Where do you get your morals from?

[EarthScienceguy]

Many believe that as long as it does not hurt anyone else it is morally right to do.

So would it be morally right to let someone walk off a cliff?

Our laws states that it we need to wear a seat belt because it is unsafe not to wear a seat belt but that has not always been the case.

Many in Europe where convinced into believing that it was for the public good to eliminate certain segments of the population.

Many of the societies that God had Israel destroy were societies that sacrificed children and babies for the parents well being. Like abortion today is for the good of the parents.

So how do you determine your morality?

[Clownboat]

Many believe that as long as it does not hurt anyone else it is morally right to do.

So would it be morally right to let someone walk off a cliff?

Our laws states that it we need to wear a seat belt because it is unsafe not to wear a seat belt but that has not always been the case.

Many in Europe where convinced into believing that it was for the public good to eliminate certain segments of the population.

Many of the societies that God had Israel destroy were societies that sacrificed children and babies for the parents well being. Like abortion today is for the good of the parents.

So how do you determine your morality?

I think for myself.
To get morality from unknown desert goat herders from thousands of years ago for example is one place a person should not get their morality from IMO.

Next thing you know we are justified in killing witches or enslaving our fellow humans.

Unfortunately, it seems as though we have a shortage of those that think for themselves on this planet. For such people, society has created god concepts to tell them how to think and live. Some god concepts were more successful than others and some still persist to this day.

I think I can safely say that anyone that commits genocide should not be looked at as a source for morality though.

If Hinduism has taught us anything, it is to treat others as we would like to be treated. Some people I trust get this idea all on their own, for others, there was Hinduism and then later Christianity.

[Divine Insight]

Our laws states that it we need to wear a seat belt because it is unsafe not to wear a seat belt but that has not always been the case.

Our laws have nothing at all to do with moral values. Nor should they. The laws requiring the wearing of seat belts can simply be for the protection of the people. It's the government's job to protect its citizens. Questions of morality don't even need to be considered at all.

So how do you determine your morality?

I choose for myself what I deem to be moral (right) or immoral (wrong). And that's all I need to do. I'll be more than happy to be judged based on my own moral values. I don't need to "get my moral values" from some external source.

In fact, if I actually did that then they wouldn't be "my" moral values right?

If I'm going to be judged on my moral values I'd rather be judged based on my own values rather than being judged by some other moral values that have been pushed onto me and that I might not even agree with.

I disagree with the moral values assigned to the God of the Bible. So I wouldn't accept those moral values anyway. And if I did, I would become a pretentious hypocrite since I would know that I don't even agree with those values.

The God of the Bible is extremely immoral IMHO. So I wouldn't even turn to that mythology for moral ideas.

Accepting to have an innocent man crucified to pay for my sins would be extremely immoral IMHO, yet Christianity demands that I must do just that. So I see Christianity as the most immoral religion around. Even Islam doesn't ask us to do such a hideous immoral thing.

[Bust Nak]

So how do you determine your morality?

The same way I determine my music taste, I judge right from wrong by how it makes me feel. As such...

So would it be morally right to let someone walk off a cliff?

It depends on the exact circumstances. There isn't much here to inform my feelings.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat]

Next thing you know we are justified in killing witches or enslaving our fellow humans.

Unfortunately, it seems as though we have a shortage of those that think for themselves on this planet. For such people, society has created god concepts to tell them how to think and live. Some god concepts were more successful than others and some still persist to this day.

The problem with your line of thinking is that atheistic societies have killed many millions. I do not see you rejecting atheism.

Yes there are many things that people did in the name of Christianity. But did it make Christianity grow in numbers or decrease. Take for example the crusades they did not help Christianity grow in the middle east at all. Violence never does help Christianity grow.

Christianity actually grows in numbers when it is under persecution. Take for example the revival that is going on in the middle east right now in which millions are coming to a saving knowledge of Christ. This happens because the power of God is shown in the mist of the persecution.

https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/53 ... down-islam

I think I can safely say that anyone that commits genocide should not be looked at as a source for morality though.

So you would rather of had God let these societies continue to kill their babies and children. You would rather had let God permit these societies to exist and spread their influence. At what point do good men need to stop the madness that is going on in a society.

There were good men in Germany but they did not stand up as a whole and stop the madness that was going on in that society. There were good men in China and Russia but they did not stand up and stop the madness. God stopped the madness in this situation and informed the world that there were consequences for immoral behavior.

If Hinduism has taught us anything, it is to treat others as we would like to be treated. Some people I trust get this idea all on their own, for others, there was Hinduism and then later Christianity.

Hinduism teaches to treat others in your own caste or above the way you would want to be treated. If you like hinduism I hope that you end up in the right caste.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Our laws have nothing at all to do with moral values. Nor should they. The laws requiring the wearing of seat belts can simply be for the protection of the people. It's the government's job to protect its citizens. Questions of morality don't even need to be considered at all.

It is interesting that you believe that it is the government's JOB to protect its citizens from themselves and not from others outside our country. At what point does a country stop protecting its citizens from themselves? When has the government gone to far in protecting citizens from themselves?

Morality plays a huge role in the laws of a nation. The laws of the land is an indication of what the citizens believe is good and what is evil. Abortion used to be illegal but now it is not. Marriage used to be defined as an union between a man and a woman and not it is not.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

So how do you determine your morality?

I choose for myself what I deem to be moral (right) or immoral (wrong). And that's all I need to do. I'll be more than happy to be judged based on my own moral values. I don't need to "get my moral values" from some external source.

Everyone, receives their morality from someone else and then they process the input they receive and if the person or book they were reading was persuasive enough then they deem that idea as moral. If someone is more persuasive well then maybe this new idea is moral. Hitler was very persuasive and convinced millions that it was moral to try to build an aryan race.

If I'm going to be judged on my moral values I'd rather be judged based on my own values rather than being judged by some other moral values that have been pushed onto me and that I might not even agree with.

History judges society on what they believe and allow collectively. For all of human history Germany of the 1930's and 40's will be judged by the morality that they had collectively. Who knows in the future that might actually be a good thing if someone is persuasive enough again. Who knows maybe they will persuade you.

I disagree with the moral values assigned to the God of the Bible. So I wouldn't accept those moral values anyway. And if I did, I would become a pretentious hypocrite since I would know that I don't even agree with those values.

I agree with you. Nobody really wants to follow the morality of the Bible unless God changes their heart.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 13 by Bust Nak]

The same way I determine my music taste, I judge right from wrong by how it makes me feel. As such...

So you predicate your morality on your feelings or how people can make you feel about something. So as long as someone is persuasive enough to engage your feelings your are on board with that view of morality.

So if some Charismatic leader came to power and could make you feel something was moral you would go right along with it.

[Bust Nak]

So you predicate your morality on your feelings or how people can make you feel about something. So as long as someone is persuasive enough to engage your feelings your are on board with that view of morality.

So if some Charismatic leader came to power and could make you feel something was moral you would go right along with it.

Sure. It's a big "if" though, I'd like to see them try as I am highly opinionated. Chances are, the level of persuasiveness would proportional to how closely their words match my pre-existing taste. It would be like attempting to talk someone into liking a piece of music, or liking the taste of a certain dish.

[OnceConvinced]

Many believe that as long as it does not hurt anyone else it is morally right to do.

So would it be morally right to let someone walk off a cliff?

There are tough ones that are hard to answer. This would be one of them I think. It would depend on a number of things. Like for instance, whether you would be putting yourself or others in danger if you tried to stop them. Or just how much you care about this person. Whether this person is a vile criminal (maybe a child rapist). Or for what reason they are doing it (eg to end their own intense suffering). I'm sure there are many other considerations we could take into account too.

But if we go by God's morals we still can't really say whether it's morally wrong or right to let someone walk off a cliff. The bible does not solve the problems people want to believe it does.

Our laws states that it we need to wear a seat belt because it is unsafe not to wear a seat belt but that has not always been the case.

Morally we are expected to follow the laws of the land because it's what's best for society. We all have to live on this planet together and we all want to be safe. We need to have systems in place to prevent others from harming people. We also need to have laws in place due to careless, reckless people being around. Some parents for instance are too stupid not to put seatbelts on their kids. So rules need to be in place to force them to.

Does God say anything about wearing seat belts? No. So going by God's morals, this issue is not resolved.

Many in Europe where convinced into believing that it was for the public good to eliminate certain segments of the population.

Then that is hurting people, which doesn't fit with your opening line in your opening post. So it's NOT the morally right thing to do. I don't see an issue here. If you don't want to be murdered, then don't murder other people.

No God needed for that.

In fact if we go by God's morals, then we can commit genocide, because that's the morally right thing to do because God did it.

Many of the societies that God had Israel destroy were societies that sacrificed children and babies for the parents well being. Like abortion today is for the good of the parents.

Do two wrongs make a right?

It seems that both acts would be imorral wouldn't it? The acts done by the people and the acts done by God. Both involve hurting other people, so then both are immoral.

However, if we go by God's morals then we can be morally justified in committing acts of genocide. Isn't that what Hitler did? Followed God's lead to get rid of people he believed were a stain on humanity?

So how do you determine your morality?

My morality is based on personal well-being. If it hurts others then it's wrong, but indeed their could be circumstances which are not black and white. However belief in God does not solve that problem, as we can see by the above examples.

One thing I have learnt is that is if one can show empathy, then one doesn't need any God with a big stick to keep you in line. Empathy does it for me and the thought of the guilty I would feel if I did a bad thing.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 18 by OnceConvinced]

There are tough ones that are hard to answer. This would be one of them I think. It would depend on a number of things. Like for instance, whether you would be putting yourself or others in danger if you tried to stop them. Or just how much you care about this person. Whether this person is a vile criminal (maybe a child rapist). Or for what reason they are doing it (eg to end their own intense suffering). I'm sure there are many other considerations we could take into account too.

But if we go by God's morals we still can't really say whether it's morally wrong or right to let someone walk off a cliff. The bible does not solve the problems people want to believe it does.

Yes, it does.

The two great commandments.

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.�

The first commandment tells us that we are to love God so that means loving what He loves God loves life so we are bound to save life. Saving the life of others trumps all else because we know that God loves life.

So even if we would want someone to let us walk off the edge of the cliff we cannot morally do that because God loves life.

Morally we are expected to follow the laws of the land because it's what's best for society. We all have to live on this planet together and we all want to be safe. We need to have systems in place to prevent others from harming people. We also need to have laws in place due to careless, reckless people being around. Some parents for instance are too stupid not to put seatbelts on their kids. So rules need to be in place to force them to.

Following the laws of the land is morally Biblically.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. 4For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience.

Does God say anything about wearing seat belts? No. So going by God's morals, this issue is not resolved.

No but it does say something about following those God put in authority.

Then that is hurting people, which doesn't fit with your opening line in your opening post. So it's NOT the morally right thing to do. I don't see an issue here. If you don't want to be murdered, then don't murder other people.

This is a Biblical principle. Many in Germany overlooked the murder of the Jews because it was believed that it was a benefit to society.

No God needed for that.

But there was in Germany's day. The few that stood up for the Jews were Christians

In fact if we go by God's morals, then we can commit genocide, because that's the morally right thing to do because God did it.

God punished sin through a government that He put in place. God instituted the Government to punish the evil doer.

Do two wrongs make a right?

It seems that both acts would be immoral wouldn't it? The acts done by the people and the acts done by God. Both involve hurting other people, so then both are immoral.

However, if we go by God's morals then we can be morally justified in committing acts of genocide. Isn't that what Hitler did? Followed God's lead to get rid of people he believed were a stain on humanity?

Governments were instituted by God to punish those that do evil. The government was intended to keep the evil people from hurting those that do not commit evil acts.

My morality is based on personal well-being. If it hurts others then it's wrong, but indeed their could be circumstances which are not black and white. However belief in God does not solve that problem, as we can see by the above examples.

The police taking people into custody may hurt others. Incarcerating people may hurt others.

Letting people commit sin like abortion can hurt everyone involved. Those that live in homosexual lifestyles have a lower life expectancy than those that smoke. What would be the loving thing to do there? Let them walk off that cliff or warn them.

One thing I have learnt is that is if one can show empathy, then one doesn't need any God with a big stick to keep you in line. Empathy does it for me and the thought of the guilty I would feel if I did a bad thing.

Morals are about showing empathy. Morality makes a person stand against the tide of public opinion no matter what the cost.

[OnceConvinced]

The first commandment tells us that we are to love God so that means loving what He loves

I presume you mean, valuing something the same as what God values.

God loves life so we are bound to save life. Saving the life of others trumps all else because we know that God loves life.

Likewise, if we take the secular viewpoint of taking personal wellbeing as your basis for morals, then we should also value life. No need for any god. If personal wellbeing is the objective, then saving life trumps all else.

So even if we would want someone to let us walk off the edge of the cliff we cannot morally do that because God loves life.

If we take personal well-being as our foundation for morals, then the same thing applies. No god needed.

If a person is going to harm himself, that violates their personal-wellbeing. So they should be stopped.

But the thing is what if trying to save that person puts yours or other people's lives at risk? What then? How do those bible verses solve that issue?

In fact if we go by your argument, then we should never put ourselves in danger to rescue anyone else because our lives are as sacred as the one who wants to walk off a cliff.

Clearly we can see that bible morality is no superior to secular morality. It's just that secular morality does not revolve around the whims of some volotile, unpredictable and hypocritical god.

Following the laws of the land is morally Biblically.

I was thinking of pointing this out myself in the previous post, but it doesn't matter. We don't need the bible to tell us that having laws is a good thing. We don't need the bible to tell us we need to follow the law of the land if we wish to have a healthy society.

Does God say anything about wearing seat belts? No. So going by God's morals, this issue is not resolved.

No but it does say something about following those God put in authority.

Which we do if we apply secular morality. The bible is not coming up with anything that we can't work out for ourselves.

Why would we need the bible to tell us that we need to have laws and that we need to obey them?

But there was in Germany's day. The few that stood up for the Jews were Christians

Christians vs Christians. This is nothing new and that's the problem when you apply biblical morality. The waters are muddied and there is much disagreement about what is morally right and wrong when it comes to the bible.

On one hand we have people doing horrible acts towards each other.
On another hand we have a god wiping people out by brutal means.

The point is the bible can be used to justify all sorts of horrors, ie: genocide, slavery, rape, child abuse etc.

If one focuses on personal wellbeing as their foundation for morals then you don't get all this confusion. Yes, there are still grey areas, but those grey areas still exist even when it comes to the bible and your verses you quote don't solve all the connundrums, especially not the ones you list in your opening post.

In fact if we go by God's morals, then we can commit genocide, because that's the morally right thing to do because God did it.

God punished sin through a government that He put in place. God instituted the Government to punish the evil doer.

This is simply a baseless claim. Please prove that God is the one who sets the govenment in place. You can't. And no, just because the bible says so doesn't make it so.

No, it is human beings that put governments in place. They create their own parties and they campaign at elections. It's real people who go to the polling booths and vote. God does not fix the election results. Nor does he violate the free will of the voters to tick certain boxes.

Governments were instituted by God to punish those that do evil. The government was intended to keep the evil people from hurting those that do not commit evil acts.

You are simply preaching here. Making claims that cannot be shown to be true in reality. As far as I am aware God has never been enrolled as a voter.

However that doesn't escape the problem that biblical morality presents. That on one hand genocide is evil and on the other hand it's perfectly fine.

In secular morality genocide is never acceptable even if it's done by a so-called god.

The police taking people into custody may hurt others. Incarcerating people may hurt others.

Taking your morals from the bible does not necessarily guarantee innocent people won't be hurt.

Letting people commit sin like abortion can hurt everyone involved.

And by not aborting a child the mother might be hurt or die.

It's really not that black and white and the bible doesn't help with this.

Those that live in homosexual lifestyles have a lower life expectancy than those that smoke.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

But even so, what does that prove? It doesn't prove that homosexuality is immoral. Nor does it say anything about the morality of smoking.

People who eat vegetables are more likely to live longer than people who eat meat. Does that mean eating meat is immoral?

What about those people who wear clothes of mixed fabrics? That's immoral according to the bible, but how does that hurt anyone?

And that brings another problem up. Bible morality gets us branding some pretty silly things as immoral... like wearing clothes of mixed fabric. Like eating certain foods.

Morals are about showing empathy. Morality makes a person stand against the tide of public opinion no matter what the cost.

It all starts with empathy. And with empathy we don't need any god standing over us with a big stick telling us what's moral or not.