I would like to explain how it is possible to be ethical (or the equivalent) and not have a faith-based moral code.
We as secular/agnostic/non-religious people do not believe that there will be eternal reprecussions for our actions. Many religious people take this to mean we have no regard for others, but this could not be further from the truth.
We have the equivalent of a moral code, but its reprecussions are not defined by eternal torment but rather social consequences. We act in a way that is positive to human harmony, and we condemn actions that are not conducive to this goal.
I am a libertarian, so for me this means that serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, and all other repeat, incurable offenders are inherently dangerous to healthy society and therfore must be dealt with accordingly (that was a fancy way of saying kill them.) The key difference here is that I/we do not believe in sending a murderer to jail simply for being put in a situation where it was the natural instinct to kill.
The reason for this we draw from nature: if a wolf kills a bear cub, the mother bear will seek out the wolf and kill it. This is represented (but not acted upon) in the "justice" system by the phrase "extreme emotional distress." The fact is that animals, humans included, are simply hardwired this way, and if the person is not likely to repeat the offense and therefore be hazardous to the greater good, it is not our place to condemn them for simply
being human, when almost anyone would do what they did in the same situation.
So, I hope you can see how secular ethics are not that different from religious morals.
~Hun-Saka!~
We as secular/agnostic/non-religious people do not believe that there will be eternal reprecussions for our actions. Many religious people take this to mean we have no regard for others, but this could not be further from the truth.
We have the equivalent of a moral code, but its reprecussions are not defined by eternal torment but rather social consequences. We act in a way that is positive to human harmony, and we condemn actions that are not conducive to this goal.
I am a libertarian, so for me this means that serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, and all other repeat, incurable offenders are inherently dangerous to healthy society and therfore must be dealt with accordingly (that was a fancy way of saying kill them.) The key difference here is that I/we do not believe in sending a murderer to jail simply for being put in a situation where it was the natural instinct to kill.
The reason for this we draw from nature: if a wolf kills a bear cub, the mother bear will seek out the wolf and kill it. This is represented (but not acted upon) in the "justice" system by the phrase "extreme emotional distress." The fact is that animals, humans included, are simply hardwired this way, and if the person is not likely to repeat the offense and therefore be hazardous to the greater good, it is not our place to condemn them for simply
being human, when almost anyone would do what they did in the same situation.
So, I hope you can see how secular ethics are not that different from religious morals.
~Hun-Saka!~
