Where do other people get moral systems?

[seebs]

So... If your moral system doesn't fall back on "God says so"... Where do you get it? For those of you who haven't decided to get all buddy-buddy with Jesus, but still think killing is wrong... Why? What are the underlying values you take as axioms that lead you to this conclusion? Social upbringing? Careful reasoning from a priori principles?

 

[Julie]

The conscience is an inherited moral and ethical knowledge and awareness that intellectually and emotionally guides us in differing between good and evil.
Julie

 

[stu]

morals can come from all diffrent places... the most common (and some mistakenly say only) is religion. Most Agnostics/Atheists use reasoning. and sometimes this set of morals can be more effective then Religious oriented systems.

Atheists don't have the "God wills it", "god told me" cop out that religion does.

stu

 

[tyler4588]

As a Christian person, I think that atheists and agnostics would get their morals from themselves. It doesn't benefit a person to steal and go to jail, does it? You don't need God for morals, although thats where I get mine.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by stu
morals can come from all diffrent places... the most common (and some mistakenly say only) is religion. Most Agnostics/Atheists use reasoning. and sometimes this set of morals can be more effective then Religious oriented systems.

Atheists don't have the "God wills it", "god told me" cop out that religion does.

No offense stu, but this was a *masterful* missing of the point, as well as begging the question.

Where do you *START* your reasoning? I *START* from "love thy neighbor as thyself", and it turns out that everything works out great from there. One axiom, lots of reasoning, and I defy you to find a clear example of immoral behavior that isn't prohibited, or moral behavior that isn't allowed, by my "religious oriented" system.

So... You reason. Reason from what? Where do you come up with the basic premises and value judgements on which you will base your answers?

 

[kern]

When I was agnostic, my moral system was based on a "do unto others" rule, or perhaps something closer to the wicca "do what you will provided it harms no one". Under this type of agnostic system, killing is wrong because you are depriving another person of life. Stealing is wrong because you are depriving them of their property. Lying is wrong because of the potential harm that can come through the lie (although certain kinds of lies are OK). Pre-marital consensual sex is fine as long as proper precautions are take Pornography is fine because the people in the films consented to be in them, and you are not directly harming someone by viewing them. Cussing is fine as long as you are not offending someone. So on (please note that this does not reflect my *current* belief system, this is how I thought when I was agnostic.)

Some of the previous are debatable even within the agnostic system. Some people think pornography is wrong even without any religious objections. I have met people who did not believe that offending someone (even purposely) was morally wrong. So there is some debate over the particulars, but some of them are almost universal -- it would be hard to find someone who had any sort of moral code that said cold-blooded murder was okay.

-Chris

 

[crazyfingers]

Our morals come from the values that we are first taught as children. As we grow we learn how to evaluate those values and alter them if we believe they need altering.

My morality comes from the Golden Rule (first written down, I believe, by the Hindu long before the OT was written and then used again by Confucius around 500bc) and empathy for others.

It has worked well for me.

But ultimately I do not believe that morals or values can be shown to be objectively true – meaning we can’t prove they are right. But that doesn’t mean that people can’t agree on a set of values that are beneficial and fair for all.

 

[E-beth]

I personally have issue with Christians who say they believe in something just because God says so.. I have to take it one step father and ask WHY does God say so. He doesn't make rules just to get His kicks...

My morality, coupled with the ordinates written in the Bible, is also the "do unto others" thing.

It seems, though, that morality is subjective to one's culture. If a kid is shown and taught that the law is a nuisance and hurting people is OK, what would show him otherwise?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by E-beth

It seems, though, that morality is subjective to one's culture. If a kid is shown and taught that the law is a nuisance and hurting people is OK, what would show him otherwise?

Empathy and some level of honesty. I'm told that the lack of either is considered by some to be a mental disorder.

I read a fascinating book titled _People of the Lie_ which presents the opinion, in essence, that evil is a measurable psychological disorder. I'm not sure I buy all the reasoning, but the examples given of evil people were, well... *evil*. And they were always *dishonest*; I don't think you can be evil honestly. There's always *SOME* lie at the foundation of it.

Keep in mind, modern "enlightened" ethics are, in no small part, the result of people looking at something that was simply accepted as a fact of life, and saying "Hang on, this isn't right."

 

[E-beth]

So whaddya think about the articles and TV shows about how the Taliban and other militant groups that recruit young poor kids at a young age and "train" them? And did the Branch Davidian children have second thoughts about weapons and violence which went against all they were taught?

It just seems to me that if a child was taught that something we consider to be immoral is OK from day one, he or she would have no conscience about it being wrong.

Of course, the Bible says that once you know something is wrong and do it anyway, it is sin. But that is a whole different thread in a different forum.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by E-beth
So whaddya think about the articles and TV shows about how the Taliban and other militant groups that recruit young poor kids at a young age and "train" them? And did the Branch Davidian children have second thoughts about weapons and violence which went against all they were taught?

You do hear of people raised in those cultures who end up with doubts... So, I think it can happen. It can be hard, though.

My understanding is that the Branch Davidians weren't particularly violent, they were just uncooperative. I suspect that a peaceful solution could have been reached if it had been the top priority, rather than a distant second or third place, for the government forces. I am unaware of reasonable evidence that the cultists were threatening or harming anyone, except by being weird and almost certainly wrong.

 

[Freodin]

Empathy is a major point. The "do unto others" rule is a fixation of empathy - a projection of your own feelings on other humans.

And here is the key to immorality: dehumanisation. Claim that the targets of your behaviour are not human beings, and everything you do, is justifiable.

For you are not dealing with humans, who might have the same emotions as you, but with Evil, Spawns of Satan, the Enemy, Untermenschen.

I get my moral code from assuming that my opposite IS human.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Freodin

And here is the key to immorality: dehumanisation. Claim that the targets of your behaviour are not human beings, and everything you do, is justifiable.

Indeed. In a twisted sort of way, racism was a small step forwards for human morality; it marked the acceptance of clear rules for appropriate behavior towards other *people*, through the creation of a class of people ("everyone not just like me") who didn't count. Without the basic idea that humans had rights, the idea of "extending" them would be meaningless.

 

[Brimshack]

I tend to agree with Sartre that the desire to help others need not be rationalized. And I think a lot of the effort to find a rational basis for morality is a bit overdoing it. As if decency really rested on having the proper theory. (Actually, there may be some parallel to the faith versus belief thing here.)

If push comes to shove though, I do think that morality consists largely of intersubjective relations. Our own self-knowledge is intimately linked to our knowledge of others. So, one cannot treat others as objects without reducing the meaning of his own actions and statements. So, I tend to think of ethical questions largely in terms of the categorical imperative.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Brimshack
I tend to agree with Sartre that the desire to help others need not be rationalized. And I think a lot of the effort to find a rational basis for morality is a bit overdoing it. As if decency really rested on having the proper theory. (Actually, there may be some parallel to the faith versus belief thing here.)

There is indeed! In the end, we help others, not because of *ANY* argument, but because *WE KNOW IT IS RIGHT*. This knowledge is so basic in us that its lack is widely considered a mental disorder.

It's faith, pure and simple. Empasis on "pure", I think.

 

[Neo]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein

 

[Gunny]

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." - George Washington

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." - George Washington

George Washington was a Deist.

 

[Gunny]

Was George Washington a Christian

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
Was George Washington a Christian

No, he wasn't. But he did believe in God, he was a deist.

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm
http://exchristian.net/xtains/washington.html