This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Where do you get your morality from?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

Battenberg

Tescos-morality was on buy one get one free along with conscience.

Reply 41

Peace'n'loveman

reems23

Mainly directed at those not of faith or belief in the divine.

Where do you get your sense of morality from?

Do you understand that this is based on arbitrary limits you or society have constructed?

Does the lack of a basis mean these values are bendable and are they adjustable to suit your whims and desires? Why not?

yes,yes, you raise an important issue.Atheists often say that non-religious people are quite capable of moral behaviour .I agree,but they don't seem to understand that this morality is purely arbitary

Reply 42

UGeNe

reems23

Nietzsche.

Reply 43

izaldo

I agree with Kolya.

I think that to a certain extent there is a moral code that stems from the first realisation as a species that we required collaboration between persons to first achieve survival, then looking to improve the quality of our lives. To facilitate these advancements there had to be a grounding in trust, an understanding of the mutual benefit that can be derived from the transaction. Of course, this gives a very vague explaination of where I believe that they come from, but as communities of people became more defined, thus came a more distinct understanding of the conditions upon which people could live together and derive happiness from. From this grew an understanding of justice, whereby a transgressor of these rules would be dealt with by the group.

It's almost a layered structure, the onset of civilisation brought a more formalised version of these rules in laws, and greater access to ideas,the bringing together of isolated communities and trade made our moral understanding more complex and conscious. Communities became part of a wider society and yet more progress was made - more basic needs were fulfilled and we were exposed to desire.

Throughout this process, we've begun to understand more about the world that we live in and greater knowledge and access to information has presented us with a new concept of Morality, which some may argue is rammed down - an example of this is that since Scientists discovered that smoking when pregnant harms the unborn child, it is now considered to be wrong by many, perhaps as it is inflicting harm, this can be considered as immoral. Likewise, polluting the environment, or wearing animal fur. Can these really be considered as moral issues when compared to say the historic understanding of morals, If one's belief allows them to feel morally superior to another, is it really a question of 'morals' or a lower standard, perhaps 'values'? I'm not sure.

Reply 44

Battenberg

Seriously though like most atheists have said, for me morality is based on not wanting to upset or cause pain to others and preferring seeing people happy to sad. As to where I got that from it may very well be a result of environmental factors whilst growing up (aka, our society) however saying that no one likes seeing others in pain if it can be avoided (excluding sociopaths etc.) so perhaps it is also part of a basic human instinct we all share.

Reply 45

reems23

UGeNe

Nietzsche.

oh wow.

Reply 46

UGeNe

reems23

oh wow.

His writings form the foundation of my moral compass.

Reply 47

reems23

innerhollow

So from all these, the provisional conclusion I would come to is this: "Morality evolved in the same way that it evolved in other animals- it had a selective advantage in most environments as it increased the changes of animals in a group surviving (hence why we do not find altruism in solitary animals). Morality is simply a mechanism for group survival. However, if an individual is raised outside a group (i.e. a feral child), they do not inherit any of this morality, suggesting it's definitely a learned behaviour of some kind. Of course morality has become FAR more complex in humans because of our ability to reason."

You aren't suggesting that morality is in the dna, even though the use of the word 'evolved' would suggest so, correct?

Reply 48

Moe Lester

David Hume!

I deplore the notion that the bible in anyway provides morals to an individual. Morals existed pre-bible (think Ancient Greece - A free thinking Oasis who will only be rivalled once the Church began losing ground in the Enlightenment) and they will exist (and do) in a post-christian Europe and hopefully a post religious world. The bible, Qu'ran .etc. themselves hold some very questionable moral views .i.e. religious supremecy, homophobia, sexism, discrimination to bastard children, the bible even tells men not to dress like women! The ten commandments such as "Don't Kill" are obvious and existed before the bible, others like "Don't worship false idols" are an irrellevance.

Lefty Leo

The Koran says, i follow. :king1:

Actually on reflection this.

Reply 49

reems23

Moe Lester

I deplore the notion that the bible in anyway provides morals to an individual. Morals existed pre-bible (think Ancient Greece - A free thinking Oasis who will only be rivalled once the Church began losing ground in the Enlightenment) and they will exist (and do) in a post-christian Europe and hopefully a post religious world. The bible, Qu'ran .etc. themselves hold some very questionable moral views .i.e. religious supremecy, homophobia, sexism, discrimination to bastard children, the bible even tells men not to dress like women! The ten commandments such as "Don't Kill" are obvious and existed before the bible, others like "Don't worship false idols" are an irrellevance.

Actually on reflection this.

Maybe read the thread and don't put words in my mouth :idea:

Reply 50

Moe Lester

reems23

Maybe read the thread and don't put words in my mouth :idea:

It wasn't aimed at you, just my opinions on morality......

Reply 51

reems23

Moe Lester

It wasn't aimed at you, just my opinions on morality......

Reply 52

rajandkwameali

my sense of morality comes from my own thoughts and reasoning.

i generally let people do as they wish, since I am not any supreme authority to say they cannot. I call it rational order/empathy.

Reply 53

Moe Lester

reems23

Mainly directed at those not of faith or belief in the divine.

Yep.

Where do you get your sense of morality from?

Simply...Do to others what you would want done to yourself .i.e. don't be rude, don't discriminate, don't cause trouble in the neighbourhood .etc.

Do you understand that this is based on arbitrary limits you or society have constructed?

Society provides a reasonably sound legal structure that is meant to protect the individual, the "do to others what you want done to yourself" works well enough for legal but wrong acts like swearing at strangers. Free Societies, although less when overbearing religon is involved, generally organize themselved on lines and limits that make living as "pleasent" as possible to the nation's citizens.

Does the lack of a basis mean these values are bendable and are they adjustable to suit your whims and desires? Why not?

I guess the advantage of non-religious morals mean they are not static and can change and evolve when society changes without the problems associated with say modernism and Islam....

Reply 54

Shiny Dirt

Milodevenus

Drawing upon my common sense, past experiences, knowledge, conscience and judgment.
Showing respect where it's due, treating myself with respect. Treating others as I would wish to be treated.
I actually find some of the christians whom I have encountered to be insincere and disingenuous, as though they are only behaving in a certain way because of their faith rather than in a more genuine, meaningful way.
I much prefer atheists, at least you know when they're being kind or friendly there's no hidden agenda.

This

Reply 55

reems23

innerhollow

((This isn't necessarily addressed at you specifically, just at theists in general. If anything I say in this post does not apply to you, then feel free to dismiss it, as it will apply to someone else))

Why is it being arbitrary a bad thing at all?! Humans are intelligent and informed enough to be able to reason as to what the right action to take should be to create the best possible society, and in 2010 we're doing a pretty good job of it I'd like to think. Why should morality be anything other than arbitrary- ethical decisions are not a black-and-white issue that can be answered with simple rules- they require complex judgement from complex beings. They don't adjust to suit our whims and desires- they adjust to suit the situation at hand.

I don't want to be offensive at all, I have no problem with religion; but if you are going to call non-religious morality bad because it's arbitrary, then the value of your own morality is fair game for me to criticise. The morality found in nearly all scriptures is based on ideologies that were held by people living thousands of years ago, and yet you still stick to them. Your moral code is never-changing and unbending and does not evolve along with the rest of society, causing archaic ideals like "no sex before marriage", which aren't really all that beneficial to have anymore thanks to contraception, to still be championed. If you personally want to adhere to no sex before marriage, no one should stop you. However, it's stupid to try and get others to adhere to it just because Bronze Age people did it ... Of course you believe your morality is god-given and all that so sadly after typing all that I realise the futility of arguing with you *runs to corner to cry* :frown:

Ahahaha, you're great!

Reply 56

rajandkwameali

reems23

Do you understand that this is based on arbitrary limits you or society have constructed?

Does the lack of a basis mean these values are bendable and are they adjustable to suit your whims and desires? Why not?