By what standard do you measure right and wrong...or do you?

[tcay584]

Just curious,
Ok, Ok, Ok, I'm an avowed christian. I am genuinely curious as to how those of another thought pattern develop their sense of right and wrong. What standard do you hold yourselves to, and why?

[TQWcS]

What does it take to see that causing pain is bad? Does that require anything complicated?

You may see it at as bad but what is your system of morality to someone elses? Without God we have no reason to act morally or to say what morality is. Read a book like The Stranger by Albert Camus, The Virtues of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, Thus Spoke Zorathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche. As Dostoyevsky put it, "Without God all things are permissable."

[Jose]

Without God we have no reason to act morally...

Except that we do. That's what the evolutionary part of it is. Natural selection has bred it into us. It really doesn't help me to be moral if you say "God's gonna punish me if I'm immoral." Nor does it help me if you say "God will reward me if I'm moral." After all, it's you telling me that, not God--as it is with all of religion. It's just people telling me they know what God wants, and all I have to do is believe them. But which story do I believe? There are so many.

[TQWcS]

The point of the books I listed is that it is silly to do so without God. To what purpose are we acting morally and what is morallity? If our lives are but a brief moment in time shouldn't we live only for ourselves? This is what Ayn Rand has to say on the matter she said that selfishness is the only true morality.

[Jose]

The point of the books I listed is that it is silly to do so without God. To what purpose are we acting morally and what is morality? If our lives are but a brief moment in time shouldn't we live only for ourselves? This is what Ayn Rand has to say on the matter she said that selfishness is the only true morality.

Ayn Rand wasn't thinking evolutionarily. Being good to your neighbors encourages them to be good to you. Being good to your relatives helps them prosper. Being good to the members of your tribe helps the whole tribe prosper. All of these are behaviors that are selected for--because they all help your genes get passed on to later generations.

Sure, we can override the instincts that we are born with, and "live only for ourselves," but often living only for ourselves turns out to include the moral behaviors that make us feel good. This won't be true for everyone, however, since genetically-coded traits are variable. It's probably also true that our history of having wars with everyone who is different has selected for agressive and anti-moral behaviors, so there's probably some balance between moral and anti-moral traits.

[Piper Plexed]

Without God we have no reason to act morally...

Except that we do. That's what the evolutionary part of it is. Natural selection has bred it into us. It really doesn't help me to be moral if you say "God's gonna punish me if I'm immoral." Nor does it help me if you say "God will reward me if I'm moral." After all, it's you telling me that, not God--as it is with all of religion. It's just people telling me they know what God wants, and all I have to do is believe them. But which story do I believe? There are so many.

Wouldn't natural selection reinforce pain in that we would feel compelled to remove weaker members of the race i.e. developmentally disable, the sensory impaired etc.? Maybe I am wrong, though I thought that breeding and food supply have always been motivators in the process of natural selection. It would seem to me that our morality has actually created an atmosphere where we go to great lengths to protect our weakest. I remember when I worked for UCP first out of College and one of the challenges we had to face on the treatment team was the legalities as well as issues relating to 2 clients that wished to marry, one was mildly retarded with Down Syndrome and the other had Cerebral Palsy. The team supported it and felt obliged to accommodate the clients though the families had reservations not so much for the clients though were concerned for the potential offspring (the concerns revolved around money and child support, hmmm that is sorta like modern mans version of food, so maybe the family engaged in a bit of natural selection). Unfortunately I was not around for the outcome as I had moved onto a NY State position prior to the resolution. I guess my point is that when it comes to man I tend to think that morals may supersede base animal instinct of natural selection or at the very least we are tending that way.

[Vianne]

Wouldn't natural selection reinforce pain in that we would feel compelled to remove weaker members of the race i.e. developmentally disable, the sensory impaired etc.? ... I guess my point is that when it comes to man I tend to think that morals may supersede base animal instinct of natural selection or at the very least we are tending that way.

That's true. Back in the days when acquiring food and escaping large predators with big teeth were the main career goals, picking off the weakest of the bunch was a sound move.

But today, we've caged all the animals with big teeth, or killed them to eat. Now that we've evolved past raw fear, and the weakest members of society have been allowed to live, we've learned that they, too, can contribute to society, and should thus be treated with the same respect the strong members are.

Once we advanced beyond mere survival, morals were allowed to develop ... and not just because a deity imposed them on us. You'll notice the Native Americans displayed kindness and generosity to their guests, (without the benefit of the Ten Commandments to threaten them into doing so) the Christians, who while "morally superior" turned around and slaughtered them.

Come to think of it, the Native Americans also had to hunt for food and escape from big predators. And yet they showed more respect for the earth and mankind than the Christians did. Hmm. Maybe nature and plain common sense really does provide all the morality we need.

Vianne

[TQWcS]

Jose your whole argument is a Naturalistic fallacy. You are basing your agrument on the fact that we act a certain way and then adding a value judgement to this fact. Just because we have certain inclinations to act a certain way does not mean this way is good or even logical.

Nietzsche pointed out once we realize the implications of our atheism then we will see the absurdity of life and and the absurdity of acting morally. My question is why should we act morally if God does not exist.

[mrmufin]

If our lives are but a brief moment in time shouldn't we live only for ourselves? This is what Ayn Rand has to say on the matter she said that selfishness is the only true morality.

Actually, Ayn Rand had quite a bit more to say about morality than just that. If I recall correctly, John Galt's radio address in Atlas Shrugged was some 65 or 70 pages.

I'll also point out that some skeptics might not have a whole lot of use for Ms. Rand. As for me... well, let's just say that I prefer Roald Dahl. But then again, I prefer Frank Zappa to J.S. Bach, Raymond Carver to William Faulkner, Dr. Seuss to P.D. Eastman, and I Love Lucy to Leave It to Beaver. While I do enjoy Bach, Eastman, the Beave, and (to a lesser extent) Faulkner, fun matters.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ENIGMA]

Nietzsche pointed out once we realize the implications of our atheism then we will see the absurdity of life and and the absurdity of acting morally. My question is why should we act morally if God does not exist.

I've put a good bit of thought into this (albeit a non-trivial portion of it on my way back to dorm at 5 AM after an all-nighter), and here's what I've come up with:

Morality requires at least two moral actors(I do not mean good per se, but someone that understands/can use morality) in any given situation to have any sort of valid moral judgement, i.e.:

It was wrong for me to lie to my classmate.

In that case, there are two moral actors, me, and the classmate. If one of us were not moral actors then there would be no moral issue. i.e:

It was wrong for the hammer to slip off the shelf and hit me on the head.
It was wrong for me to break the axe's handle.

In the first case it is not an issue of morality since the hammer is not a moral actor, and thus has no moral accountability for its actions. In the second case, it is not an issue of morality since the axe is not a moral actor and thus is not wronged when you break it. These only involve morality if there is another moral actor that is involved somehow, such as someone pushing the hammer or the axe belonging to someone else who would very much prefer it in one piece.

There are a number of instances of morality which this doesn't seem to be the case, but in fact is, such as:

It is wrong for me to do drugs.

can be easily replaced by:

(Society/Church/Parents teach that) it is wrong for me to do drugs.

which essentially involves one moral actor imposing their will on you or anyone else who qualifies. Thus ultimately morality is a means of determining whether and in what manner should one moral actor impose their will on another or on themselves.

Morality is, at base, moral actors regulating the actions of each other. So the question then becomes for what reason is such regulation necessary?

Without at least a degree of regulation of each other's actions, no significant amount of cooperation can occur and, left to isolation, the would-be moral actors are perpetually risking regulation by the one non-moral actor that can regulate, Nature.

Nature decrees that people must eat, drink, keep healthy, don't get injured too often, etc if they are to survive, and only then for a fairly limited amount of time. Nature is extraordinarily inflexible when it comes to such things, yielding judgement without mercy, and death without trial.

The cooperation allowed by morality enables us to meet, exceed, and sometimes even bend many of the regulations that nature requires us to have. Thus by developing a "group morality" which allows us to act together on a basis of mutual gain, or at the very least gain of one without loss of the other, we are, in fact, more free to live our lives than we were previously. Individual morality is simply an individual moral actor's means of regluating themselves so that they need not deal with the prospect of having to be regulated by others.

So now, what consitutes the basis for a good morality? I'm not entirely sure, really (Nice big let down after all of that...I know). What I do have is a couple general ideas to start from:

1) Morality should not apply to a given moral actor's actions unless they have a legitimate effect on another moral actor.

2) How good or how bad a given action is considered should inherently depend on the effect of the action, and of the action intended, not on the recipient of the action.

If something doesn't trip up on either one of these two rules, then I would consider it a reasonable part of a moral code.

[TQWcS]

If something doesn't trip up on either one of these two rules, then I would consider it a reasonable part of a moral code.

Good points. However, it still does not answer the question why should one act this way if they do not believe in God and they realize the absurdity of life.