Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jane_the_Bane" data-source="post: 75221875" data-attributes="member: 26024"><p>The witty answer would be: "the same way as anybody else."</p><p>But that doesn't really get across what you want to hear.</p><p></p><p>"Goodness" isn't random, but it IS inter-subjective insofar as a community can define totally random, ethically neutral acts as either good or immoral.</p><p></p><p>In general, though, people have a pretty solid grasp on what is good in broader categories. We derive that ability from countless ancestors who cooperated with each other as a social species.</p><p>Long before we acquired the ability to understand symbols, our distant relations were already reacting positively to pro-social behaviour. You can observe it in other, decidedly less intelligent species. </p><p></p><p>It's the random stuff cultures and religions have been conflating with morality that generates problems.</p><p>Is a woman leaving home without covering her hair immoral?</p><p>What about her breasts? Must they be covered at all times in public?</p><p>What about male breasts? Or breast feeding?</p><p></p><p>Since people identify so strongly with cultural/religious norms, they really feel that the random stuff is just as much of a violation as, say, taking what isn't yours or hurting somebody against their will.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jane_the_Bane, post: 75221875, member: 26024"] The witty answer would be: "the same way as anybody else." But that doesn't really get across what you want to hear. "Goodness" isn't random, but it IS inter-subjective insofar as a community can define totally random, ethically neutral acts as either good or immoral. In general, though, people have a pretty solid grasp on what is good in broader categories. We derive that ability from countless ancestors who cooperated with each other as a social species. Long before we acquired the ability to understand symbols, our distant relations were already reacting positively to pro-social behaviour. You can observe it in other, decidedly less intelligent species. It's the random stuff cultures and religions have been conflating with morality that generates problems. Is a woman leaving home without covering her hair immoral? What about her breasts? Must they be covered at all times in public? What about male breasts? Or breast feeding? Since people identify so strongly with cultural/religious norms, they really feel that the random stuff is just as much of a violation as, say, taking what isn't yours or hurting somebody against their will. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?
Top
Bottom