwilling to share the cure for less profit might seem cruel, he wasn't breaking a law. His cruelty doesn't give the dying woman's husband the right to break the law by breaking and entering and theft. Should the man let his wife die when there is a cure? Well, if he can't attain the cure, yes. But, most people's emotions would come into play and they would say no, he should go ahead and steal it since he's already broken the law. However, by breaking the law, he may have cured his wife, but now he'll be spending the rest of her days in prison, still without her. So where is the morality in that?

4. The only thing that is purely evil in this world is utter, remorseless cruelty. This could be anything from murderers, rapists, abusers, those types of people are evil because they harm others without remorse and in fact take pleasure in other's pain. That is evil. Even people who abuse and mistreat their pets, fall into this class. I want to cry watching those Animal cop shows on Animal Planet, and I can't believe people would do half the stuff they do to these poor animals...my animals are pretty darn spoiled.

5. I am neither absolute or relativistic, I am a realist. There are social norms and rules that need to be followed to ensure the safe living of all people within that society. There are personal responsibility rules set by each individual guiding their own moves through those social norms. And then there are exceptions to some rules, though most exceptions people see are based on emotional connections and responses (much like the ethical situation above.)

In most cases laws have a reason...Don't steal, not just because it's wrong, but because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, and a person or company is out the money for that product. If it's a company, they must make up for that loss by cutting back hours, causing people to lose money or jobs, or they raise the prices of all their products to make up for the profits loss by theft. This in turn punishes all shoppers and employees for that company.

But then you have feel good laws, put in place by misguided politicans, like the Seat Belt laws. You have to wear your seat belt or get pulled over and fined $250 bucks, but it's for your own good. It's one of those laws that only impacts the person driving, it doesn't impact others like say Drunk Driving laws do. There is no good reason to have a seat belt law. You should be free to wear a seat belt or not. But this law wasn't really put in place for the safety of the driver, it was put in place to reduce the payouts insurance companys give for deaths and injuries caused by not wearing a seat belt in an accident. It has nothing to do with the wearer's safety, it has to do with money.

No smoking in bars...that's another one that is a stupid law. If there was a demand for non-smoking bars, then let people open them, don't put the law on to everyone. Bar tenders have a choice to work in a smoking environment or not, as do the people who go into the bars, they have a choice as well. If no one wanted to go to smoking bars, then they would go out of business and only non-smoking bars would make it. But the government took that option away. You can't open a "smoking bar" now, it's illegal (at least in many states.) That to me is a useless law and an example of the government overstepping it's bounderies into the land of commerce dictation. If there was a demand then there would be smoke-free bars open and doing well, and the smoking bars would be out of business...but that's not how it was, so they had to pass a law forbiding freedom.

I subscribe to freedom with personal resposnibility. While we are never fully free, we should be allowed to make some choices. And we should be able to make them with our own personal responsibility in mind. But as our culture in the USA is devolving, people have less and less ability to take personal responsibility thus the governmental rules imposed on everyone for those who can't take that resonsibility.
 
Last edited:

Ninjas Love Nixon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
186
Reaction score
60
3. No, I don't feel I am a relativist. Most things are black and white, and the places that fall into the gray are made gray by our own feelings.

So you do not believe in questioning the received values of morality within society? You seem to be saying that the failure to understand anything as black/white lies with individual failure. Why then do we need judges in the legal system? The very existence of a variable sentence system implies 'grayness' without necessarily involving an invested emotional bias.

Though is there any such thing as a subject that is not invested with emotional bias? I'm not sure how it is possible to separate emotion from any and all decisions made. If you take a look at most controversial topics, emotion rules far more strongly than reason in people's reactions, and in everyday life in general.

Take for instance the ethical question I had in college class: A man's wife is dying from a disease. Another person has her cure but refuses to sell it to the man, or is offering it at such a high price the man can't afford it. The man has now broken into the place where the cure is and doesn't know if he should steal it or not. What should he do?

Here in lies the emotional connections. The woman this man loves is dying. He is willing to break the law by breaking into this facility, and now is torn as to if he should go on to break the law even more by stealing the cure.

Well, he shouldn't have broken into the facility in the first place. While the other man, unwilling to share the cure for less profit might seem cruel, he wasn't breaking a law. His cruelty doesn't give the dying woman's husband the right to break the law by breaking and entering and theft. Should the man let his wife die when there is a cure? Well, if he can't attain the cure, yes. But, most people's emotions would come into play and they would say no, he should go ahead and steal it since he's already broken the law. However, by breaking the law, he may have cured his wife, but now he'll be spending the rest of her days in prison, still without her. So where is the morality in that?

Odd that you seem to support a position on this that the first line of your next sentence

4. The only thing that is purely evil in this world is utter, remorseless cruelty.

practically defines as evil. Not that this doesn't happen all the time - the coercive dynamics under which big pharmacy operates are frequently labeled evil or worse.

More pertinently, if you've watched someone near to you die, you know that you would do almost anything to change that, regardless of consequence. Armchair ethics are fun for the classroom, but fail as an exercise when brought into the real world.

5. I am neither absolute or relativistic, I am a realist. There are social norms and rules that need to be followed to ensure the safe living of all people within that society.

Hmm. But you go on to say that seatbelt laws are ridiculous. In that case, what about people in the back set, whose forward velocity in the event of a crash will likely kill both them and anybody sitting in front of them? Or maybe society actually views you as valuable, and the $250 is a reminder not to treat your own life so callously. After all, if you die, your family might be out a provider, and your death unquestionably make their lives worse. What about the responsibility to your family?

As someone who can't see how moral relativism cannot exist, I respect your views, but there seem to be inconsistencies within what you have presented here that are difficult for me to understand.
 

The Black Ghost

Specter of the Path
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
73
Reaction score
2
It has everything to do with upbringing I think. You will be influenced by your parents and family, how they act, you will act. Also, it depends who your friends are.

-I have a sense of responsibility, and logic. I laid down my own rules as sort of a code to follow, because its just right and wrong.

In the end, I dont want to become a nihilist, because that can drive you insane.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I find myself somewhere between Bluebell's and Ninja's positions here. I don't believe that moral questions are necessarily relativistic, but neither do I feel that morality is often simple or obvious.

I think it's not normally relativistic because we can't keep growing frames forever. Through diligent enquiry, moral questions can easily reach a point where all the significant stakes are made evident; after that it's a matter of resolving the issue based on a comprehensive, shared understanding.

But the resolution itself is seldom simple. The consequences of what we do depend on the circumstances. So if we don't have a deep understanding of circumstances and causes then our actions can have unintended consequences. Whether we recognise this depends on whether we try and fit our solution to the problem, or simplify the problem to match our traditional stories.

I don't think that morality is about producing the perfect response, but the best response our knowledge, examination, compassion and collective wisdom will allow. Neither do I think that the quality of resolution is relative to individual perspective.

Rather, I think that some people find it hard to operate selflessly (or don't see a good reason to do so) -- past a certain point, they turn their compassion off. In such a world, the moral becomes mere politics. But in a world where people can step beyond their self-interest, the moral transcends politics and becomes humanitarian. Humans are hit-and-miss about this, but I think we have a fair track record of choosing the humanitarian above the political or the traditional at critical times.
 

JeremiahJohnson

Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
quote: 3. No, I don't feel I am a relativist. Most things are black and white, and the places that fall into the gray are made gray by our own feelings.

reply: I think our response to (nearly if not) all situations, our understanding of whether one action is right, wrong, distasteful, comes from our emotional reaction. Often our emotions are in conflict with one another, and when they aren't, a given action is obviously correct or obviously incorrect.

Whether God or gods exist, how we respond to them comes down to how we feel about them.

I think moral questions are relativistic, but that a universal moral code would be worth enforcing if it minimized the destruction, restriction, & suffering (the most common form of restriction) of the free will of emotional (including the ability to feel pleasure or pain at any level) life - beings capable of benefiting from ethical appropriateness. In that sense, my morality involves a Libertarian transition into Universal Anarchy.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
reply: I think our response to (nearly if not) all situations, our understanding of whether one action is right, wrong, distasteful, comes from our emotional reaction. Often our emotions are in conflict with one another, and when they aren't, a given action is obviously correct or obviously incorrect.
Some people make their decisions principally from emotion; some do it principally from thought. For most decisions, I'm in the latter category. I'm generally aware of my emotions, but often deal with them after I've made a decision rather than use my decisions to help deal with them. It can depend on circumstance though. Larger emotions have more influence than smaller ones. I don't know whether thinking through decisions is better or worse than feeling through them -- I think it depends on the decision.
 

knight_tour

Fantasy Tourist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
62
Location
Rome, Italy
Website
tedacross.blogspot.com
I think that the older and more experienced one gets, the less likely they are to see most things as black and white. Sure, there are exceptions and some people will just insist on thinking there is no gray. I just rewatched Dead Poets Society the other day, and afterwards I spoke with my children about it. I said that one of the things I loved about the movie is how it illustrated how life is NOT all black and white. Was the teacher wrong for being a great teacher, even though it certainly was a catalyst leading to the death of a student? No, a teacher should be as great a teacher as one can be; you can't hold off on doing good simply because there is the possibility that something may go wrong down the line. Life is like that- things will go wrong. Yes, the majority of the blame for the suicide had to be laid on the father, but there is no question the death would not have happened if not for the teacher. I say the teacher is blameless, and that life is simply not black and white.
 

JeremiahJohnson

Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
Some people make their decisions principally from emotion; some do it principally from thought.

Even the computations of mechanical devices occur directed by emotional motivation. Without motive, there is no conscious reaction. If I didn't want to turn on the machine, it would remain dormant.

The emotionless analytical part of mind is similar: capable of objective computations, but only if someone is motivated (emotionally driven) to so use it.

I'm generally aware of my emotions, but often deal with them after I've made a decision rather than use my decisions to help deal with them.

To think objectively rather than passionately, I can get behind. The fact (I think fact) remains that the decision is determined by emotional interplay, emotional disposition, at the moment of decision. Why did you decide to attempt an objective, emotionless, analytical computation? I would venture to guess, because you wanted to - were emotionally driven to do so.
 

DeleyanLee

Writing Anarchist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
31,660
Reaction score
11,407
Location
lost among the words
I think that the older and more experienced one gets, the less likely they are to see most things as black and white. Sure, there are exceptions and some people will just insist on thinking there is no gray.

Billy Joel® wrote and recorded Shades of Grey with much the same sentiment.
 

bluebell80

Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
38
Reaction score
3
To think objectively rather than passionately, I can get behind. The fact (I think fact) remains that the decision is determined by emotional interplay, emotional disposition, at the moment of decision. Why did you decide to attempt an objective, emotionless, analytical computation? I would venture to guess, because you wanted to - were emotionally driven to do so.

I don't agree with this.

I have a deep understanding of my own emotions. I can feel something and quickly identify the emotion, the deeper reasons for the emotions, and I can accept that I am feeling those emotions, essentially releasing myself from their control over my rational thought process.

To me things are much more black and white once you remove the emotional ties that bind. Not allowing emotions to take control and make the decisions for you is actually a conscious choice we can make.

I'm not say that if faced with an ethically difficult situation, I'm 100% certain I'd do what's appropriate per societies rules. However, I'd never defer responsibility for the choice to do something against the social rules off on my emotions. I made the choice through a conscious thought process, emotionally influenced or not.

However, many people use their emotions as an excuse for bad behavior. What's the first thing a person caught doing something wrong who used emotions to rule their decision says? "I wasn't thinking, I was upset, stressed, scared, blah, blah, blah." The first thing is " I wasn't thinking." Of course they were thinking, but by having the emotions make the choice for them they have a cop out. Making excuses is an automatic human response to not wanting to be in trouble. Kids do it from the time they can speak, and we continue well into adulthood, only our excuses become more complicated and our web of lies bigger.

I think. I don't let my emotions rule my thoughts. I am fully aware of my thoughts at all times, and my emotional state of being. I have worked through all of my past issues and no longer feel controlled by emotions. This is very freeing, but in exchange The world becomes much more black and white, and the grays fad away. When emotions don't rule, the water is no longer muddied and thought is clear.

There are always exceptions to everything. Not every single circumstance out there is clear cut and well defined. There are sometimes conflicts between societies rules and what should be humanities rules. In this case, sometimes laws are made to be broken, for the sake of humanity.
 

JeremiahJohnson

Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
Without motivation, what is the point in making a decision at all? That's what I was trying to get at. Why move, if some feeling or sensation isn't driving you?

Perhaps the wind is pushing you forward. But if you are consciously motivated to act, you are motivated by some emotion or sensation. It doesn't matter how rational you are - your emotion(s) still at least motivate your decision.
 

bluebell80

Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
38
Reaction score
3
I think survival is a large motivating factor. Why go to work? To have money to buy food/pay bills/roof over your head. Many decisions have a motivation of dealing with social settings, since we do live in a social setting...most of us aren't hermits (at least not yet.)

Of course there are motivating factors to making decisions. Many people are emotionally motivated and lack the self-awareness to define why they are motivated to behave in such a way.

Personally, I don't have that. I am not motivated by emotions, but by thought processes.

Living in and of itself is my motivation. I don't wish to die, thus I do these things. The instinct of survival is a large motivational factor. Conscious motivation doesn't have to be dictated by emotions (those feelings that are created by rampant thought processes that most people aren't even aware of,) but can be motivated by conscious thought processes ignoring any emotional feelings that come to the surface.

So no, my emotions don't motivate me. The instinct to survive and conscious thought motivates me to make decisions.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
There seem to be two uses of 'emotion': that which moves us, and how we feel. The first use dates from the 16th century. The word comes from an Old Fench word emouvoir meaning 'stir up'. Eighty years later, the word was used to mean 'a strong feeling', then by the 19th century it meant 'any feeling'.

I definitely have motives, but feelings play little conscious part in them. I can tell, because my feelings change constantly while I undertake an activity, but I still persist with what I'm doing, and do it much the same way. If my task were based on how I was feeling, I'd surely change or stop it once those feelings changed.
 
Last edited:

JeremiahJohnson

Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
I am using "emotion" in the sense of any sensation or feeling. Maybe that's why I'm having a difficult time communicating my idea.

I don't wish to die, thus I do these things.

I define that as emotional motivation. And if you have a decision to make: move or be killed, and you are completely impartial (identical to being without emotion), you will die.

I think it is possible to enter into states of (basically) total apathy, and continue acting as you would were your emotions to have persisted. I think this means those emotions exist somewhere below the surface.

If my task were based on how I was feeling, I'd surely change or stop it once those feelings changed.

I think this is like apathy. There are the feelings you notice, and the feelings that exist below the surface.

Example: Manual labour. Hard manual labour can be irritating, it gets to the point where you feel like crap, there's nothing in it for you that moment to keep you going. But there's that pay check in your future, and you need it to survive. So: the emotional strength of your survival instinct, or if you want some beer your desire to get drunk, or if you have a family, your love of your family, wins out. These emotions persist, I think, whether we notice them or not.

I define any motivation as an emotion. E - motion. That which determines motion.
 
Last edited:

JeremiahJohnson

Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
I also think that the more intellectually driven a person is, the more a person takes pride in intellect, the more likely a person is to be capable of thinking in an unemotional manner. Of mapping things out with a relatively high level of objectivity. Of appearing unemotional to others.

With such people, the Ego protects intellectual achievement and ability. It is easier to accept the intellect is the only driving force.

I do not refute that one can be ruled by principles, and use principles to prevent emotions from creating inconsistencies in one's behaviour. But it is an emotional investment in these principles that permits one to adhere to them.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
... or perhaps the more confusing and disturbing one finds emotions to be, the more one may seek the calm of rationality. Perhaps a low EQ can sometimes drive a higher IQ? Just a thought...

My personal experience is that I sometimes set aside a lot of emotion in order to do something. That includes fear, anger, resentment, and self-pity. I can't conceive of what emotion would counter-balance these to motivate me forward. My personal answer is 'concentration'. :)
 
Last edited:

JeremiahJohnson

Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
I see concentration as a tool useful for reconciling emotional drive's goals

confusion can be an emotional motivation to think rationally, i don't disagree
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
We can describe everything people do in terms of thoughts or feelings as the primary motivator, but in neither case is it entirely fair to do so. Try and describe a thinky in feely terms and they'll often look malign or eccentric. Try to describe a feely in thinky terms and they'll often look ignorant and deluded.
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
You guys are far more elegant than I. :)

I'm an atheist, ex-christian, explorer of many religions, believer of none. I understand the pull of religion to our monkey minds, but I can't believe in it. In fact, I believe in nothing. I think a great many things, but I don't incorporate them into a belief system. So where do I get my moral compass? I use one of my own design.

That's very concise. And in quoting it, I don't argue against YOUR personal positions ... but against the position. (I assume that's fair)

I'd have to suggest that if we ALL 'use one of [our] own design' ... then there is absolutely no 'moral' basis for me to NOT FORCE MINE ON YOU.

Because 'my' moral design would tell me that's the moral thing to do (if I were a sociopath, which I'm not, but even as a sociopath I'd get to 'design' my own morality, right?)

Obviously then I'd be the most hated S.O.B. on the planet, right? Except ... no ... because terrorists who blow up skyscrapers seem (it sickens me) to be beloved by millions of people. (And no, it doesn't matter if those are 'religious' people or not ... or nutjob haters like those who praise the recent Texas incident for POLITICAL reasons. They're just ALL people 'designing their own morality' ... even if you see them as 'religious' dupes or 'political' dupes or 'non-theist' dupes ... they're the Crown of Creation, they're the darwinian latest new best thing evolution-wise: humans. Dupes!)

Some may argue that humans being social creatures, then 'morality' should at least serve social interaction (mutual respect, harmony, etc) ... but even THOSE are constructs I'd suggest are 'borrowed' from our past cultures ... and how many of those past cultures were 'non-theistic' or 'atheistic' ???

Mutual respect and harmony? Among humans?

Sometimes it falls apart as soon as there are TWO people involved, sometimes a family or a community can sustain those ideals ... but go two streets over and the distrust and friction and DIFFERENCES in 'morality' are already arising and the nice humanist reality is coming unglued.

And that's among folks UNITED by a common idea of 'moral behaviour' ...

What would happen if everyone accepted it was PROPER to just live by our own 'moral designs?' (Because, to too many folks, their 'morality' goes no further than them justifying doing whatever they want)

Some folks would say that the truest morality is to at least have everyone share and understand the Rules that 'moral' behaviour imposes.

I hate saying it ... but imposed means IMPOSED. Period.

The neighbors from that other culture we all respect? They don't get to B-B-Q your pet for their celebration; they don't get to sell their underage children into marriage (and flip it around: Mr. & Mrs. America's son doesn't get to mess with their daughter, even if we think their protection of their daughter is some sort of cultural oppression)

Now ... what or who has the moral authority to IMPOSE morality on everyone?

Some guy?
Some group of guys?
ANY GROUP of guys (no matter how large the group) who are possibly worse flawed humans than the rest of us?

Even when the Theocracy (booo. hisssss theocracy) was democratically elected?!

I just have to suggest the obvious: NO ONE who's NO BETTER than me (or us) has any moral Authority over us. (If so ... HOW? Where's the authority come from? Someone's "feelings?" Not even if they're MY feelings.)

'Morality' needs to be seen as coming from ABOVE. imo
From BETTER.

And I said 'needs to be SEEN' -- so that's allowing that it may only be our monkey brains agreeing on an IDEA ("religion"), but it's still us AGREEING that it's NOT our monkey brains imposing Right and Wrong onto OUR monkey brains.

Because what authority does any monkey brain have on any other monkey brain? Everyone wants to be the navigator and steer the ship? that ship goes nowhere (well, actually it goes where it amorally drifts)

Nobody chains us, that's the basic existential rule.

The thread asked where Morality comes from, that's my fair answer, my two cents. Repeat the question and if it's the right answer then the answer gets repeated too. Counterpoint was merely the tactic to illustrate my OPINION, I'm not here challenging or debating anyone else's fair opinions.

But disagreeing? Yes. Scenarios where "human-originated" moral codes work ... depend on people AGREEING. which, obviously, people don't!

No, I'm not a "non-theist" ... so whatever the club house ... I guess that's one theist's fair perspective on the topic of the thread. We get to have opinions too, separate from the dogma! :)
 
Last edited:

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I'd have to suggest that if we ALL 'use one of [our] own design' ... then there is absolutely no 'moral' basis for me to NOT FORCE MINE ON YOU.
I'd suggest that recognition of fallibility, ignorance and dispassion are strong reasons not to force a moral code on others ab initio. I'd also point out that historically, many of those who do harm in the name of morality believe somehow in the infallibility, supreme knowledge and compassion of doing so.

In other words, it can be argued that they show unquestioned and unjustified arrogance.
Some folks would say that the truest morality is to at least have everyone share and understand the Rules that 'moral' behaviour imposes.
Some others may say that rules have very little to do with morality, and that those who confuse morality with rules are highly self-interested, disinterested in the circumstances of others and largely ignorant.

'Morality' needs to be seen as coming from ABOVE.
People with a punitive morality need authority to justify the punishments and rewards they consider right and inevitable. This engenders a 'compliance through transaction' view, which not everyone agrees has anything to do with morality.

Another view is that our morality is what we do when there is no chance at all of personal punishment or reward. A non-punitive view of morality often leans heavily on shared compassion and understanding rather than the use of authority and force.

Some might argue (I'd be among them) that law and order may require authority and policing, but that this is not morality.

The thread asked where Morality comes from, that's my fair answer, my two cents.
Actually as the original poster I'd like to point out that the topic is non-theistic morality. So you're off-topic, Axe, unless you'd like to address the question of the origin of non-theistic morality as your principal subject
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
The thread asked where Morality comes from, that's my fair answer, my two cents.

Actually as the original poster I'd like to point out that the topic is non-theistic morality.

My comments addressed that throughout.

So you're off-topic, Axe, unless you'd like to address the question of the origin of non-theistic morality as your principal subject

No, actually, it's not that I'm off-topic this time, it's that the topic evolved along one possible tangent (of many).

To suggest that there is no such thing as 'non-theistic' morality ... would be still on topic. :)

It's on the topic's spectrum of possibilities, and unless you wanted to begin a discussion by purposefully ignoring possibilities (which I know you wouldn't, because you deal in richly thought-provoking threads) you wouldn't artificially blinder the topic.

Here I said:
Now ... what or who has the moral authority to IMPOSE morality on everyone?

That's basically on topic, and a fair question. The answers certainly can range from soap bubbly feelings to tyrannical human law.

But if there is no 'non-theistic" answer that stands up under scrutiny (brought forth via discussion) ... then the alternative is revealed and is still 'on topic'

Note, I'm not concluding that no such thing as 'non-theistic' can exist.

I'm wondering aloud "How could it exist?"
And asking (as were you, imo) In what forms?
According to what foundations and principles?

Again, that's certainly the topic of our thread here! (I realized I had drifted off-topic in others of your threads, sir, and so was very careful here to stay on topic, is my point. But merely offering an alternative interpretation or disagreement isn't "off topic" imo)
 
Last edited:

ChristineR

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
124
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Downtown. Near the Universi
The basis of all morality is human compassion, as has been said.

The problem with saying morality comes from above, is that it's completely vacuous. What if your morality from above tells you to blow up skyscrapers, or be a sociopath? Who's to say that's immoral?

If you have some sort of working definition like "don't hurt other people unnecessarily" or "the greatest good for the greatest number," at least you're not arbitrary. At least you can't justify moral outrages.

Furthermore, even a non-theist can believe in a transcendent morality. A non-theist can believe in good and evil, and can believe that morals "just are," are sort of inherent to the universe, whether or not they can be defined by maxims or imposed by society.

Finally, the whole idea that God imposes morality on us really has nothing to do with actual behavior. Some people impose morality on themselves, and society imposes it on us. God does not impose morality on anyone, even if God exists. I say this because it's ridiculously easy to find people justifying every loathsome crime you can name because God (supposedly) wants them do it. The concept of God's imposing morality on us is completely empty, unless you can somehow explain how God does it and how God communicates to us what we're supposed to be doing.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
To suggest that there is no such thing as 'non-theistic' morality ... would be still on topic. :)
The topic presupposes that non-theistic morality exists. To suggest otherwise is off-topic and offensive to many people in this forum. Not to mention, willfully ignorant.

I'm going to ask that you no longer contribute to this thread, Axe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.