TO your first comment, I would have to say ‘dangerous how’? Yes, thinking you are absolutely correct about moral ideas can be very dangerous if you are wrong, but in general, I wouldn’t say it’s that bad a thing. To your question, I would agree- conscience is a justification of one’s personal moral convictions. Do you think they apply across people though? Can I use my conscience to justisfy to your satisfaction that something is right or wrong?
In general perhaps not. In Western societies most religious morality has had to accomodate to secular values anyway and is as relative as any other since most believers pick and choose what moralities gel with their conscience and reason from their holy books and discard the rest. But in more repressive religious cultures moral certainty can have lethal consequences and how can you challenge something which supposedly has the approval of God?
No, but you can use reason.
I’m not sure I’d agree that compassion is human characteristic, but even so, why SHOULD one act on it?
Again, on what grounds do you form the idea of nobility, if devoid of religion? I can say any course of action is noble or good if I want to, if I judge it by my own standards and by no one else’s.
I would fundanmentally disagree with you on the existence of a conscience. The only reason we feel we have one is by the moral tenets imbided within from birth, from our parents and from society.
[quote]
The only reason we feel we have one is by the moral tenets imbided within from birth, from our parents and from society.
[quote]
I have a couple of responses to your statement here:
-
Prove it.
-
If it is the case, what’s the problem? It is also because of our parents and our society that we have language, mathematics, political views, science, and most of our personality traits and attitudes.
-
You can’t stir the jam out of the porridge. Whether or not morailty is social or intrinsic, all of us grow up in social contexts, and those contexts affect the expression of our personal traits. Just because morality may have been engendered by society, that doesn’t mean it isn’t extremely powerful and important.
cheers,
gemty
Some of us don’t. My proof, albeit indicative proof, is the cases of children, mostly in Russia, who, without parents, have grown up with wolves and dogs in abandoned estates. They act exactly the same as these animals, and obey exactly the same instinctive behaviour devoid of morality.
Comrade Elvis,
The idea that god will reward people for helping others + faith = selfish motive for all action. Faith in “justice” after death helps peoples selfishness turn into charity.
This “faith” is not the back-bone of morality. Non-superstitious rewards systems can exist within the mind. Example:
I don’t want life on earth to go extinct so I will not be such a son-of-a-bitch.
^
Obviously a rarity, but this attitude is possible without any religion at all, it is merely a good desire for towards life forms other then yourself.
Even animals are capable of morality*. It depents which species we are going to talk about, but NONE OF THESE HAVE ANY TIES WITH RELIGION.
Let’s keep faith and morality in different cages, shall we?
Have a nice day.
Why should one act on fear, hate, love, loathing, pity, greed or any other human urge or feeling then? Religion itself is the satisfaction of a human urge. Feelings motivate us into actions as do social and cultural pressures…if nothing else, compassion is a social expectation.
Why do I need religion to form an idea of nobility? Religion doesn’t hold the patent on noble concepts and why should it make morality any more noble than it would be without it? If anything at all can be called noble then performing good deeds for their own sake can be, more so I would have thought than acting morally because of the carrot and stick of religion. Nowhere in the Bible is there a moral directive unaccompanied by the promise of reward or the threat of punishment…the cash nexus of religion. This is no more noble or superior or morally elevating than secular laws and punishments designed to keep people in line.
We all have the mechanism for a conscience, but I agree that it needs to be filled. Without social imput it would be empty. It doesn’t have to be filled with religion to operate though. People need moral values to live co-operatively, with or without a God.
I find that this distinction is commonplace but nonsense.
I have said in the past that the “righteous†of the Bible are not righteous because they only do good things or the “evil†those who only do bad things. There is enough empirical evidence to prove that non-religious people have a good sense of judgement and usable ethics. The difference is really in that the righteous are those who know that they have a one-sided view, and tend to extremism if they don’t attain the completeness that is only obtainable in Unity. Therefore, they seek betterment and advice.
The “evil†on the other hand, scoff at such ideas, they jibe at religious practise and sneer at devotion and effectively throw the baby out with the bathwater, because, as loathing religious practise can be, there is a prime truth in the self-recognition of religion. The man who defies anyone to prove that he is a sinner just hasn’t understood what sin is – or he doesn’t care. Therefore, this man is deemed “evilâ€. He will still kiss his baby and care for it though, he will love his mother and even be friendly to the neighbour, that is not where his “evil†lies. Rather, it is his illusory ideas about himself.
Generally that his actions achieved the aim he had set before he acted.
Why shouldn’t atheists weep at the atrocity of trying to wipe out a nation? They are human beings who can feel for such victims.
Shalom
I think maybe you didn’t get it. There were three points for you to answer.
Yes, there are some children that grow up wild with dogs and wolves and have no morals, language, methematics, etc.
But my real question was, so what?
The next two points were meant to address the fact that you seemed to be dismissing conscience and morality by saying that the only reason we have them is because they are handed on to us by our parents and society.
If you’re just making an observation, it isn’t that insigtful. If you’re making a claim about the importance of conscience and morality based on the fact that they aren’t intrinsic, then address language, mathematics, etc. For these are also handed down to us from our parents and society.
cheers,
gemty
Consider a hypothetical integral; called the Net Joy Integral.
Give every self equity and say that every self (rather than every particle) be polled as to its emotional condition; add it all up to arrive at a benchmark.
Now; all other things being equal, what does a particular act do to this integral?
Leda
You don't strike me as someone that believes God plays a very active role in our lives. If my assumption is correct, then you'd have to admit is really easy to question something that has the approval of God- so long as it doesn't have the approval of the state. If there is no God, then it's is people with a desire to rule that create the situations you describe, and it seems likely to me that if they didn't have religion, they would have something else.
Also, repressive moral cultures aren't necessarily a bad thing are they? It must depend on what they are repressive, and how do we judge the difference?
You can use reason to show that something is morally wrong? Perhaps, if the thing in question can reasonably be shown to be similar to something else both parties agree is right or wrong. But that’s the only way I can see- moral beliefs are generally rational things. In fact, rationality is more based on morality than the other way around, I would say.
Also, on empathy:
Would you disagree then, that children have to be taught to be compassionate?
Uccisor,
I think any state, religious or otherwise, which doesn’t allow for challenges to and debates about the prevailing morality is a bad thing but I do get your point that all cultures are necessarily repressive to some degree…
Of course you can use reason to show something is morally wrong. How else can it be done? Even religious morality was decided by human reason, unless you believe every religious moral directive is really from God, which I think is a very big stretch. In fact our morality moved forward only because of reason. We didn’t stop burning witches, trading in slaves and other barbaric cruelties because we miraculously became more compassionate. It’s because we worked out for ourselves that these previously accepted moral values weren’t serving us well. What is innate in us is the capacity to be moral agents…not the morals themselves. Those we appear to work out as we go along.
Well, as I said, compassion is a social expectation, so yes I think we are taught it. But in order to be taught, again, we must have the capacity for it…some more than others it seems.
Leda says:
Is there anything in this ‘capacity’ for compassion that allows one to act outside culturally taught expectations? I’m wondering about actions by individuals that are obviously empathetic, but seem to be outside of social expectations. As an example, the person who risks their life in an attempt to save a complete stranger from a house fire? Is such an act simply a learned cultural response to expections or is it something else?
Leda
I could agree with this- the State will be oppressive at any point in time, because that’s what it is there for, but the things it restricts or permits over time should be changeable and examinable by the people.
Waitaminute...slavery wasn't serving us well? I think it was serving 'us' very well- under the definition of 'us' at the time. We just changed the definition of who 'we' were. Now, I think the decision to abolish slavery (at least chattel slavery) was the right decision, but I don't see it being based on reason. For example, you use the term 'barbaric cruelty'- how is that a reasonable thing? It sounds like a thing of emotion, instinct, and reaction. Now, we can use reason to say "If A is barbaric, then B is likely barbaric as well, because A and B are similar in respect C." But that's just a comparison- it's not where those root moral notions come from.
At the same time, I guess I’d have to agree with this, though. Morals seem to be something that is taught, not something we are born knowing- or if we do have some innate moral sense, it is certainly not suffecient.
What’s wrong with this? Doesn’t it grant good and evil without God?
There’s nothing wrong with it jeffl! I just cant think of anything to say about it.
It only served [some of]us well in the same sense that an 8 year old labourer in a Pakistani carpet factory serves the factory owners well…
We changed the definition of “we” because it conflicted with emerging ideals of equality and individual rights…ideals that had arisen from philosophers practising the art of reason.
“At least”? Is there some other form of slavery that is morally acceptable? What was it based on then? Slavery had probably satisfied our opportunistic and self-serving drives but had been justified by flawed reasoning which was eventually exposed.
Where do “root moral notions” come from if not from human reasoning? Emotions? I dont think so…not on their own anyway, though I do believe that it’s not possible to have a human thought without emotion being in there somewhere. Emotions might give us our motivation for morality but it’s objective reasoning that works it all out…or ideally should. Morals that are based on emotions are standing on shaky ground.
Why should an act that was considered morally fine hundreds of years ago be termed “barbaric” by someone like me now? You’re right, it is my emotional response but only because reason had condemned it long before I was born and I’ve been taught to regard it that way. I dont think it’s an “instinctual” or innate reaction.
tentative,
I dont know, but I think I would call that more an act of bravery than compassion, though it could be both. It might be a highly developed sense of social responsibility or it could be a desire to exceed expectations…a person who risks his life for others then becomes a hero and is feted. Some people are exceptionally brave, some exceptionally ambitious, some exceptionally compassionate, some exceptionally cruel. Human variation I guess. Genes, environment?
Hi Leda,
Like you, darned if I know. The complexity of sorting out the intentions behind acting out almost defies definitive knowing. Over time, I’ve both experienced and have talked to others that seem to suggest a human quality that goes past cognitive apprehension. People act in ways so far from rational explanation that even they are surprised and can offer no answers as to their behavior. I’m not comfortable with the Dawkins ‘selfish gene’ explanation because it is almost solipsic. I like your view that we have the innate capacity to be moral agents, but it doesn’t help explain the origin of moral behavior. Is there such a thing as innate morals and how would we know?
Leda
But these standards need reason only to be applied evenly- one can see through reason that a black man has no strong differences from a white man, such that he should be treated differently, of course. But the very idea of things like equality being ‘good’ are not conclusions of reason. Or at least, not moral conclusions. We can conclude that equality is a means to some desired end, but that’s not morality.
Maybe. I think, at the very least that willing slavery (indentured servitude, say,) and forcing prisoners of war to work without pay are examples of slavery that- even if immoral- are not immoral for the same reasons as chattel slavery, and need to be considered seperately. At the very least, both ideas are extremely distasteful to us these days.
What if moral notions don’t come from anywhere prior like that- it seems to me that they are a root faculty of thought, just like emotion and reason. Maybe not- but what I want to stress is that rationality is based on morality moreso than morality is based on reason. You look at statements like “You should believe in proportion to the evidence” and “It is irrational to hold a position without suffecient arguments to back it”, and these sound a great deal like moral proclamations- the person who doesn’t use reason correctly is guilty of something, wouldn’t you say so?
Greetings! This is my first visit and post to this Site!
I will have to agree for the most part with TheAngryElvis on this.
I read through most of the posts and it appears everyone is missing some very fundamental points in this thread about the topic.
TAE primary Statement was that morals without relgion is completely groundless. This statement ingenders in and upon itself that morals can only be dictated by an authority. One that must be greater than we are as a whole or seperate. Why must it be greater than us? Because we are all equalls and we do not see eye to eye!
A significant issue dealing with our equality is the “relative morals” issue. This being said no matter how anyone feels about a particular moral code they have just as much basis as the next guys whose moral code is completely opposite. In this respect we are no longer dealing with morals, we are dealing with one persons wants versus the other persons wants (ethics)!
Intrinisically the “relative moral” code states that since it is all relative there is no one that is wrong! And because morals consistantly side with the Absolute side of things you can see now that Morals cannot co-habitat with relativism (ethics). And in this we create a paradox/oxymoron that is called “moral relativity” because each word represents something opposite of the other!
Because of this TAE’s claim is entirely founded and backed up!
We know this because some people delight in the death, pain, or destruction of others! Their “moral” code(ethic) is obviously far different than the average being! Not everyone feels things the same way even when exposed to the exact same situation! Because of this something such as an absolution like morals REQUIRES dictation from a source that is beyond our wisdom.
Taking a look at nature in this aspect one can see how moraless it is. Nature will without scruple hurt, maim, kill, starve, cause pestilence, and disease without regard. The animal Kingdom does not stop to pray over its food prior to killing or eating it as many humans do. They do not establish democracies and governments. Usually it is only one animal that comes along and establishes HIS/HER rule under direct threat of physical harm/death and nothing more! My way or the Highway pal!
Under the Natural Law there are no morals, and because of this whomever that has the power and authority is the sole progenitor of the moral code or law! This includes and exudes correctness no matter how biased or inhuman one may think it is. It is not a contest of moral correctness… merely a contest of you dont like they way they do things!(ethics)
TAE is correct and failure to see his point is failure to understand the underlying definition of Morals.
Dictionary.com
[i]mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals. [/i]
In there is always judgement involved when dictation morals, and as you can see also states that are are required absolutes or a maxim in this case!
Now when you read that definition do not be shocked by no mention of a “God” or Supreme Being. Remember the whole case is established that someone in or of authority makes the establishment of what morals are. In other words there is an underlying meaning to what moral are. (The most direct statement of underlying mention concerning religion is underlined)
Morals although indirectly dictated to a Relious code of conduct, still does not mean it is not a religous advent. Under the definition of Religion, even Science is a Religion! Surprised? I am sure there are several that will dissagree.
In our society we shortcut God out of the picture by borrowing much of the moral code out of the Religion(s) and make it our own. In which case it becomes established in a Secular Society as the Government (Being the Sole Progenitor of Moral Code). Now remember this. The progenitor is always ABOVE the moral code. Regardless of their actions they cannot be bound to it. Because they are the authority and have the ability to dictate morals on a whim and at their sole discretion.
And now… ultimately because the governments are always formed of… drum roll… people just like you and me they really do not have the required clarity to dictate proper morals! So what we have instead… is the rule of law and the rule of Ethics!
Even thoough Ethics and morals are considered to be much the same thing… they are not. Ethics are a set of principle of right conduct. These are allowed to be relative compared to Morals having the requirement of being absolute! However in the best interests of confusing the issues there will always be someone to come along and make them equal when they are not! Remember ethics are in the realm of theory. This includes the expection of them possibly being wrong in the definitive sense while morals are not and will never be wrong!
Dictionary.com
[i]eth·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain†(Gregg Easterbrook).
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics. [/i]
After reading both definitions we can tell there are some differences between ethics and morals. As well as ethics falling more squarely on Philosphy as opposed to religious content.
The reason why Morals should be Absolute is the idea that regardless of any rule, law, or ethic someone may create, a moral will never change! It shall always remain right or wrong.
Ethics are relative because their code of conduct can be changed at any time to suit the desires and conduct of the current situation!
And last but not least, in the good ole Red v Blue never ending debate. Moral law cannot be legislated but Ethical law can!
So to sum things up in not so short of a post… TAE is speaking of Morals, were as most of the dissagreers are leaning upon ethics as opposed to moral code!
Ahh my morality vs moral responsibility thread… HOW I’ve missed you since the last 185th time I visited your door step.
“Man’s fundamental power, his “goodness” lies not in knowing the difference between good and evil, in acting with scientific certainty on the basis of a known good, or if he is a wicked man, of known evil: it lies in knowing that there is a difference between good and evil, but in any given situation noit knowing what that difference is… Morality then, is the opposite of moral responsibility: morality’s aim is to reduce freedom of choice toa miniumum, to non-existence, if it can; but the aim of moral responsibility is to increase the realm of moral choice”
“Beyond the Tragic Vision” Morse Peckham.
Think of Goethe’s Faust and his first temptation and why his scorned lover Gertrude will not be saved from her fate of death. She wants to take responsibility for her wrong deeds. She makes the choice to be morally responsible where she has failed to be “moral”.
The athiest that helps the old lady across the street and empathises with those who have suffered may not be “moral” in your eyes but they are certainly “morally responsible”.
I have to admit that your statment in regards to why an athiest would bother to feel compassion for someone elses tragedy bothers me a good deal. You’re forgetting one very important ingredient - that the atheist is human and in doing so is bonded in a very real way to other humans, regardless of their spiritual or lack there of beliefs.