0
   

Morality with God?

 
 
Eorl
 
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 08:24 pm
Is possible to be a genuinely good person when you are doing it with the expectation of an eventual reward for your goodness?

When you are trusting ancient fictions and history for the basis of your morality, are you making the most humane decisions?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,187 • Replies: 42
No top replies

 
tomasso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 08:44 pm
Eorl

History has shown and life continues to show that it's just not possible
to be a genuinely good person.

Nip this one in the bud!
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 08:54 pm
I can only speak for myself. I believe that we only "go around once". I attempt to be the best person that I can for the sheer pleasure of knowing that I have somehow touched other people in a positive way.

I have no expectation of any "rewards" in an afterlife. When yer dead, yer dead. I do believe that I might live on in the memories that people have of me.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 09:11 pm
tomasso wrote:
Eorl

History has shown and life continues to show that it's just not possible
to be a genuinely good person.

Nip this one in the bud!


I've known many genuinely good people, I don't think any of them were really expecting to be rewarded for their actions on earth or in the afterlife. One of the kindest, most generous people in my life is an atheist. I once asked him- why be so moral if we're just going to be worm food at the end of life? He said he acts according to what makes his life worth living. If he follows his moral compass he is happy, to do otherwise would lessen the experience of living.
0 Replies
 
tomasso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 09:27 pm
Green Witch,

Maybe I'm being idealistic, but the word "genuine" does have idealistic
connotations.

I am fairly certain that all of your genuinely good people have been bad at one time or another.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 09:42 pm
gen·u·ine Pronunciation (jny-n)
adj.
1. Actually possessing the alleged or apparent attribute or character: genuine leather.
2. Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic. See Synonyms at authentic.
3.
a. Honestly felt or experienced: genuine devotion.
b. Actual; real: a genuine dilemma.
4. Free from hypocrisy or dishonesty; sincere.
5. Being of pure or original stock: a genuine Hawaiian.

I don't think we are looking for perfection here, just sincerity. A genuinely good person can have flaws and failings.
0 Replies
 
tomasso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 09:56 pm
Then according to your reasoning, Green Witch, the answer to Eorl's
question # 1 is yes!

You can be a genuinely good person when you are doing it with the
expectation of an eventual reward for your goodness!

After all, what's a little bit of selfishness now and then?
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:08 pm
(I'll have to get back to you Tomasso. I'm sparing with Gus and I have an Ebay auction in about 10 minutes.) Where did Eorl go?
0 Replies
 
tomasso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:18 pm
No problem Green Witch!

I guess we just have to determine if selfishness can be a part of
"genuineness" or not.

On second thought, it probably isn't, but where would you draw the
line on the proper definition of genuine? I mean which are the flaws
and failings that would still constitute a genuinely good person?

Answer when you can G. W. and you too Eorl! Ciao bambini!
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:57 pm
In those situations where religion and humanism conflict? If one takes the religious path in these situations, then it is immoral to a humanist.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:52 pm
If doing the right thing is also in your best interests, what is the contradiction?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:58 pm
There is no contradiction there, neo.

The best example that I could challenge you with is the blood transfusion issue. To allow your child to die by refusing a blood transfusion is certainly inhumane and immoral, from my humanist POV.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 01:14 am
Re: Morality with God?
Eorl wrote:
Is [it] possible to be a genuinely good person when you are doing it with the expectation of an eventual reward for your goodness?

When you are trusting ancient fictions and history for the basis of your morality, are you making the most humane decisions?


If your morality stems from a need to satisfy an external god idea or comply with a set of rules, you would frequently be in conflict and negotiations with your own conscience. I don't think that would necessarily make someone a bad person, but I imagine it must feel bad; it would tie your sense of self-respect to your ability to disrespect yourself.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 01:35 am
Agreed echi.

Whether it makes you a "bad person" from a humanist POV would depend on your actions...on who wins, the religious side or the human side.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 01:49 am
I'm not sure I follow you, Eorl.
What would qualify someone as a "bad person"? (I realize I used the term, first, but I don't really know what it means! Mr. Green . . . esp. from a humanist POV.)
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 01:01 pm
Re: Morality with God?
echi wrote:


If your morality stems from a need to satisfy an external god idea or comply with a set of rules, you would frequently be in conflict and negotiations with your own conscience. I don't think that would necessarily make someone a bad person, but I imagine it must feel bad; it would tie your sense of self-respect to your ability to disrespect yourself.


Echi,
Interesting perspective...where else would morals stem than from "an external god idea or set of rules"?

I'm Christian and must admit that I often feel in conflict with the set of rules I feel I should live up to. You seem to suggest one should therefore not establish any "set of rules" to live by, for then you can obviously never damage your self-esteem by failing to meet the rule. Hogwash!

If one's goal is to run a foot one will probably make that goal (although the amount of self satisfaction received from that achievement is questionable). One the other hand, my ideal might be to run a marathon but I may very well drop from exhaustion before finishing. My self-esteem might be damaged but at the end of the day despite my failure, I've still done more and have more to be proud of.

I contend there's often more to be said for the attempt to meet a high standard than the attainment of it.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 02:04 pm
slkshock7 wrote:
I contend there's often more to be said for the attempt to meet a high standard than the attainment of it.


No disagreement there, slkshock.
I have found no higher standard than my own conscience.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 02:10 pm
Quote:


Interesting perspective...where else would morals stem than from "an external god idea or set of rules"?


Empathy is inate. Cultural trappings fill out the rest of what constitutes 'moral' in any given area.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 08:50 pm
echi wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you, Eorl.
What would qualify someone as a "bad person"? (I realize I used the term, first, but I don't really know what it means! Mr. Green . . . esp. from a humanist POV.)


Recently there was a man not far from here who tried to kill his daughter because she had converted from Islam to Christianity. I see that behaviour as "bad" or "wrong" from my humanist POV. Someone who regularly makes such decisions for such reasons, I would think of as a "bad" person. All subjective of course.

(Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. )
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 09:04 pm
Eorl wrote:
echi wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you, Eorl.
What would qualify someone as a "bad person"? (I realize I used the term, first, but I don't really know what it means! Mr. Green . . . esp. from a humanist POV.)


Recently there was a man not far from here who tried to kill his daughter because she had converted from Islam to Christianity. I see that behaviour as "bad" or "wrong" from my humanist POV. Someone who regularly makes such decisions for such reasons, I would think of as a "bad" person. All subjective of course.



Right. We understand.

The man who tried to kill his daughter was not doing 'bad' in any real sense of the word.

Just in your OPINION he should not have done so. It's a matter of preference, that's all.

But others may hold a different opinion (i.e that the man SHOULD HAVE killed his daughter) that is just as valid as yours.

Neither opinion is better than the other.

Neither is 'right' or 'wrong'.

They're just opinions, right?

There is really nothing, including terrorists flying planes into buildings, or chainsaw murders, or torture, or cannibalism, or anything else that is truly 'bad'. (With the possible exception of being a Christian, now THAT'S just wrong.).

Just differences of opinion, right?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Morality with God?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2021 at 01:46:35