Morality

Another thing to think about.
If people believe that their conscience is just a construct of nature, something evolved over a period of time, then to me that would mean they have no base/foundation in anything but nature, so why wouldnt they disobey their conscience? They won't be punished for it.

Why don't people freely disregard their morals? How come you have people that follow God and in the bible will be punished for their sins yet they still sin. And then you have atheists that have no reason not to do bad things but yet they still do good things?

Because, like I've said before, we still live in the now.

My actions of today are not based on the possibility of a higher power or the possibility of an afterlife. I do not believe in either - yet, amazingly, I refrain from killing people on a daily basis. How ever does it work!

I'll tell you: I still reap the consequences of my actions. If I were to kill someone, which I couldn't possibly do with my current rational state of mind (just to reassure you all), I would still feel the guilt of taking away a person I (most likely) didn't know from family members that I (most likely) didn't know, who's ideals could have very well matched up with mine. But just because he took the last Milky Way, that filthy low-down bastard, I had to pop a cap in his ass.

It makes no sense to me. Why would anyone feel the need to kill someone?

-Because they disagree with them. Pretty much all the reasons I could think of boiled down to this: Disagreement.
>Well, tough luck! I disagree with Bush and with Dear Abby, but you don't see me loading up a gun and shooting them both dead. There are still rational means that, as a human rather than a religious follower, we face. I, being the compassionate and simi-understanding person I am, could not possibly kill someone just because I disagree with them. In my mind, that doesn't click - even without a God. Just because I have no God doesn't mean that I do not possess the ability to understand, or feel the need to off someone due to our differences.

But on the flip side, someone who does follow a God doesn't necessarily feel the same sense of understanding as I do and could easily kill someone if they disagree with them. It goes the same, reverse even more. Another religious person could have the attribute of handling personality contrasts without homicidal tendencies, while another Atheist couldn't.

I don't believe in the modern-day understanding of morals. I do, however, have the ability to be a sane human being. I will sum this up the same way I did in Noddy's "Atheists/Agnostics are tightasses" thread: I think it boils down to a personality disorder rather than religious affiliation.

We strive for absolute morals but practice our morals relatively.

Anything someone claims is absolute will ultimately become relative in the right situtation. When 2 morals conflict one must become relative.

Discreet, I believe your claim that absolute moral principles cannot be justified without a God is correct.

Which is one of the reasons Man invented God.

Some may find it disturbing to base morality on custom, law, and utility rather than a thundering voice from the heavens declaring "because I said so, that's why," but others find the possibilities of an evolving moral code, capable of changing in response to new understandings and discoveries refreshing.

There are multiple studies that show that morality has nothing to do with a belief in God. You can have, and follow moral precepts, any religion. An atheist can believe in the need to respect human life, just as a believer can believe in free will and individual rights.

You may be interested in the work of Lawrence Kohlberg. He was a physcology professor who did a lot of research into how people reason about what is moral.

Kohlberg came up with five stages of moral reasoning. These stages do not determine who is more moral, but rather determine the complexity of the reasoning you base your moral decisions on.

For example a young child in the first stage bases his decisions on whether he will be punished. A older child makes decisions based on relationships (if it makes mommy happy, its good). An even more advance person understands rules and laws. To Kohlberg the highest level of moral reasoning is based on an abstract understanding of deep moral principles (supposively few of us attain this level).

An interesting part of this theory is how we develop morals. You will stay at a level of moral reasoning as long as it works for you. When your level of moral reasoning is challenged-- meaning that it can't give a satisfactory answer to a problem you face, or that it leads to an inherent contradiction-- it will lead to a period of confusion followed by a resolution at a more advanced level of reasoning.

For example, an infant thinks it is entitled to whatever it wants, but it will be "moral" to avoid punishment. When the infant begins to develop a more mature relationship with other people, it realizes that if everyone thought this way, it would lead to chaos. It is clear that Mom is acting "morally" to take care of baby, but no one is punishing Mom. This pushes the baby to understand "relationships" and reach the point of "I do good to Mom because she does good to me".

In this theory the third stage is "conformity" meaning it is moral to do what everyone else does (or what people expect). The fourth stage is "law and order" meaning (as it sounds) you live according to the rules.

Many adults live most of their entire adult lives in one of these two stages. It is certainly possible to do what people around you expect and obey the law and never face a dillema that this level of thinking won't face.

According to this theory, Moral Relativity comes about as a result of dilemmas that the fourth stage (following the law) can't solve. Kohlberg acutally discusses an "in-between stage" between 4 and 5 which he saw in his research. This is often a time of confusion and is common in very smart teenagers.

The theory says this is resolved with the fifth stage which is "social contract". A person in this stage realizes that they need to adopt a set of morals (which may not be her natural morals) in order to live in a society.

The sixth stage is following Universal morals. Since few reach this stage, it isn't worth discussing.

There is a seventh stage that some people talk about (I don't think it is from Kohlbergs work). It sounds pretty goofy to me.

link: Page on Kohlbergs Stages

Well you brought me to my next point pretty nicely. Danke!

With abortion you are killing someone you will never know. It seems as though laws and majority opinion can override morals. Christians belive that killing another human being is wrong but the state says that women have the right to choose what they want. Which i think is true. But do you think manipulating morality because of laziness or because you made a stupid decision(im discluding abortions because of rape) is a justified reason for killing another human being. Because people chose not to use protection or chose to have sex they are shocked to find they have a baby realize they can't afford it in the long run and get an abortion or the girl jsut doesn't want to have one. It seems that man made laws overide peoples morals. If man made a law that an individual must certain set of morals lets say the 10 commandments you would have people following and breaking these rules today. So to me now it doesn't seem right to punish people who don't follow the rules because maybe to them state laws are against their moral agenda so they choose not to follow it. Whata ya think about this idea?

First of all, if you read my point and my link, you are most definitely arguing from Kohlberg stage four. You are trying to establish a set of rules that if you follow will make you "moral".

The moral rules you have stated have problems. You said "Christians believe that killing another human being is wrong". Well, this is not exactly true. The majority of Christians in the US support capital punishment. Most also support killing for ones country if you are a soldier in time of war.

It is interesting and problematic that not all Christians have the same moral code. If following God could give you a moral agenda, you would think that everyone who followed God would think the same. Look at the reaction of churchs to the Iraq war (which is a very important issue of life and death). Some churches support the war, some churches oppose it as an immoral war and some churchs oppose all war.

So Discreet, you beleve in a "set of morals", possible one that applies to all people. How, did you come to understand the set of morals you choose to follow?

My assumption from your posts is that you were born into a conservative Christian family. Even if I am mistaken my point still applies-- the moral code you live by is greatly influenced by the accident of who you happened to be born into.

Do you think that if you had been my son or daughter, you would have had the same values you have now?

Seeing as you are no more infallable than any other human being, how we all come to an agreement about which moral code to follow?

If you only come into contact with people from the same background as you, and everyone accepts the same basic precepts, the "follow the rules" way of thinking will work just fine. This is the case in many religious communities, and if you are a Christian in middle America, you can certainly live this way.

But if you start talking to people outside your community, you are going to start running into dilemmas. If you have an open mind you will start to question how you can be sure that you happened to be born into a family that knows the truth when there are many other people with equally strong opinions (from equally religious families) who believe completely different.

It appears that this has started happening for you now.

Re: Morality


I don't know that it can. Which is why I do not justify moral principles as absolutes.
There are personal moralities which an individual holds as being moral.
There are societal moralities which the majority of individuals within a society or culture hold as being moral.
There are religious moralities which the majority of individuals within a religion hold as being moral.
Finally there are human moralities which the majority of humans hold as being moral.

I have my own personal moralities which I continue to uphold, absolute or not.

Since morals seem to be evanescing over a period of time do you think in the distant future we will have found reasons to abandon all our moral beliefs?

First, morals are not evanescing. Why do you think that?

A societies morals will change over time, but based on my moral values we aren't any less moral. We have done away with slavery in our society, we have stopped lynching and we no longer accept violence against women.

Sure are morals are changing, but there is no evidence that either the number, or the quality of our morals is decreasing by any objective measure.

I think you would be hardpressed to argue in any objective manner that our society is any less moral today than it was 150 years ago. Sure there are issues (i.e. acceptance of homosexuality, abortion) that you may pick out based on your particular moral code... but add to those things like slavery, drunk driving, confronting anti-semitism etc. etc. etc.

It could easily defend our modern morality even from the context of the Bible.

Second, there is no need for a belief in God to have an absolute moral system

In order to have a set of "absolute morals" what you need is a way to avoid wrestling with the beliefs of others. A society that is isolated will always have a absolute moral system. Each member will be certain that the rules of that society are universally shared by all right thinking humans.

Many groups, which would include Christianity and other religions, have an absolute moral code that they also believe is universally shared by all right thinking humans. They continue this belief in spite of contact and interaction with other beliefs by breaking the world into "believe" and "non-believer". Thus the any moral code that does not match with the "believer" can be simply disgaurded without much thought.

This is common in many religions that believe in an absolute moral law. But it is not only the religious that do this.

For example, my understanding of the North Korean system is that they are the sole keepers of morality. From what I have read, many North Korean citizens believe this to be the case. Like the religious, people who question the morality of their society are cast as immoral outsiders and corrupt.

Whatever group you are in, you can have a moral code that is universal, if you are willing to brand people who disagree as "immoral".

This does not require religion. It only requires the ability to declare anyone who is not in your group as 'immoral".

Ok well say we took someone from 150 years ago and just took em on a walk around the block and maybe turned on the tv. Heres some of the things IMO he might find against his morals

Clothing(girls can wear just about nothing on the street and get away with it)

Language people are allowed to speak freely of anything the want even if that involves as many 4 letter words as they can think of

Abortion was not only not a practice 150 years ago but killing a soon to be human would be immoral

Giving slaves rights would be immoral

You can't think based on your own morals you have to get into someones shoes in history and see the world as they see it to understand it. You would argue that no morals have changed yet a man from 150 years or beyond would think he has gone to hell and lives amongst pagans. People in the past were very religious/conservative. This country was started with obvious traces of the importance of god in our nation
Dollar Bill, pledge of allegiance, etc.

So yes you could argue that we are not less moral but that is because we have found the subjects of the past to be this way. In the opinion of someone from history we would be considered immoral. But we are constantly changing our views to cope with our bad judgements or laziness

i.e
Abortion
Sexual content on tv/magazines any and everywhere a child turns to look they are raised to look skinny and shake that money maker

Think about how in the old days it was a sin to see a womans ankle and now think about what you see on mtv today.

I think we are in agreement.

Most People believed that slavery was OK and that showing a woman's ankle was immoral.

Most people today believe that slavery is immoral and that showing a woman's ankle is OK.

So the number of moral rules doesn't change. Some things that are moral become immoral, and other things that are immoral become moral.

So the question is, who references a "Universal moral code"-- the people of 150 years ago? or the people today? (Or the ancient Romans? or the Incas? or Canibals?). They all have strict moral rules that they live by and are certain of.

The answer of course is "all of them." The question is a level of complexity in someones reasoning.

In any society a majority of people believe that their morals are based on Universal values (this is the same as saying they are "from God".

When people of any society are faced with other ideas or cultures, they begin to question their own values. Then there is a choice, you can either start to believe that morality is relvative, or you can decide that the "others" are somehow inferior.

This is why religions talk about "unbelievers", and other cultures speak of "barbarians".

But, almost all cultures base their morals on "Universal Absolute truth".

ebrown, for an infant you are quite profound. :wink:

I had never thought of absolute morality in quite this way until I read your posts here. It is a good way to think of it, and it jives with what I have previously discovered. Hope to hear more.

Well a toast to the future. Where all of ideas of the present may be found to be immoral

Nah. I am fully in Kohlberg stage one.

I expect to get whatever I need or desire (actually I don't know the difference between need an desire). When I don't get what I want, I cry and if that doesn't work I scream. The Universe is new, but I have figured out it exists solely to give me want and need.

The thought that others might have feelings hasn't crossed my mind.

I am starting to notice that when I cry too much, the Dad starts to get stressed and isn't as nurturing as normal. I don't like this, so I am trying not to cry so much... but this is not because he has any feelings. It is a way to make sure he treats me right.

Thanks though.

I am not sure if you got the point yet. Have you read and considered carefully the link and the ideas I have presented?

This last post sounds like pure "moral relativism" where nothing really matters. But Kohlberg presented two stages that he feels are more advanced.

The first is developing a "social contract". In this stage an individual realizes that he lives in a society. The individual contributes to the society and the society contributes to the individual. The individual and the society have responsibilities to each other.

This solution resolves the conflict between following the moral code expected in your time and society, and being able to accept people in other societies with strangely different values who seem to be doing just fine.

It also allows you to be part of two or more "sub-cultures" or to develop a personal morality. Being part of a religion means accepting a moral system different than society... yet with a social contract you can hold to both systems. following the religious system personally without rejecting those in society who don't.

The last and most advanced stage according to Kohlberg is being driven by principles. For me a principle is different than the absolute moral (from an earlier stage) in that it is personal (I am not sure if Kohlberg would agree.

But I admit that my principles are not from God and are not shared by everyone, but they are still very important to me. They represent the world that I would like to live in, and if you read my other posts you will see, I am not afraid to express them very strongly and work toward them.

This last stage motivates you to work to change your society in spite of the social contract you have with it.

Kohlberg used Martin Luther King and Gandhi as examples of people who had moral systems based on prinicple.

He also believed that very few of us ever reach this stage. In truth, he took a lot of flack for this (especially for including himself in a select group with MLK and Gandhi).

But anyway, I don't accept the type of Moral Relativism that says... what the Heck, nothing matters then.

Inside each person is a desire to find meaning. In my opinion thinking and wrestling with these difficult ideas and developing a moral system that resolves these issues is an important part of being human.

Your link doesn't work by the way in your earlier posts but from what ive read of your posts which are interesting, is my question:

Whether or not the 4th stage can override the 3rd stage. Can an order or a law dictate someones morals?

If i view homosexuality as being wrong but law says that it is ok. Will homosexuality(if the law doesn't change) become as accepted as blacks being freed in the future?

Came across this while reading internet news articles and saw some terms that you like to use ebrown. See if you get anything out of this


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050503.shtml

Then your morals are simply in disagreement with society's legal system... and my own personal morality, but that's another matter.



It isn't already?