Morality: Its source/authority/enforcement

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is the following reasonable? If so/not, why?

Source: Morality is inherent only among non-innocent creatures--that is those with full self-awareness.

Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter in order to enable the exercise of our moral free will with complete autonomy, any moral code must be its own universal authority. From prehistory forward, moral authority has progressed from the family/clan, through religious taboo and finally to government law. We can use government corruption as an excuse to undermine that law and regress back to a more local chaotic anarchy where might makes right; or we can rationally determine a universal simple/limited moral code that governs human interactions alone.

Enforcement: From there, enforcement of such a limited code is much simpler than the irrational, chaotic, double standard, ever changing tentacles of the corrupt legal behemoths we have now. And enforcement must have justice as it's ultimate goal if that comes in conflict with protecting the sanctity of the law--which its self-serving practitioners tend to protect beyond reason.

[YahDough]

Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter

Actually the "ten commandments" were written by the "hand" of God Himself on a "platter" of stone tablets. So this argument fails. Those commandments are the foundation of moral behavior.

Enforcement: From there, enforcement of such a limited code is much simpler than the irrational, chaotic, double standard, ever changing tentacles of the corrupt legal behemoths we have now. And enforcement must have justice as it's ultimate goal if that comes in conflict with protecting the sanctity of the law--which its self-serving practitioners tend to protect beyond reason.

That sounds reasonable and what probably led to God's new covenant based on faith rather than law. It seems to me, then, that conscience becomes the compass by which personal moral reasoning is made.

[Divine Insight]

Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter

Actually the "ten commandments" were written by the "hand" of God Himself on a "platter" of stone tablets. So this argument fails. Those commandments are the foundation of moral behavior.

We have no reason to believe that his claim is anything more than an ancient superstitious myth.

Moreover, aren't the first four of those commandments all about this God demanding that only he should be worshiped and how we are to go about it?

What does that have to do with morality?

[YahDough]

Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter

Actually the "ten commandments" were written by the "hand" of God Himself on a "platter" of stone tablets. So this argument fails. Those commandments are the foundation of moral behavior.

We have no reason to believe that his claim is anything more than an ancient superstitious myth.

So your argument is that you don't have a reason to believe it. Those who are saved do have a reason.

Moreover, aren't the first four of those commandments all about this God demanding that only he should be worshiped and how we are to go about it

Moral behavior should start with our relationship to God. Then we can gain insight on the other six commandments as we relate to people.

[Divine Insight]

So your argument is that you don't have a reason to believe it. Those who are saved do have a reason.

Those who are saved from what?

The hateful wrath of this God?

Also it's not that I don't have a reason to believe in Christianity mythology.

On the contrary, I have extremely valid reasons for dismissing it as nothing more than utterly absurd superstitions. Including the absurd superstition that you need to be "saved" from the wrath of a supposedly loving God.

If that's not an oxymoron I don't know what is.

[YahDough]

So your argument is that you don't have a reason to believe it. Those who are saved do have a reason.

Those who are saved from what?

Damnation and/or Everlasting Death

The hateful wrath of this God?

God's vengeance/wrath accomplishes justice against the wicked.

Also it's not that I don't have a reason to believe in Christianity mythology.
On the contrary, I have extremely valid reasons for dismissing it as nothing more than utterly absurd superstitions. Including the absurd superstition that you need to be "saved" from the wrath of a supposedly loving God.

Don't you appreciate justice? Do you expect wickedness to be ignored forever?

[Baz]

Our morality is more or less a product of our history. The basics taught to us as children and developed throughout our lives depending on our personal experiences, social environment etc.

If to behave morally is to behave the best way we can; then how we behave today should be the best way we can within our social environment.

It’s not difficult to make good socially moral decisions, if personal interests are disregarded.




.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 7 by Baz]

But that's a sliding scale, chasing after the moving goal posts of society, government and religion.

The common wisdom after the repeal of Prohibition (of alcohol) was that "you can't legislate morality". First of all drinking alcohol per se isn't immoral (though what you use it as an excuse for can be), and morality is the ONLY thing that should be legislated. That's the problem, all the other arguably virtuous behavior that's been erroneously grouped in with morality. Morality should only be the prohibition of behavior where the rights of someone to their life, liberty, property and self-defense are violated.

[Unhand Me Sir]

Morality should only be the prohibition of behavior where the rights of someone to their life, liberty, property and self-defense are violated.

A very non-standard use of the word "morality."

[ThePainefulTruth]

Morality should only be the prohibition of behavior where the rights of someone to their life, liberty, property and self-defense are violated.

A very non-standard use of the word "morality."

Unfortunately, that's true. The problem is all the subjective individual virtues that have been piled into the category of morality. Half of the Ten Commandments (any punishment, much less stoning someone for gathering sticks on the sabbath, is not only wrong, it's evil), and most of the (500?) other prohibitions in the O/T don't deal with rules that protect our individual rights. It's nobody's concern what we do on Sunday as long as we're not violating the rights of others.

Should we invent two new words to highlight these two principles that should have been distinguished from each other, or should we not just try to clarify what's been done to them, and why? I think the latter is much more instructive.