Why should we act morally?

[repentandbelieve]

"Surely"? Is it impossible that God might *not* have the best interests of society at heart? Do you know that there are places in the Bible that specifically and clearly state that God's desire is more important than man's interests?

The Bible says that God is good and in Him is no darkness. with that being said, it is impossible that God would do something not good. God's desire for man is in complete harmony with what is in mans best interest.
That's whay it is so important for man to trust God.

 

[Mekkala]

The Bible says that God is good and in Him is no darkness. with that being said, it is impossible that God would do something not good. God's desire for man is in complete harmony with what is in mans best interest.
That's whay it is so important for man to trust God.

I understand that this is what you believe, and that's fine -- I'm addressing the question of why I should feel that God's rules (as laid down in the Bible) are best for society? You said that they are; I disagree. The Bible may say that God is good, but that is no guarantee to me, an atheist, that it is so. That is only evidence if I already believe that the Bible is true, which I do not.

 

[Marz Blak]

Ok, so if people innately balance these desires shouldn't the goal of any ethical system be individual hapiness?

Again with the 'should.' But apart from that, I'd agree with you to the extent that by 'should' you mean 'makes sense to', with the added proviso that to many if not most people maximizing their own individual happiness necessarily entails taking the overall happiness of other about whom they care into consideration as well. Evolved as a social animal and all that sociobiological stuff....

Christian ethics cannot be correct then. I was hoping for some Christian opposition (b/c this is the Christian forums), but I guess there aren't very many in this board (philo and morality).
(Marz Blak: I don't know if you saw the last post on the first page...where is the brightline between balancing individual vs. societal interests?)

As to the Christians, I have my own problems with third-party-subjective ethical systems (e.g., Divine Command Theories) of ethics, but I won't presume to speak from their perspective. And I don't believe that there is or 'should be' a bright line....

 

[seebs]

I was doing some light reading about the concept of morality, and I was curious, why should people act morally? I know that people have different conceptions of what is moral, but independantly, of the morality of specific actions, why should an individual act morally?

Because it's a tautology. Moral actions are those you "should" take. Morality is the question of how we should act. That's it.

 

[Marz Blak]

Because it's a tautology. Moral actions are those you "should" take. Morality is the question of how we should act. That's it.

Good answer, probably about the most succinct one possible. I took the question to intend to dig a bit deeper--to be examining the question of why one should assert a morality at all, or perhaps why people do assert the real existence of moral prescriptives; but maybe I read a bit into the question that wasn't there.

 

[Ave Maria]

I was doing some light reading about the concept of morality, and I was curious, why should people act morally? I know that people have different conceptions of what is moral, but independantly, of the morality of specific actions, why should an individual act morally?

Well, let's think about this for a moment. What would the world be like if people didn't act morally? There are definitely some people who don't act morally in today's world but what if everyone chose not to act morally? Well, I'd be willing to bet that the world would be in utter chaos! The crime rate would go up and there would just be general chaos. Of course, our true standard of morality is the Bible and not everyone follows that but we can still have a world without utter chaos if people follow the basic moral standards such as don't steal, don't kill, and don't commit violent acts.

 

[AraqirG]

(sorry to revive the semi-old thread. I was at work)

The answer to that question depends on the moral code of the person you're asking. If someone's moral code is, "Whatever God thinks I ought to do," then the answer is, "Because God thinks I ought to do it."

ok, and that is circular, for anyone who doesn't accept there is no rational reason to accept Christian ethics even if they accept Christian metaphysics.

In my case, I consider morality a set of guidelines defining which actions are harmful to society and which are not. That being the case, it's pretty obvious why I act morally, isn't it? If society is harmed, that's a bad thing for all of us, and so it's in our best interest to avoid actions that harm society.

First, do you mean utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number)?
But why do ethics serve the collective? Why not the individual? How about if I am the only person who acts immorally in a society Lets say I can get away with any crime I want. If I steal, the communtity is harmed, but I benefit (for the sake of the argument, assume that the person doesn't percieve what some of the atheists are calling the socio-biological function of morality). So you say we act morally only to the extent that I am not hurt. The ultimate goal of your ethical system is individual hapiness or welfare. Thus, I act morally in order to prevent harms to society that would eventually harm me?

I believe that morality lies the the heart of all humans , and thats why we were able to come up with the moral standards we have today . We humans need a boost at an early age to discover what is moral but once we get older we start figuring things out by ourself , we dont have to continue being fed information on what is moral .

aka, socio-biological funtion
when you say comes from "the heart" I assume this was ment to figurative, correct?

God gave humans a mind to figure out how we should treat each other on our own . A mind to think and reason - to act like a selfish immoral prick is the same as throwing away your god given reason , which is why most immoral people are often considered stupid .

When you say "selfish immoral prick", are you saying being selfish is immoral? or were those independant traits?

Christian ethics are circular. They form a perfect circle that cannot be broken. Everything ties together, nothing can creep into it and nothing can be taken out of it.

I am afraid it is also a logical fallacy. Its like saying that God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist, or in a syllogism
Premise: God doesn't exist
Conclusion: God doesn't exist
Unless you accept the premise, there is no reason to accept the conclusion.
How can something creep in? A position can be cohesive/tied together yet not circular, in fact, it must not be circular to be cohesive.

But in response to your question, "for what reason should we do what is right" I say this. The love of God compels a christian to do what is right. It's the law of love. Love begets love. We love Him because he first loved us.

So if my high school teacher loves me, I must love them? Whats the prove to the "law of love"? And for what reason does God's love compel someone to act in a certain way?

I ussually do what is right because I feel that is what is intended as right .

Circular again.

God doesn't think we ought to act morally, he commands it.

But why does it make sense to do something b/c God commands it?

"Surely"? Is it impossible that God might *not* have the best interests of society at heart? Do you know that there are places in the Bible that specifically and clearly state that God's desire is more important than man's interests?

Antropocentism at its best

"Gods always behave like the people who created them"

Again with the 'should.' But apart from that, I'd agree with you to the extent that by 'should' you mean 'makes sense to', with the added proviso that to many if not most people maximizing their own individual happiness necessarily entails taking the overall happiness of other about whom they care into consideration as well. Evolved as a social animal and all that sociobiological stuff....

sorry, its a habit.
What about the person who doesn't care about anyone due to a psycological disorder?

Because it's a tautology. Moral actions are those you "should" take. Morality is the question of how we should act. That's it.

Good answer, probably about the most succinct one possible. I took the question to intend to dig a bit deeper--to be examining the question of why one should assert a morality at all, or perhaps why people do assert the real existence of moral prescriptives; but maybe I read a bit into the question that wasn't there.

lol, I wrote the question, and I missed that part..

Well, let's think about this for a moment. What would the world be like if people didn't act morally? There are definitely some people who don't act morally in today's world but what if everyone chose not to act morally? Well, I'd be willing to bet that the world would be in utter chaos! The crime rate would go up and there would just be general chaos. Of course, our true standard of morality is the Bible and not everyone follows that but we can still have a world without utter chaos if people follow the basic moral standards such as don't steal, don't kill, and don't commit violent acts.

first of all, your post assumes everyone acts immorally. For what reason does it make sense for me to act morally?
Just b/c utter chaos might arise, so what? What if I like utter chaos?

 

[TasManOfGod]

If we can believe that our whole being has been created by God then His advice about how to live must surely be the best advice going.
Are you suggesting that the created knows better than the creator?
Do you look in a GM manual to know how to operate a Ford?

 

[repentandbelieve]

I believe that morality lies the the heart of all humans , and thats why we were able to come up with the moral standards we have today . We humans need a boost at an early age to discover what is moral but once we get older we start figuring things out by ourself , we dont have to continue being fed information on what is moral .

God gave humans a mind to figure out how we should treat each other on our own . A mind to think and reason - to act like a selfish immoral prick is the same as throwing away your god given reason , which is why most immoral people are often considered stupid .

The scriptures say that God would write His laws upon our hearts and He will be our God and we will be His people.

 

[repentandbelieve]

I understand that this is what you believe, and that's fine -- I'm addressing the question of why I should feel that God's rules (as laid down in the Bible) are best for society? You said that they are; I disagree. The Bible may say that God is good, but that is no guarantee to me, an atheist, that it is so. That is only evidence if I already believe that the Bible is true, which I do not.

The question is why should someone act morally, not what morality is.

My answer is because it please God.

I can understand that this answer is difficult to understand or accept by someone who doesn't know God.

There are some things I think are true, some things I believe are true and some things I know are true. A couple of things I know are true is that God is good and that God is trustworthy.

 

[slayer-2004]

And my answer is it is best for all life , best for the balance in nature , and I wouldnt be surprised if its what god intended as well ( Why would god give us the ability to think morally if it wasnt so ? ) .

 

[Anovah]

I was doing some light reading about the concept of morality, and I was curious, why should people act morally? I know that people have different conceptions of what is moral, but independantly, of the morality of specific actions, why should an individual act morally?

Because of empathy and respect.

 

[Philosoft]

The question is why should someone act morally, not what morality is.

My answer is because it please God.

I can understand that this answer is difficult to understand or accept by someone who doesn't know God.

There are some things I think are true, some things I believe are true and some things I know are true. A couple of things I know are true is that God is good and that God is trustworthy.

What you're describing isn't morality, it's obedience.

 

[slayer-2004]

What you're describing isn't morality, it's obedience.

Or stage 4 on Kohlberg's stages of morality . Blind obiediance , but in reality you wouldnt be able to follow morality if the law you based it on suddenly didnt exist and you would backtrack .

True morality is more based on a selfless understanding of the universe , and following what you believe is right based on what you believe would benefit people and life as we know it .

 

[slayer-2004]

Its also possible to be stage 1 , punishment obedience orientation in some Xian cases .

Stage 4 is more of law and order to clarify , as my last post made 4 sound like 1 .

 

[Philosoft]

Doesn't Kohlberg place obedience in Stage 1 - Pre-morality or whatever he calls it? Piaget does the same, I think.

 

[repentandbelieve]

What you're describing isn't morality, it's obedience.

. Thats because I see the coralation between acting morally and obeying God. It's really very simple and basic to understand once love for God is supreme.

 

[repentandbelieve]

Or stage 4 on Kohlberg's stages of morality . Blind obiediance , but in reality you wouldnt be able to follow morality if the law you based it on suddenly didnt exist and you would backtrack .

True morality is more based on a selfless understanding of the universe , and following what you believe is right based on what you believe would benefit people and life as we know it .

The key word in what you said is "selfless". The life of Jesus is a perfect example of selflessness. Anyone following Jesus' example of selflessness will have perfect morals. Those who love Jesus will want to be like him.

 

[Philosoft]

. Thats because I see the coralation between acting morally and obeying God. It's really very simple and basic to understand once love for God is supreme.

But you aren't acting out of a sense of moral duty. Objectively, an action is moral if it is intrinsically right. However, according to your system, the rightness or wrongness of the action itself is subordinate to whether or not God approves of it.

 

[Nathan David]

<Devils Advocate>
So we only act morally to the extent that we feel guilty? What about those individuals who don't feel that sense of guilt? Why do they act morally?

Because if they didn't they would likely be ostracized or imprisoned by the rest of society.