Foundations for morality

[Theanthropic Agent]

I have always found it fascinating to hear from others their opinions on how they determine was is moral.

What "source" do you use for determing what is right or wrong? Religion? Logic? A feeling? Culture? Tradition? Nature?

And why do you believe that the source you pick is true or effective?

[Bloodcinder]

I used to use religion. Now I use a cross between logic, feeling, and God. I find that trusting my own sense of what is harmful to others and the little feelings God gives me falls in line with what most people consider moral. I guess I could call this my "compass." It doesn't agree fully with society, but in those areas I either reexamine my own view or decide that society needs to change. But I have an interesting history with receiving metaphysical signals. Let's just say I trust that "compass" because I know some things I shouldn't.

[Seegtease]

The Bible. I can't rely on feelings, because those vary from person to person. In order for morals to really exist, there has to be a universal standard, otherwise you just have people conflicting all the time anyway. Granted, the "conscience" tends to inform you of those things if you happen to not be familiar with what is outlined in the Bible. But even before I was Christian, morals, for the most part, seemed intuitive. At least those that hurt other people, I didn't care about those that hurt God at that time.

[Z]

I mostly use perspective. I have beliefs in Christianity but, looking back, I've never used religion as a standard of morality (and, really, neither do a lot of so-called christians both in past and present). The way I see it, all you have to do is put things in different perspective before you make a decision

For example:

• Should I steal this candy bar? The store owner is going to suffer a financial loss. However, such a small loss can't matter much. Shoplifting is a crime, though, and if the store owner called the cops, I don't like the idea of having "STEALS" in my criminal record, especially if I ever need to find another job someday. Not a lot of people hire those who steal. Is the candy really worth all that hassle and consideration? Nah. Fuck the candy bar, lol.

• Should I fight this guy? He's been picking on my friend for weeks now but he's too big for my friend to defend himself against. I'll probably end up taking a few hits if I do. Might hurt a little. Won't be permanent damage, though. Would this guy call the cops if I kicked his ass? Maybe I need to make sure he throws the first punch so I can claim self defense. In any case, I'm not letting him pick on my friend anymore and this guy definitely deserves to be smacked around like he's been smacking around everyone else. My friend hasn't done shit to him. Fuck it. I'm kickin this guy's ass.


It goes pretty much something like that except much faster in my mind, lol.

[Killer_Man_]

I go by what I think and a mixture of Christianity. Just for the sheer fact that everyone reads and understands the Bible in their own little way. Thus being I just go by logic and what the Bible says.

[Theanthropic Agent]

I am in total agreement with Zeit. I believe emotions are too misleading and highly deceptive. The Bible has proven the test of time for me in laying out truths (including absolutes) that transcends opinions of the masses.

I am also extremely into logic. However, logic alone tends to be highly problematic. Hitler used "historical" proof for the inferiority of the Jews and persuaded through charismatic means to kill millions of lives. It wasn't like Hitler spoke total nonsense that baffled everyone. He used not just his emotions, but intellect to convince a nation of genocide. Thus, to me, logic by itself needs to be checked. This also comes to show that just because the majority believes something to be true, it doesn't make it so.

I am curious what exactly you mean by "compass" Bloodcinder.

[Bloodcinder]

You would probably associate it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Arainach]

In order for morals to really exist, there has to be a universal standard, otherwise you just have people conflicting all the time anyway.In order for absolute morals to exist. Of course morals exist; different peoples' morals just conflict, which makes the concept of absolute morality a troublesome one. And not just because of different people, because the universe isn't black and white. Is killing always wrong? How about in self-defense? How about to get rid of a greater evil? And on and on.

I take my morals largely from logic. I generally try to do what I consider to be best for humanity as a species, with a slight touch of selfishness thrown in. My overall philosophy is that people should be allowed to do or say whatever they want so long as their actions do not harm other people.

[Bloodcinder]

My overall philosophy is that people should be allowed to do or say whatever they want so long as their actions do not harm other people.
This is the tenet of libertarianism. I think it's a good one by which to live, although it's not quite what I believe. But I wanted to point out that that's fascinating.

[Arainach]

I'm very much a social libertarian. I just think their economic policies are insane. You could say that my understanding of 'harm other people' is a bit stricter than theirs in that I see things like monopolies and environmental damage as harming other people.

[Bloodcinder]

I'm a libertarian. I just lean more towards anarchy and the promotion of grace. But anyway...

[Seegtease]

In order for absolute morals to exist. Of course morals exist; different peoples' morals just conflict, which makes the concept of absolute morality a troublesome one. And not just because of different people, because the universe isn't black and white. Is killing always wrong? How about in self-defense? How about to get rid of a greater evil? And on and on.

They may exist, but they're pointless unless everybody agrees, or at least a standard exists that is universally true. It's when morals between 2 or more people clash that conflict occurs. This is why basing it on feelings isn't a very good system. Even logic can be misused by making assumptions that shouldn't be made about another person. I mean "if it hurts them, then I shouldn't do it" is pretty obvious, but most morals come down to a lot more than that, like the definition of hurt.

People sharing different morals is what causes most problems in the world, when you break it down to the source. An absolute universal moral system is necessary for the elimination of conflict. And while I believe it exists, most people do not adhere to it, which is just as important.

[Arainach]

An absolute universal moral system is necessary for the elimination of conflict.See, I disagree. I think that two different people with two different moral systems, so long as they each are aware of the other's moral system, can get along without conflict just fine.

[Seegtease]

Sure, they may not have conflict in terms of fighting, maybe because they happen to share a moral on violence. But they know they disagree, and if they ever spend much time together, sometime they're going to come to a situation where they do not agree on the resolution.

If everybody believed and followed universal morals allow for total harmony. There'd be no wars, no real arguments outside of personal preference (like flavors). Some might call it boring, I'd call it Heaven.

[Arainach]

That's an interesting theory. My counterargument would be the countless atheists (myself included) who live among religious families. I know what they believe and while I'm around them I respect it. I even go to church a few times a year. And there's no conflict. When there are differences of opinion, we agree to disagree. There's no conflict.

Also, everyone believing and following universal morals is a fairy tale, plain and simple. Those who profess most strongly to believe your religion's moral guidelines are those who are most frequently found violating those universal morals.

[Bloodcinder]

Everybody seems to know the one true way. The problem is... everybody seems to have a different one true way!

[Seegtease]

I never claimed it could exist on this Earth as it is. Being a believer in the words of the Bible, I know it will be, but that's another topic altogether.

I still maintain that although unreasonable to expect in today's world, universal morality would ensure at least everybody could agree on proper justice and punishment. Even more ideally, everybody just upheld the morals.

While nigh impossible, it's the right direction I'd like to see. Remember, when 2 people fight in a war, it's not because one believes they are the good guys and they other believe they are the bad guys. They both believe they are the good guys, and the other is the bad guys, and that is the very foundation of the problem with relative morality. While most people can get along, there will always be those who cannot, and situations that make the disagreement blatantly clear.

[Bloodcinder]

I don't think that an individual adhering to the spirit of Christ's manner of living would become involved in such a conflict: he would never call himself "the good guy," knowing that to be false about himself. That's why I think grace is the only way to solve the world's problems with morality. A graceful person doesn't care about being "the good guy" and doesn't identify others as "the bad guy."

However, very few Christians give a shake about grace. They're only interested in being legalistic and delineating people such as themselves who are "good" and all others who are "evil." If modern Christians were to rediscover grace, then at least one religion would stop contributing to the worldwide problem of morality conflicts.

You're right that universal Christian morality, barring direct intervention from God, is impossible in this world. There will always be some other perfect religion with some other righteous deity and some other set of morals that is the only acceptable way to live. And, frankly, I think that's a good thing, because the current set of "morals" as espoused by the majority of practicing modern Christians seems less like Christ's grace and more like a political platform. I think it would be unfortunate if they or the Muslims "won" the morality scene.

[Seegtease]

What do you mean modern Christians need to rediscover grace? I know there are problems in a lot of the modern church, but I don't really understand what you're getting at.

[Bloodcinder]

Read What's So Amazing About Grace? by Philip Yancey.

Most proclaiming Christians don't know what grace is and aren't concerned with sharing it. All they're concerned with is saving themselves and condemning others. There's only a minority still adhering to what Christ stood for, and that minority has the solution to moral conflict.

Unfortunately, the ungraceful Christians are more powerful and vocal. That's why people turn away from Christianity: because they are drowned in dogma and judgment. And that's the same problem with the other religions. And that's what makes the whole argument that morality can only come from a certain religious source so damaging.

Even if you believe that only X can be a valid source of morality, find another way to promote the morality innocuously until you achieve the good it entails... then try to promote your rationale for X, if you so choose.

[kell]

Wow. These forums seem to be become increasingly religious. Weird.

Anyway, I guess you could call me a hedonist in certain senses. I do whatever I can to promote happiness and general well being, without causing excessive pain to myself in the process.

I guess you could say I follow the law, but not strictly. The ones I don't break I most likely wouldn't whether or not they were in place. You know, murder and high scale robbery and such. Running a red on my bicycle though, no problem.

As I said, I generally want the people around me to be happy and it generally makes me happier to provide them with...happiness. In my opinion, morality is a result of evolution. The concept of an established right and wrong was conducive to societal living which just so happened to be the best means of living for our species. That gut clenching "I shouldn't be doing this" is no different from that instinctive urge that drives certain birds to migrate or any species to mate. We're just like that.

[Seegtease]

Running a red on my bicycle though, no problem.

That's not immoral, that's just reckless.

[Bloodcinder]

It's breaking the law. Isn't breaking the law immoral, especially when it involves the safety of others?

[Seegtease]

That basically just involves the safety of yourself.

[Bloodcinder]

If somebody swerves to miss you and ends up launching a baby through a windshield, no.

[Seegtease]

I don't think the baby could make enough moment to really make it through the windshield in one piece. It would be more like a splatter on the inside.

[Bloodcinder]

Concession accepted. (And you made me laugh. Sorry, wrong thread!)

[kell]

Okay okay guys, I'm talking the middle of the night and there's not a car in sight. Not a busy intersection during rush hour. I'm not a complete idiot.

[Seegtease]

Then you might as well use the analogy with cars instead of bikes.

[Arainach]

It's breaking the law. Isn't breaking the law immoral, especially when it involves the safety of others?"Legal" and "Moral" have essentially always been separate concepts, I would think. It's perfectly legal for me to haggle at garage sales and pick up trumpets I know are worth hundreds or thousands for tiny fractions of their value. Is it moral? That's a more difficult question.

[Bloodcinder]

My question was specifically in regards to Zeit's Biblical perspective. In Christianity, obeying the appointed officials is part of obeying God.

[Killer_Man_]

Doesn't it as well say to separate the man laws and God's law as well?

[Bloodcinder]

Jesus obeyed the government where it was not contrary to God's law. He told his followers to be peaceful under the government.

[Arainach]

In otherwords, he obeyed the law except when it was immoral. Ergo, it would seem that there are times when one could be breaking the law and still acting morally.

[Bloodcinder]

Yes. But I hardly think endangering the easily-jettisoned baby by running a red light can be considered a moral action. So that's the point I was trying to make.

[Gio Takahashi]

the law is there for the safety of mankind. Some of them goes against God's commandments, others not so much. when I was young, we used to have a series of doctrines regarding closer examinations of the scripture.

For example, there's the stop sign, then there's the murder law.

[Seegtease]

From a Biblical perspective, we are commanded to obey our governments, but we are to obey God first. So we obviously won't obey any laws that would clearly go against the ordinances God has given, but if it's a law and it doesn't conflict with that, we should be obedient to it. I'm not sure it needs to be taken to a legalistic level, that leads to the same kind of behavior the pharisees had. Do we need to repent for jaywalking? I think not. You won't always get in trouble for it if you're seen doing it, either. But it basically stems from the fact that the God of the Bible is a God of order, not disorder, or anarchy. Not much else to say about it really. And it's kind of a tangent from the thread topic anyway.

[Charlie]

God is my source for morality. Without God, I'd be dead, or in jail now.

[Arainach]

God is my source for morality. Without God, I'd be dead, or in jail now.So you have no self-control whatsoever and rely on other people to tell you how to act?

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if, hypothetically, God didn't exist, the government would step in to easily fill your need for direction of how to act and that you would not in fact end up in jail or dead?

[Jack Gradus]

In Christianity, obeying the appointed officials is part of obeying God.

Can you put this in the context of WWII?

[Bloodcinder]

No, Jack, I'm not going down that trivial path. Read the following again or challenge somebody who cares about doctrine.

From a Biblical perspective, we are commanded to obey our governments, but we are to obey God first. So we obviously won't obey any laws that would clearly go against the ordinances God has given, but if it's a law and it doesn't conflict with that, we should be obedient to it. I'm not sure it needs to be taken to a legalistic level, that leads to the same kind of behavior the pharisees had. Do we need to repent for jaywalking? I think not. You won't always get in trouble for it if you're seen doing it, either. But it basically stems from the fact that the God of the Bible is a God of order, not disorder, or anarchy. Not much else to say about it really. And it's kind of a tangent from the thread topic anyway.

[Jack Gradus]

Several German churches in the 1900s endorsed antisemitism. How do you tease out God from church?

Even if you can justify your faith, you'd be hard pressed to justify what others have done in the name of theirs.

[Killer_Man_]

What are you babbling about Jack?

[Bloodcinder]

Several German churches in the 1900s endorsed antisemitism. How do you tease out God from church?

Even if you can justify your faith, you'd be hard pressed to justify what others have done in the name of theirs.
You're assuming I'm a Christian. Plus I don't know what you are getting at.

[RonDo]

In Christianity, obeying the appointed officials is part of obeying God.

Is it really obeying appointed officials..as opposed to say, listening to them and following the scripture (or their own interpretations of it)?

[Bloodcinder]

Is it really obeying appointed officials..as opposed to say, listening to them and following the scripture (or their own interpretations of it)?

↓

From a Biblical perspective, we are commanded to obey our governments, but we are to obey God first. So we obviously won't obey any laws that would clearly go against the ordinances God has given, but if it's a law and it doesn't conflict with that, we should be obedient to it. I'm not sure it needs to be taken to a legalistic level, that leads to the same kind of behavior the pharisees had. Do we need to repent for jaywalking? I think not. You won't always get in trouble for it if you're seen doing it, either. But it basically stems from the fact that the God of the Bible is a God of order, not disorder, or anarchy. Not much else to say about it really. And it's kind of a tangent from the thread topic anyway.

[Jack Gradus]

You're assuming I'm a Christian. Plus I don't know what you are getting at.

There's a fundamental problem with a philosophy that can only be justified by it's sole practitioners: it can only be justified through logical recursions.

I wasn't assuming you were a Christian, I was pointing out that you might have a problem with people that justify certain actions the same way you justify yours.

[Seegtease]

Just because a church calls itself Christian does not mean that it is. I would not associate myself with an anti-semitic church, and by no means would I believe that church follows the Bible, which I do.

The way I justify mine is through the Bible. I never said other people should justify theirs through their choice book. If anything, I said I'd prefer all people to justify theirs through the Bible.

As for those German churches, their antisemitism is conflicting with God's word and should not be obeyed, which I specifically said in my post, which has been quoted twice now. The Nazi government even more so should not be obeyed. Christians will get persecuted and killed for this, but it's what I hold to.

[Bloodcinder]

There's a fundamental problem with a philosophy that can only be justified by it's sole practitioners: it can only be justified through logical recursions.
Yes. (If that philosophy is one that people attempt to foist on others.)

I wasn't assuming you were a Christian, I was pointing out that you might have a problem with people that justify certain actions the same way you justify yours.
I am not attempting to sound confrontational, but will you please explain to me how I justify my foundation for morality in light of how others do?

[Jack Gradus]

Yes. (If that philosophy is one that people attempt to foist on others.)

Here's what I am saying: it doesn't matter whether or not you are trying to put your philosophy on others.

If you defend a way of responding to government a certain way based on faith, and the only difference between you and, say, a murdering Nazi, is the source of the faith, then you both have the SAME philosophy. Philosophy here is a modus operandi. So, if you defend your precedence over government because of the source of your belief, why wouldn't a Nazi be as justified as you? His response to religion might be identical to yours, only his religion delivered to him in a different way.

Besides, can you blame someone for what is presented to them persuasively?

I don't know if you ever read the Apology, but it seems to me like it falls on my side. For government to work people cannot pick and choose what takes precedence once they opt in. That's just unfair. It was government, after all, and not God, that brought you up.

[Arainach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Jack Gradus]

What the hell, laws are that for a reason.

[Bloodcinder]

Jack, I see what you are saying now, but I believe you are carrying things slightly too far. It's not reasonable to say that all people who base their morality on a faith system have the same philosophy. That reduces the world to two philosophies: faith based and not faith based. Such dichotomies create artificial absolutes and pigeonhole people into inapplicable categories.

What I am saying is this: I can understand a comparison between Christians and Muslims, but what about Muslims and Buddhists, or Buddhists and Wiccans, or Wiccans and Scientologists?

I certainly don't feel that my moral basis is remotely similar to a Christian's, and my philosophy surely isn't. Trust me on this. [Friendly wink of trust-solicitation.]

[Jack Gradus]

There's a Terrence quote: "I am human and nothing of man is foreign to me."

I obviously don't know about your particular faith, but, you know, all religious practitioners are human. I wouldn't be surprised if someone were able to prove that a few key characteristics of religions are universal. That would show that a private explanation for faith is faulty because of its connotations on the need to accept any faith others generate.

That, of course, involves a discussion on things even much grander than the scope of this thread.

[Bloodcinder]

Yes. But I'm not a practitioner of a religion, so I see no need to go there anyway. But thank you for clarification.