So where do you get your morals?

[BeHereNow]

I'm interested in the non-theist side of this issue. As non-theists, we do not have one specific doctrine that we can point to for our answers. Nonetheless, we each consider ourselves to be moral beings, with established references of right and wrong. Every mentally competent human ponders questions as good and evil, and when you don't have a doctrine it can be a challenge.

So I'm not really looking for debates per se, or people critcizing others' opinions. Just a comparison of personal ethics and their derivatives. How do you/did you establish your personal morals?

I'll open up the floor to others before presenting my perspecitve.

:bunny:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Kindness, respect, and reason.
Humans often must struggle to balance our simultaneous capacites for Good & Evil/Love & Fear.

A person's greatest need is to somehow feel appreciated. Find a way to convey a (silent) little "Hello in there, You."

Display a willingness to CONSIDER---not necessarily accede to---the rights of others before our own feelings AND the feelings of others before our own rights.

Display a willingness to consider we could somehow be off the mark. Others will less-likely be annoyed by the times we are right---or bust our chops for the times we are wrong.

If we are not here to contribute to one another's growth, then nothing else makes sense---even if there is no Creator-who-cares. There is no one way which has a copyright on character and morality.

My religion is to do good.

[Ryokan]

I really don't have a moral code. I suppose I try to help people and not hurt people as best I can while keeping myself happy.

[Chappie]

09-01-2003 @ 01:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200424#post200424)
Lazy Agnostic:

Kindness, respect, and reason.
Humans often must struggle to balance our simultaneous capacites for Good & Evil/Love & Fear.

A person's greatest need is to somehow feel appreciated. Find a way to convey a (silent) little "Hello in there, You."

Display a willingness to CONSIDER---not necessarily accede to---the rights of others before our own feelings AND the feelings of others before our own rights.

Display a willingness to consider we could somehow be off the mark. Others will less-likely be annoyed by the times we are right---or bust our chops for the times we are wrong.

If we are not here to contribute to one another's growth, then nothing else makes sense---even if there is no Creator-who-cares. There is no one way which has a copyright on character and morality.

My religion is to do good.


James 1:27
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
KJV

MODERATOR NOTE: Hey Chappie, welcome! I need to let you know that the naturalism section is reserved, unless otherwise stated, for the athiests who come to TWeb. In this case the thread startes specifically asked for the non-thiest response. Let's respect that as per the Forum rules. Thanks in advance for your understanding

[Barron]

09-01-2003 @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200417#post200417)
BeHereNow:

I'm interested in the non-theist side of this issue. As non-theists, we do not have one specific doctrine that we can point to for our answers. Nonetheless, we each consider ourselves to be moral beings, with established references of right and wrong. Every mentally competent human ponders questions as good and evil, and when you don't have a doctrine it can be a challenge.

So I'm not really looking for debates per se, or people critcizing others' opinions. Just a comparison of personal ethics and their derivatives. How do you/did you establish your personal morals?

I'll open up the floor to others before presenting my perspecitve.

:bunny:

First thought is that I don't think we (entirely) consciously establish our morals. I think that, like our personalities, a lot of what we think of as "right/wrong" is formed in our childhood, much of it unconsiously. As asking how we establish our moral sense is like asking how we establish our personalities. We don't really. They evolve in relationship with out biology, nurturing, society, etc.

My feeling is that more of our moral sense than we care to admit is formed in the home and on the playground. We learn from examples of our parents and we learn from experience with our peers. But we don't do most of this consiously. Still, later in life we can try to retrofit a more nuanced moral system to this early, partly unconsious one. After all, we all tend to establish (select?) a moral system that already aligns with our core values (or, as I think of them, "gut feelings").

But let me toss that aside for a moment and go to a question that I think is closer to what you are asking. That is, what principles do we use to come to ethical or moral judgements. These (at least in the abstract) we can discuss pretty clearly and analytically. So I would start with a strong application of the Golden Rule. Things shouldn't be done to someone else that I wouldn't want done to me. Always a good start. Next I would say we should try to maximize human happiness, comfort and compassion. Why? Because I like those things. I like them mainly at an emotional level, but I think you really MUST use emotion when discussing morals. In fact, I would say that morals SHOULD NOT be built up without emotions. I don't think a bloodless, quantitative morality is possible or (if it were) preferable. Morals have to deal with humans and humans are messy, comfusing, emotional critters.

That's more than I intended to start with, so I'll head to lunch now.

Barron

[Pilgrim]

MODErATOR NOTE: please remember that the naturalism section is reserved for posts from non-thiests. Thanks for understanding

[ACow]

Basically, you've got social relations, and what you know of yourself and others.

Through basic ideas of cause, effect, consistency, desire, etc, and through understand both your own and others emotions, you can come up with a way of action that best brings about what you want, both in outcomes, and in yourself and the world.

In this sense, the truly moral person is capable of doing everything, but only chooses that which is best. Essentially, mine all comes out due to my own moral philosophy.

A key point is that understanding, acceptance, and not being too proud or having too big of an ego leads to both forgiveness, tolerance, and the best outcomes possible.

Plus, its healthy for you to be able to admit when you were wrong.

Its quite complex in its entirity, and based on my own theories of self, universe, and society at large. I think its more complex than a number of other ethical systems, because a number of others assume far too much ie. Obviously man is created to want power and sex and to stand over the weak, and a moral person does/nt do that. In my eyes, its completely consistent for a rational person to not be tempted by money, sex, or power, nor to have such things as the neccesary drives in their lives.

I guess the key point is knowlege and understanding. Through this comes all things.

[Queen]

My guidelines: Love respect and compassion for all living beings. My morals come from the heart. I have learned a lot during my study...I've studied Biology. Biology is not a profession, it is a way of life. Combined with all sorts of books about all sorts of subjects I molded this into my own moral standards. I am considered a nut sometimes, because I even don't kill spiders or mosquito's. Insects have the same right to live as humans. I believe peace is only achieved when we respect each other......I am memeber of environmental groups and human rights groups......A collegue of me called me a "buddhist" because of my moral standards and I began reading different religious books. I choose to use all the things I believe are useful guidelines for me......

Do I sound really nuts?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[bhukkadakota]

basically it comes down to treating people the way you would want to be treated yourself. It doesnt really take religion to figure that out.

[Gilgaron]

Intuition and reasoning. Same as everyone else :wink:

[Seasanctuary]

Tradition and empathy.

[zorathruster]

Morality is the agreement between humans of acceptable interactions. Humans benefit from rules and rules are only agreed to because generally throughout a large population it is beneficial to all participants, even the strongest to abide by those rules. Don't steal, benefits all those who are not stolen from. The only real loser to this rule is the theif who doesn't get to swipe something. One loser, many winners. Since most people find it easier to abide by the don't steal rule, it helps them personally in the conduct of their business, it is a rule that is pretty much universal in larger societies. Tribes, and smaller communal societies usually don't adhear to such rules since most property is held as communal property. Don't kill is beneficial because even the strongest warrior benefits from not having his throat cut while in a drunken stupor. The benefit of this rule is you don't get killed, the drawback of this rule is you really can't just go out killing other people who piss you off. Normally the drawback is not as great a hinderance as the associated benefit.

Dumb strong men are the real loser here. They would win in a strong rule environment. They don't win in an exchange and rule based environment because they have difficulty conceptualizing the complex rules. That is why our prisons are overflowing with less intellegent but strong males.

[Viktor Scott]

Although I don't think I have consciously followed this maxim, I have certainly followed it subconsciously. The so-called Confucian rule, or 'Do not do unto others as you would not want them to do unto you.' Not to be confused with the so-called Golden Rule which the Confucian rule predates.

[Sacrificial Ram]

I'm interested in the non-theist side of this issue. As non-theists, we do not have one specific doctrine that we can point to for our answers. Nonetheless, we each consider ourselves to be moral beings, with established references of right and wrong. Every mentally competent human ponders questions as good and evil, and when you don't have a doctrine it can be a challenge.

So I'm not really looking for debates per se, or people critcizing others' opinions. Just a comparison of personal ethics and their derivatives. How do you/did you establish your personal morals?

I'll open up the floor to others before presenting my perspecitve.

:bunny:
Sort of simplisticly.

Morality is the art of protecting your own back by agreeing not to stab others in theirs.

[LGM]

The guidelines for my behavior come from a combination of my genetics, my environment, my culture, and my unique life experiences. They are heavily dominated by my culture's customs, its precepts, its laws, its values, its rewards, and its punishments.

LGM
...always glad to see that even naturalists can "resurrect" these long dead threads...

[steamer]

The guidelines for my behavior come from a combination of my genetics, my environment, my culture, and my unique life experiences. They are heavily dominated by my culture's customs, its precepts, its laws, its values, its rewards, and its punishments.

LGM
...always glad to see that even naturalists can "resurrect" these long dead threads...
Perhaps you didn't notice the blue light special at K-Mart. I got my certified "objective" morals at 10 for $3.00. I also bought some Morals-R-Us Stock during a steep decline, but it's now up .002. Penny stocks are rough trading. I do expect the "objectively" moral dividends to be worth something someday.

[zorathruster]

'Do not do unto others as you would not want them to do unto you.'
There exists persons who enjoy pain. They often "want" something done unto them that other people would not want done. So the rule fails at times when actions wanted are not universal.:bonk::whip:

[Griggsy]

That is a problem,Zorathruster. However, we can use Bentham's pleasure-pain principle objectively to discern what is good or bad for humans and other animals, taking your comment as a given.

[John Rian]

My moral ideas come mostly from my upbringing, which was Christian. I have modified some of those precepts since becoming an atheist. Mostly by becoming more liberal socially, but I still have some conservative hangers on. My moral philosophy is now more aligned with Buddhism.

[zorathruster]

My moral ideas come mostly from my upbringing, which was Christian. I have modified some of those precepts since becoming an atheist. Mostly by becoming more liberal socially, but I still have some conservative hangers on. My moral philosophy is now more aligned with Buddhism.


Your morals came from society more so than Christianity. In our society certain moral precepts underly the actions you take. For example, I would surmise when growing up, your father told you "Never start a fight, but if someone hits you first, finish it". This concept of peacable until provoked is contradictory to the Christian stated precept of turn the other cheek as many times as necessary.

I would also say that you overlooked the family values quote from the new testament that said, "In order to follow Christ you need to reject your family."

These oft overlooked precepts of Christian philosophy are not the underpinnings that make a good member of our modern society. Luckily, you followed the precepts of society instead of the Christian precepts that proponents attempt to claim as having a basis in Christianity.

I have a problem with Buhdist philosophy in that it never reaches a point of forceful action in opposition to evil. A Buhdist would never have confronted Hitler, Sadam, Melosevitch or any of the other despots of history. Their ineffectual efforts in Mayanmar currently show the weakness of their position. Although I sympathize with those who are attempting to change that society, change won't happen until the population is willing to forcefully oppose those despots. If they are all truly philosophical Buhdists, I don't think that will never happen.

[Skeleton Man]

I get my morals from a few sayings. "Do what thou wilt as long as it hurts none." "Treat others as you would want to be treated." "Unless it is unreasonable follow the law." and "Do not eat sushi that is made in a gas station."

[Paranoia21]

I have gotten my morals from the mistakes humans before me have made. For example: murder. Does it advance humanity? No.

[zorathruster]

I have gotten my morals from the mistakes humans before me have made. For example: murder. Does it advance humanity? No.

What if someone had murdered Adolf Hitler? What if someone had murdered Stalin? It could be argued that many other evil entities might or could have been removed from the equation by appropriate murder.

Also, it is rather odd to base a set of morals on the exclusive issues of mistakes. While there are many ways to do things adequately, there are multitudes of ways to do things wrong. Which means there are more ways you must rule out for negotiating a moral position than using the positivist perspective of determining a moral by what is positively right.

[almightydollar]

I'm interested in the non-theist side of this issue. As non-theists, we do not have one specific doctrine that we can point to for our answers. Nonetheless, we each consider ourselves to be moral beings, with established references of right and wrong. Every mentally competent human ponders questions as good and evil, and when you don't have a doctrine it can be a challenge.

So I'm not really looking for debates per se, or people critcizing others' opinions. Just a comparison of personal ethics and their derivatives. How do you/did you establish your personal morals?

I'll open up the floor to others before presenting my perspecitve.

:bunny:

Highly simplified, almost to the point of uselessness, but you get the idea --

1. What do I want, right now, from other people and the world?
1.b. What do I/might I want from other humans and the world in the long-term?
2 . What do other humans and the world want from me right now?
2.b. What do/might other humans and the world want from me in the long-term?
3. Build a ompromise focused un the now, with
3.b. ..a compromise built for the long-term in mind.

[Paintbucket]

I'd say that my background in Christianity influences me some, but I use a half baked form of the Categorical Imparative for my morals. (Let the principle you live by be the rule for all other people.) This system allows me the flexibility in "moral" actions and also keeps me grounded on what society needs.

Naturalism 101 is for non-theists only.

[Griggsy]

See my natural morality where I show where.Thanks.

[hamandcheese]

Morality is an evolved faculty. It is a set of principles that have parameters that are set by culture, and it is enforced by empathy. I recomend Moral Minds by Marc D. Hauser.

[Griggsy]

See the my new post @ natural morality,which I call covenat morality for humanity. Morality binds us subjectively and objectively as I show there.:blush:
And I support Zorathruster [ But as the current issue of Free Inquiry shows, there is a naughty streak in Buddhist history.]. We naturalists ground our morality in the experience of humankind and the use of reason and facts .So theists are wrong in stating that we cannot ground ours.
And it won' t d o for theists ,as Aquinas does, to state that goodness comes from God's nature to overcome the dilemma of the Euthyphro ,since the same dlemma applies.:lol: What makes His character good? As stated @Ebonmusings in "The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinte Sick, :"Unless apologists show that God could not have been other than he is morally ,...the Euthyphro stands and divine commant ethics fallls.":pray:
Of course, Bentahm's principle, which underlines the Golden and Silver Rules applly to sane people rather than to phychopaths,etc. as John Hospers so notes in 'Huaman Conduct."::blush:

[PolarBeer]

My morals are definitely a product of an Anglican upbringing. Good protestant work ethics and all that! While becoming an atheist meant leaving the church, it didn't really make me rethink my morals all that much - the Anglican church isn't a particularly conservative church.

To be honest, that's why I still have my Ecclesiology listed as Anglican. Were I to actually have children, I'd probably take them to an Anglican church for Sunday school if there were no buddhist alternative. I probably lose atheist points for that, but I'm sure I'll get by somehow... :ahem:

[rizdek]

I think I can sum up my basis for morality in one word: Inference

I can infer from my feelings when someone harms me how I should treat others and thereby do as little harm to others as possible. I know it's essentially do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This works as long as one is not a masochist or psychopath. But those kinds can also adopt Christianity as their foundation and instigate/carry out incredibly cruel actions and become the fringe lunatics.

[Senpeko]

My conscious.

I think questions of ethics can be reduced to psychology... People have an innate disgust for the hurting of others and a altruistic drives (save sociopaths).

[Bagger_Vance]

I get a memo from the underground atheist HQ at the kremlin.

[M.Talkingsworth]

I'm interested in the non-theist side of this issue. As non-theists, we do not have one specific doctrine that we can point to for our answers. Nonetheless, we each consider ourselves to be moral beings, with established references of right and wrong. Every mentally competent human ponders questions as good and evil, and when you don't have a doctrine it can be a challenge.

So I'm not really looking for debates per se, or people critcizing others' opinions. Just a comparison of personal ethics and their derivatives. How do you/did you establish your personal morals?

I'll open up the floor to others before presenting my perspecitve.

:bunny:

I think that morality can be looked at as a means to an ultimate end. The morals will be dictated by the end one wishes to achieve. The ends to be achieved are where I get hung up.

One one hand, I feel compelled to be excessively altruistic in compliance with my judeo-christian cultural upbringing in which one should not only simply not do what harms others but where one should go out of one's way to help others.

The more moderate view sees that the former view could be taken to an extreme to the point at which I have helped others so much that I am not in need of help as I have used all of my material resources on others. This seems somewhat self defeating, so I am compelled here to accept the more moderate, and judging by the responses on this thread, common ideas such as the golden rule and upholding human happiness and well-being.

Then the more pragmatic part of my mind ponders what will happen if we continue to help the weaker members of society get by. That is, those members of society who seem unable to contribute but only able to consume. I cannot help wondering what will happen if that segment of society is allowed to grow. Will it not consume humanity, could it bring about our downfall? It seems rational to control such people in some way, however my emotions revolt at the idea of somehow setting standards to decide who is "worthy" of life. I imagine a scenario similar to those in Gattaca or Logan's Run in which the attempt to make humanity better produces a somewhat monstrous society.

So I suppose I am inexorably bound to a moderate approach, despite the fact that I worry that it may be the less prudent of the choices.

Cheers,

Matt

[zorathruster]

One one hand, I feel compelled to be excessively altruistic in compliance with my judeo-christian cultural upbringing in which one should not only simply not do what harms others but where one should go out of one's way to help others.

Matt

I think the interaction of humans requires rules. The first rule was "might makes right". That worked until two other guys overwhelmed the one mighty guy thus revealing "might makes right but cooperation rules".

Cooperation and the rules of cooperation are critical to understanding why humans desire acceptance by others. We want a buddy when the huns are banging at the front gate. Exchange of obligation and favor ensures that the basic rule, "might makes right" does not prevail. Establishing favor requires structure beyond basic scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. It is the inner feeling of obligation toward either another individual or the group plural that humans change their self survival instinct to one of self sacrifice for the good of others.

Those rules of RECIPROCAL action doesn't mean that you give all you have to the benefit of others, but if you give any, you can expect someone else giving something of value in return. The economic system tells you that you go to work, you earn this stuff called dollars and someone else grows beans and flour that you exchange those dollars for and can eat. It is a reciprocal deal. Those who don't understand economics feel they are owed accoutrements of clothing and food even though they don't personally want to provide the RECIPROCAL benefit to others so they can exchange those dollars. The driving factor is the reciprocal obligation that you are hoping to garnish as part of the deal. "The best place for one quaki util to store his excess whale blubber is in the stomach of another quaki util." Thus acrewing the reciprocal obligation of future whale blubber in return.


Reciprocal obligations used to carry the benefit of honor, respect and future obligation. With our tax system and the other complexities of society those obligations are now overlooked. Some don't produce or are unwilling to find something they can exchange. They feel the "system" owes them various necessities and they personally don't have to obligate themselves to the contributor. This is the breakdown of traditional "obligation for support" and often creates resentment by those who play the game as it is presented toward those who avoid participating.

It isn't so insensitive to say, "The system is designed so you can support yourself by obligating yourself to serving others, such as showing up for a job." It's only those who avoid such an obligation, for reciprocal service or effort, that find themselves in constant need for charity. Charity being the provisioning without the reciprocal obligation for future action or service.

Complex, but without such a structure, there would be no impetuous for sharing and no reciprocal obligation. Thus we would devolve to the original concept, "might makes right" and would be little better than the animals...from which we came. I think it is essential that most people understand and abide by the reciprocal obligations in our society, otherwise the whole system collapses much along the venue of "Atlas Shrugged".

[M.Talkingsworth]

I think the interaction of humans requires rules. The first rule was "might makes right". That worked until two other guys overwhelmed the one mighty guy thus revealing "might makes right but cooperation rules".

Cooperation and the rules of cooperation are critical to understanding why humans desire acceptance by others. We want a buddy when the huns are banging at the front gate. Exchange of obligation and favor ensures that the basic rule, "might makes right" does not prevail. Establishing favor requires structure beyond basic scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. It is the inner feeling of obligation toward either another individual or the group plural that humans change their self survival instinct to one of self sacrifice for the good of others.

Those rules of RECIPROCAL action doesn't mean that you give all you have to the benefit of others, but if you give any, you can expect someone else giving something of value in return. The economic system tells you that you go to work, you earn this stuff called dollars and someone else grows beans and flour that you exchange those dollars for and can eat. It is a reciprocal deal. Those who don't understand economics feel they are owed accoutrements of clothing and food even though they don't personally want to provide the RECIPROCAL benefit to others so they can exchange those dollars. The driving factor is the reciprocal obligation that you are hoping to garnish as part of the deal. "The best place for one quaki util to store his excess whale blubber is in the stomach of another quaki util." Thus acrewing the reciprocal obligation of future whale blubber in return.

I prefer tuppeware for storing *my* whale blubber, but to each his own, I suppose. Also, whale blubber fritters are excellent, even when they have been frozen and then warmed up.


Reciprocal obligations used to carry the benefit of honor, respect and future obligation. With our tax system and the other complexities of society those obligations are now overlooked. Some don't produce or are unwilling to find something they can exchange. They feel the "system" owes them various necessities and they personally don't have to obligate themselves to the contributor. This is the breakdown of traditional "obligation for support" and often creates resentment by those who play the game as it is presented toward those who avoid participating.

It isn't so insensitive to say, "The system is designed so you can support yourself by obligating yourself to serving others, such as showing up for a job." It's only those who avoid such an obligation, for reciprocal service or effort, that find themselves in constant need for charity. Charity being the provisioning without the reciprocal obligation for future action or service.

Complex, but without such a structure, there would be no impetuous for sharing and no reciprocal obligation. Thus we would devolve to the original concept, "might makes right" and would be little better than the animals...from which we came. I think it is essential that most people understand and abide by the reciprocal obligations in our society, otherwise the whole system collapses much along the venue of "Atlas Shrugged".

I also think that this can be displayed in societies around the world. There are places where "might makes right" has come to rule, in a sense, it is noteworthy that these societies have lower standards of living. Or so it seems. It may be unwarranted to draw such a conclusion as the causes are likely multifactorial, but it sure seems to be a big factor.

Good post, thruster. I like the way you put it. In a way, cooperation is just "might makes right" on another level. More people cooperating means more might. It is just that might is not exerted by the organization instead of the individual. This can be seen throughout our history and even currently. IT is interesting that such organizational use of might is supported as "moral" by some who would consider individual use of might as immoral. Quite ironic, really.

Cheers,

matt

[M.Talkingsworth]

IT is interesting that such organizational use of might is supported as "moral" by some who would consider individual use of might as immoral....

that's the word "it", not the acronym for "information technology" or "informative tutorial" or "itchy termite". Also not "ice cream tango".