morality , why be moral?

[ranmaonehalf]

Given the argument that u cant be moral without god, why would you even have a desire to be moral?

"clarification"
This is the you cant be moral without god argument so in this case we are assuming god hasnt put any morality in us already. We are immoral or amoral without god. So why would we even care to be moral?

Is it moral to want to be moral? This cant be since we are not moral without god so how can we even try?

 

[Hypothetical]

Humans have a desire to be moral for the same reason they make most decisions: They want people to like them and think they are “cool.”*

*note, this doesn’t work in cultures that glorify violence, because then being violent makes you “cool."

 

[Verv]

But why be moral if no one is looking?

And why not join groups of people who do immoral activities -- they tend to give social approval liberally. The inner city ganglands can be an example of this, as well as terrorist groups and hate groups.

 

[Jade Margery]

god builds into all of us morals. so we no what is right and wrong. this is why we no god exists because if god didnt exist then there would be no morals and people might kill each other, steal, have s*x inappropriately and so on.

Amusingly, these things happen all the time, as often by religious people as not.

I must admit I don't really understand what the OP is asking though. I would not want to be Jmr's description of moral, for example, or moral by the christian god's example, at least not from the old testament's version. But I try to keep to my own morality because I have empathy for other people and making them feel bad makes me feel bad.

But I get the feeling that isn't what the OP is getting at, so maybe some clarification is needed?

 

[Jade Margery]

But why be moral if no one is looking?

And why not join groups of people who do immoral activities -- they tend to give social approval liberally. The inner city ganglands can be an example of this, as well as terrorist groups and hate groups.

Actually, I would say you are dead wrong about the giving social approval liberally in these cases. Inner city gangs, terrorist groups, and hate groups have a few things in common, the most obvious being the exclusion and hatred/fear/paranoia towards outsiders. Most people would not be accepted by members of these groups without conforming to strict guidelines of behavior and thought. They all also have strong rituals and codes to govern themselves with serious consequences for those who break them.

You see this kind of behavior with religions (generally to a lesser extent the larger the religion has spread, with pockets of concentration here and there, since it is hard to control so many people) and to an even lesser extent with countries.

Still, this attitude of exclusion and intolerance is about as far from liberally given approval as one can get.

 

[Verv]

Actually, I would say you are dead wrong about the giving social approval liberally in these cases. Inner city gangs, terrorist groups, and hate groups have a few things in common, the most obvious being the exclusion and hatred/fear/paranoia towards outsiders. Most people would not be accepted by members of these groups without conforming to strict guidelines of behavior and thought. They all also have strong rituals and codes to govern themselves with serious consequences for those who break them.

You see this kind of behavior with religions (generally to a lesser extent the larger the religion has spread, with pockets of concentration here and there, since it is hard to control so many people) and to an even lesser extent with countries.

Still, this attitude of exclusion and intolerance is about as far from liberally given approval as one can get.

It is an attitude inherent to humans to have in-groups and out-groups and to provide social approval within or without, often deeming immoral actions of the group as 'moral' even though perhaps all feel that, intellectually, it must be wrong.

People sometimes feel justified trying to stare me down because I am covered in tattoos, in my own neighborhood, which I find rather comical. Chances are I lead a far more wholesome life than they do in the sense that I live a kilometer away from the largest prostitution district in Seoul (second largest in south Korea), and I am well aware of the statistics concerning it...

The fact is that people justify things whether they have a religion or not.

People who follow any set of morals are probably doing a better job thant he sort of people who only passively have a set of morals and conveniently ignore them.

 

[Andreusz]

One reason to be moral is self-respect.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

So why even desire morality if you dont have it and god is the only source of it?

 

[SiderealExalt]

Most of us have built in genetic imperatives that to varying degrees moves us towards moral behavior.

 

[Penumbra]

Because being moral raises the probability that yourself and those around you will live happier lives I suppose. Because if I do something I think is bad, I feel bad about it, and I don't like feeling bad.

But why be moral if no one is looking?

Why not be? Even if no one is looking, I still see my own actions.

-Lyn

 

[ranmaonehalf]

The Op is why even hava desire for morality? What drive is there to want to be moral if the only way to be moral is through god?
The question is not why be moral as of if you could be moral without god (which you can) but its going over ifyou cant be moral without god then how can you even have a desire to be moral.

 

[Penumbra]

I think you're question has no target audience to answer.

Those that believe in god will say that god gives morals, even in some ways to those who are not of that religion (by essence of having made all of mankind in his image), while people who do not believe in god will say that god is not necessary for morals, and that we have them through natural means and such.

-Lyn

 

[Verv]

Why isn't there self-respect inherently for the amount of direct success and pleasure you have?

Oh man, these are always great discussions (not being sarcastic) because it asks us to break things down to absolute fundamental where we even question the idea of why should we be good.

However, this is one of the few cases where the discussion is better in real life because it progresses quicker and does not stay dependent on the same definitions for long.

I find most debates, besides this one, to be infinitely superior OVER THE INTERNETZ.

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, I'll do this. There is no good reason to be moral.

 

[Stinker]

The reason to try to be moral is that it raises self-esteem, self-respect, and it garners the respect of those around us. It is an excellent example for the young to follow. For the believer, in case he or she is in a position to reap a great worldly reward by doing something they wouldn't otherwise do, and no other person would ever find out about it, their religion will remind them that God will be very disappointed in them. So accountability would be a good example of why everyone should be moral. For even the unbeliever must always gamble that they will never have to be held accountable to others for doing something that they would not otherwise do.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

But why be moral if no one is looking?

Maybe theism is a good thing. Apparently it keeps pretty twisted people from fulfilling their desires. I mean...are you serious? You'd rape, murder, steal, attack if you thought no-one was looking?

...scary.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Given the argument that u cant be moral without god, why would you even have a desire to be moral?

"clarification"
This is the you cant be moral without god argument so in this case we are assuming god hasnt put any morality in us already. We are immoral or amoral without god. So why would we even care to be moral?

Is it moral to want to be moral? This cant be since we are not moral without god so how can we even try?

Prison.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Maybe theism is a good thing. Apparently it keeps pretty twisted people from fulfilling their desires. I mean...are you serious? You'd rape, murder, steal, attack if you thought no-one was looking?

...scary.

It's interesting Robbie, "in nature" , murder, doesn't exist, stealing is acceptable and even the height of good behavior, attacking others that are different is commonplace and it doesn't matter if someone is looking or not looking?

How did homo sapiens evolve to reject such very effective means of thriving?

As we both can see, mercy and justice make no sense at all in making the world a better place for an individual.

Like the Humanist Manifesto III says:

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.


Show me the morality in a pride of lions or a herd of Zebras?

 

[Supernaut]

Show me the morality in a pride of lions or a herd of Zebras?

You have to get through the mane and read between the stripes! DUH

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

It's interesting Robbie, "in nature" , murder, doesn't exist, stealing is acceptable and even the height of good behavior, attacking others that are different is commonplace and it doesn't matter if someone is looking or not looking?

I have never said that what happens 'naturally' for some animals is a model for how humans should act...why would you think that?

How did homo sapiens evolve to reject such very effective means of thriving?

We formed hunter-gatherer communities, started farming together...you'd have to speak to an evolutionary biologist to get the details.

As we both can see, mercy and justice make no sense at all in making the world a better place for an individual.

I don't agree at all.

Like the Humanist Manifesto III says:

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

And where does that say we should act like we are less evolved? We don't have to be on a divinely ordained different level to other animals just to realise that we are more intellectually and socially developed, and should act like it.

Also, where did I say that I treat the Humanist Manifesto like infallible scripture? Not that I disagree with the above clause in the slightest, but you seem to be consistently making the mistake of thinking that Humanist is to Humanist Manifesto as Evangelical is to Bible. I don't believe in a deity, nor do I believe in infallibility. And I'm not a member of a tightly regulated organisation that tells me how to act and think. To expect me to believe the same as every other humanist is consequently absurd.

Show me the morality in a pride of lions or a herd of Zebras

Again, you're confusing biologist with humanist. I'm fairly certain lions live by agreed rules whereby the male cares for the children and the female hunts, brings back the prey and shares with the group. But it's been a while since I've been to a zoo, so I could be wrong. I'm not sure about zebras, but they are beautiful animals.