Where Non-theists get Their Morality

SPOILER ALERT: This is merely a reply to Ruv's public statement.
You can skip it and not lose anything about Morality. But it's addressing the issue Ruv brought INTO the thread.
And maybe it's enlightening on how non-theists (which also is in the title) and theists cause unintended friction?

I'll happily withdraw, out of an interest in friendly thread fellowship.

But I don't do so because I in any way accept (and I'm NOT suggesting you're accepting that or acting from it, either) the idea that mere exploration or extrapolation of a topic means anyone's gone "off-topic" or should be scolded for such, or for merely disagreeing ... however broad the consensus.

Someone mentioned once before how they're "treated" in the "religious" forums, as if that should decide how anyone is treated HERE. It shouldn't. If anyone is unwelcome elsewhere ... that doesn't mean I'm acting in any way deserving of unwelcoming HERE (when I would suppose folks here would agree we should treat people better, and with more openmindedness ... here)

Originally Posted by small axe
To suggest that there is no such thing as 'non-theistic' morality ... would be still on topic.

Click to expand...

Ruv Draba said:

The topic presupposes that non-theistic morality exists.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I don't think it 'pre-supposes' anything of the sort.

I'm certainly NOT here beating a drum of THEISM.

All I've mentioned here is a possible approach on the spectrum of Morality of having "religion" being 'seen' as a source of Morality.

Not every "religion" needs to be "theistic" (perhaps some forms of Buddhism, for instance) ...

So, respectfully, PLEASE don't presume to scold someone for their sincere comments, and PLEASE don't over-use the whole Don't comment in my thread thing either.

I've started threads too, and folks came and took them off topic (imo) ... and I've NEVER asked anyone not to comment. NEVER.

You'll recall you've asked me before, and I did.
But that's my choice.

To suggest otherwise is off-topic and offensive to many people in this forum. Not to mention, willfully ignorant.

Click to expand...

You're getting unnecessarily personal there.
And you're pretending to speak for others who can of course speak for themselves (if they're offended, but I gave NO OFFENSE)

Most sadly, when you CLAIM that I've been 'offensive' to folks here ... if I remain silent, then that FALSE CHARACTERIZATION stands undenied. So YOU'RE FORCING ME to reply now ... right?

(Really, let's all note that: When we want to cool down a heated thread, that's a thing to AVOID doing: don't FORCE someone to see things as being "offensive" or insulting ... when you cannot prove that was ever their intent!)

And I'm not being 'willfully ignorant' ... just because I think you're MISTAKEN in claiming I was 'off-topic' (and I already did you the courtesy, above, of explaining WHY I'm not off topic)

PLUS -----> You say this in your OWN thread, IN PUBLIC, where you KNOW I'll now have respond also in public? Why? We've had perfectly respectful and productive PRIVATE MESSAGES between us. Right?

Ruv ... c'mon, man ... I'm not derailing or off topic NOW either ... I'm just answering issues YOU needlessly brought into your own thread, in public.

I'm going to ask that you no longer contribute to this thread, Axe.

Click to expand...

'Ask' is technically polite enough ... even though bouncers at bars sometimes 'ask' patrons to leave by adding an extra ten meter hike at the door!

Fine. I offered my views, it was on topic, I have no reason to argue.

But still ... what's said in public threads gets answered in public threads.

*shrug*

Now, Ruv got to sling his 'willfully ignorant' barb ... so here's my own 'mind-reading' performance (Tickets on sale at the carny tent entance for two cents!)

If anyone hypothetically wants or needs to paint ME as "the unwelcome trolling Theist" ... that's just them building their own strawman to wail against and a crutch to lean on, imo.
And suggesting that "if" here shouldn't be 'offensive' to anyone here ... unless they decided themselves that the shoe fits.

Again: I've never asked anyone not to comment anymore in one of my threads. And you could've asked in a Private Message without inviting my response here.

... sow ... reap ... It's sort of how the cosmos works out, y'know? It never has to get personal.

That said ... sometimes I'm happy to withdraw without wanting to ruin everybody else's party!

Other times, somebody's moneychangers' table in the temple might get disturbed and decorum is sacrificed in the name of good discussion (but, admittedly, by someone better suited than myself) ...

I nod to Ruv's request ... The moving hand moves on, etc ...

Axe, the very idea that non-theists do not have morality is insulting beyond belief. Not only do we have morals, but it has been my experience that non-theists are often much more highly and consistently moral than most theists (based upon logical standards of compassion and empathy).

FWIW I think Axe had a place in this conversation - a use, let's say. It's a good point that religion is a non-theistic source of morality. And if that - rather than "there is no such thing as non-theistic morality" - was the ACTUAL point, I would like to invite Axe back into the thread.

OTOH, I too find it (very) insulting to say to someone that morality only exists in the context of a belief in God. If that's your stance, Axe, why don't you tell me in a PM the point of posting in this thread or with speaking to anyone who posts in this subforum? Because from our perspective ...well, what do you think it looks like? What do you think it feels like?


AMC

Ruv Draba said:

Axe is kind, polite, thoughtful, eloquent and considerate but I think he doesn't understand much about non-theism, or just how condescending and offensive some of his statements are.

Click to expand...

Which is precisely why Axe should be here -- if not to discuss, then to read.

His posts aren't malicious or deliberately rude and I don't want to see him banned, but I think he needs to ask questions here instead of knowingly or unknowingly defending theosupremacist positions that to a lot of us, are all too familiar anyway.

Click to expand...

Agreed, with the addition.




AMC

LoL.

You've already covered what "the mentoring" would entail. Ask questions with a curiosity toward the other's perspective rather than trying to prove one's own as true. More understanding comes out of this simple law than maybe any other.



AMC

See I toyed with the idea originally of asking if morality is something the nontheist or anyone I suppose should pursue. I tend to think that moralizing occurs, essentially, in the realm of sacred and profane. If "morality" is just "what's good" without declaring what's "evil", I can go with it. Then again, I myself have a hard time practically distinguishing morality from ethics and think discussions of ethics are more fruitful than those about morality.


AMC

Yeah, I guess I knew that and I guess that while people's characters are fascinating they don't concern me as much as people's selves, if you know what I mean. Again, we can have fun with the words "character" in the context of morality & "morality tales." Especially interesting is the phenomenon in which we conflate our characters with our selves. But what is a character except an accumulation of actions which create a sense of sameness/identity? It's because others perceive this sameness/identity more than we possibly can, that our characters are largely written by others more so than by our selves. So that when there is transgression of that character - first and foremost - shame and guilt immediately follow. Insofar as morality concerns characters, it will remain a kind of shackle, and a punitive one at that.




AMC

Well OK...For me, "description" isn't about character in the first place, but about self.

Since character / moral character concerns sameness/identity, or the transgressions thereof, by its nature it is prescriptive.


AMC

Let's not worry about the self, really. I just think the self is the actual and the character is a not-completely-arbitrary fiction. The character has to do with some mark of consistency in action, establishing sameness/identity.

Because character/moral character has its code engraved in stone it has also its transgressions (changes, disruptions, breaks of character) engraved there too. Breaking moral character is a transgression; in fact breaking character of any kind is a transgression.


AMC

Or to put it this way...in so far as morality has to do with "moral character," change or breaking said character is considered a transgression. In respect to "moral character" this transgression is the transgression of what others, mostly, have written about us. I think such moral character is internalized; the transgression, from this perspective of morality (that is, remember, insofar as it concerns "moral character" and not, as you say, being bound in "compassion and wisdom" - and I would also ask about whether sacrifice has anything to do with morality, as opposed to ethics) is punitive by nature of producing guilt and shame.



What's interesting is I don't think we're of completely different minds on this point, more a matter of semantics. As I am a bit more of a mystic than you D), the self is the closest name I can give to that being beneath the story, the many stories, really. But again my definition of self is non-dualistic as you know (hence the mysticism), and essentially without limit, which from my perspective nonetheless opens up one's character (what you call the self, what I could call the practical self-- remember what you said a while back? The practical self refers to the subject of your sentence (paraphrased): "I should have the wits to bite my own fingernails rather than my neighbors" ) to compassion and wisdom as the foundations for conscience and ethics. And it seems to me conscience in this respect would replace the function of morality ...even if morality precedes conscience? That is, if one has conscience founded on compassion and wisdom, what part does morality play?



AMC

Concerning theists and crime.

I think there's enough data to show that theists are more likely to be criminals than atheists. As appealing as it might be to blame this on theism, I think it has more to do with intelligence and education than theism per se. If it's true that Catholics are disproportionately prostitutes, then that probably has to do with Catholics being poorer and more urban (especially in the Hispanic subculture) than other populations.

Sometimes this cuts both ways. For instance, there's less alcoholism in Mormon populations, and less in other denominations that disallow drinking. This seems to be one of the few moral vices that religions have actually managed to dissuade people from. On the other hand, there's more abuse of prescription drugs.

I have to say I was a little surprised when I learned that religious people have more abortions, more divorce, and commit more crimes, simply because I assumed that people would self-select. If you consider divorce to be a valid choice, it seems you wouldn't choose go to a church that rails against divorce. But in fact the numbers do show that seems to be the case. It's a powerful argument that people's religious choices are determined by something other than than moral choices.

It's a powerful argument that people's religious choices are determined by something other than than moral choices.

Click to expand...

In my opinion religions, especially the authoritative varieties, tend toward moralizing so that leaders can shield themselves from judgment or criticism by their peers. It might be that the wisdom of the moral life is different from and maybe insignificant relative to the "divine" life. But also, along the lines of socio-economic disadvantage... religion historically has been the bread alone of the masses: the food, shelter, and clothing distribution centers, again, typically aimed toward the poverty- or disaster-stricken populations (these aren't unique or intrinsic to religion, but it is a humanistic niche they've happened to fill). Like if the simple need for meaning or comfort, if debt, community gratitude, authority, and tradition have greater roles than morality...

What's interesting that feelings of need for meaning or comfort, feelings of indebtedness, of gratitude, the influence of authority and tradition -- are all non-theistic, and perhaps a few of these give way to "morality" as well.


AMC

Ruv we're not speaking in each other's language. I will try again to say what I mean. In so far as (MORALITY / manner) has to do with (MORALITY / CHARACTER "engraved mark"), the engraved mark is the "set in stone" aspect of the "moral character." Thus, actions which are outside of the boundaries set within this "moral character" are by definition transgressions, or "the exceeding of limits or boundaries".

EX

If I -- AMC the nonviolence activist -- get into a fist fight at a bar... claim responsibility "I did it" ... and feel guilty or shameful (self-denigrating, the character attacking the self) I know exactly why: because I had internalized my own character in such a way that the moment I acted outside of that projection, it looked upon me with scorn (which is really me looking at me, through my own character's perspective, with scorn).

But insofar as morality itself is not characterized / set in stone, it cannot be transgressed.

Semantics yes, but also intent. I get a sense that guilt and shame may be a bigger deal for you than for me. You might want to give it a bigger part in the narrative because it feels more important to you.

Click to expand...

It's a contextual thing you wouldn't understand (I had a Catholic background ). No, really, people feel guilt and shame in very profound ways that have everything to do with themselves, their characters (which I believe are projections), their moral characters (which are no less projections), and, in short, their conscience. As guilt and shame have been used a-plenty to enforce behavior throughout history, with the idea of course that the enforced behavior was Good, I do think those ideas are important, especially in the context of non-theistic sources of morality -- I see shame and guilt as obstructions to growth, though they try to enforce a kind of correction through self-hate.



AMC

OK. I'm saying by and large that "moral character" (what is deemed goodness of character) often comes "from above", from other humans, from our own artifice, and at some point we conflate or internalize the artifice, or-- let me use your language -- the characters we aspire to with our "real" characters. The conflation or internalization doesn't have to be neat and clean and very often it isn't. Cognitive dissonance is a common psychological effect that comes from something of this conflation/internalization, for example.


Here's how I could break down how I view "character" :

there is character in the sense of sameness/identity (who we aspire to be or call ourselves; what we are called; what defines us; what is expected --- prescriptive)

character in the sense of selfhood/identity (who we actually are --- descriptive)


AMC