Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr.Fantasy · 03-07-2003, 04:29 PM

Hello everyone,
I was a christian...until i reached the age of reason (guided by a few friends). Ever since i lost my faith ive been struggling with the credibility of morals or ethics (not sure if there is a difference). I feel that without a God there is no one to enforce such beliefs and it almost seems preposterous now to care about the well-being of other people; or atleast to care about them before me. Once god is taken out of the equation it becomes a question of Natural laws i.e. Laws that nature enforces, specifically the survival instinct (which is the heart of this selfishness i am adressing) and Human Laws i.e. Laws that were not found in nature but laws that came about as society progressed. However both of these come in conflict often.
I must bring up that when i talk of selfishness, believe me im purely talking ideology, and for the most part have not changed my behaviors in daily situations as compared to when i was religious. Although i do look out for my needs more than i did: i suspect that the only reason i have not gone gung-ho on these new revelations is because most of my ethical reactions are due to internalization (sociologically speaking).
I am also bothered very much by the fact that there seems to be no universal mores when comparing societys (or so i think, although i would be extreemly happy to learn that there are).
Although internally i still hold onto manners, and rules of conduct how can i tell other people that they should? How can i tell a person abusing another's mental wellbeing that they are wrong? Who am i to limit their actions and chide them on imaginary principles?

Im not sure if this post makes any sense, if i re-read it my brain would fill in the gaps because i know where I am coming from. Basically the way that i have dealt with these things is somewhat illogical, i like to justify things to myslef through quotes of people i admire. Because i just cant face the facts...

Please flame me, thats what im here for...btw i dont believe in a social contract.

tronvillain · 03-07-2003, 11:43 PM

You do not chide them because of imaginary principles, you chide them for the simple reason that what they are doing bothers you. The principles come later, and are explanations and labels for what you feel. Is it preposterous to care about the well being of other people? No. At least, not if you do care about the well being of other people. I care about other people, not because of any imaginary principles, but because that is the way that I am.

Anyway, I suggest reading Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue. It provides an interesting look at how cooperation and morality may have evolved, and if you enjoy Dawkins you should enjoy Ridley.

Theli · 03-08-2003, 02:03 AM

Quote:

I feel that without a God there is no one to enforce such beliefs and it almost seems preposterous now to care about the well-being of other people

If you needed your morals to be "inforced" by a greater power, than you never really cared about other people's well being to begin with. You were just following orders.
Is this what christianity does to people?
I like to think that not all christians are lacking social skills.

root · 03-08-2003, 06:44 AM

Of course ethics are credible. The mere fact that they are derived from religion should by no means draw from their importance and position in our society, and most others. Further more, your "Natural and Human laws" are one in the same. And this can be attributed to the fact that we, humans, invented religion in part to create laws to control people. So it is no coincidence that the laws of a country highly reflect the laws of the religion most prominent in that region. If your qualm with "natural laws" is that they are not enforced, think again. If you fail to abide by the common decencies which you are fully aware of, the people around you will punish you in their own way. It is indeed ironic that the world's largest institution is also its biggest lie, but that's just how we've made it for ourselves.

VivaHedone · 03-08-2003, 07:09 AM

Morality is logical and right with or without any higher authorty telling us that it is so. If no-one has any respect for anyone apart for themselves and does what they want to others, then the biggest and strongest end up happy, and the rest exist in various degrees of suffering. Therefore it is in the interests of the masses that basic morality is abided by.

Morality that comes from God is worthless - people aren't being good because they feel that it is right, they are merely obeying in order to get into Heaven. The only moral standards that are worthwhile are those which we work out for ourselves. Often, religious morals are completely wrong and unsubstantiated, anyway. (See 'Do atheists admire the philosophy of Jesus(aside from the religious aspects)?')

Mr.Fantasy · 03-08-2003, 10:38 AM

"You do not chide them because of imaginary principles, you chide them for the simple reason that what they are doing bothers you" --- TronVillain

So basically I must push what I feel is right onto other people? Why should he respect me if it annoys him?

"No. At least, not if you do care about the well being of other people. I care about other people, not because of any imaginary principles, but because that is the way that I am. " --Tron

I agree completely, however I dont think its right for me to force my beliefs on other people through social ostracism (or any other way). What you have told me is i have the right to chide people about their actions due to my disposition to humanity. I disagree. Thank you for the recommendation i wrote the name down.

"If you needed your morals to be "inforced" by a greater power, than you never really cared about other people's well being to begin with. You were just following orders." -- Theli

That is a bad assumption. No, i actually believed them to be true (the ethics). What i have realized now is that ethics are not laws of the universe as we seem to think they are. We have this odd conception of "good" and "bad" when we can not classify things as such.

"Is this what christianity does to people?" --Theli
No.

"I like to think that not all christians are lacking social skills." --Theli
Good. Im glad you dont generalize the population like that.

"Morality is logical and right with or without any higher authorty telling us that it is so. If no-one has any respect for anyone apart for themselves and does what they want to others, then the biggest and strongest end up happy, and the rest exist in various degrees of suffering. Therefore it is in the interests of the masses that basic morality is abided by." -- Vivahedone

Can you please explain to me how morality is logical? My only conclusion is that it came from each individuals want for survival. For example, there are two people on the planet, each wants to live so they make a pact not to kill eachother. That doesnt ticle our Romantic sense of "awww look at how nice they get along" the cold hard truth is that its selfish.---However i am still exploring this idea, the way that was put kind of implys they would have killed eachother, although they may have.--- Im not trying to say that without society humans are at heart vicous blood lusting animals.

"The only moral standards that are worthwhile are those which we work out for ourselves." --- Viva

Yes, but we dont all agree on a set system and never will. Many people obey norms because internalization has gotten the best of them. They act within their guidelines and dont think much of it.
Im only posing the question of how truly credible morals are, because i find people who rape and murder to be just as legitamate in life. Although it saddens me deeply that people could do these things to eachother I do not feel correct in forcing my ideals on them (from the viewpoint of truth). The government sets-up laws from the view point of wanting society to continue existing (their society), and without these laws there would be no control and society could not grow. However i find it funny that governments often have to do things that are traditionally unethical (behind the scenes) to keep this process running.
Hmmm...again i know that it will be hard to understand where im coming from; if you dont understand what im saying about viewpoints or anything else, please just ask for embellishment, politely

...as that is what, in my opinion, best facilitates our growth.

Neilium · 03-10-2003, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fantasy
"You do not chide them because of imaginary principles, you chide them for the simple reason that what they are doing bothers you" --- TronVillain

So basically I must push what I feel is right onto other people? Why should he respect me if it annoys him?

"No. At least, not if you do care about the well being of other people. I care about other people, not because of any imaginary principles, but because that is the way that I am. " --Tron

I agree completely, however I dont think its right for me to force my beliefs on other people through social ostracism (or any other way). What you have told me is i have the right to chide people about their actions due to my disposition to humanity. I disagree. Thank you for the recommendation i wrote the name down.

Mr. F,

The problem of how you act on your morals exists whether there is a God or not. You face the same possibility of offending people for stating what you believe is right.

-Neil

Dr. Retard · 03-10-2003, 12:39 PM

Quote:

I feel that without a God there is no one to enforce such beliefs and it almost seems preposterous now to care about the well-being of other people; or atleast to care about them before me. Once god is taken out of the equation it becomes a question of Natural laws i.e. Laws that nature enforces, specifically the survival instinct (which is the heart of this selfishness i am adressing) and Human Laws i.e. Laws that were not found in nature but laws that came about as society progressed.

I think these are your presuppositions:

* It's reasonable, by default, to act in your own selfish interests.
* But, for it to be reasonable to act according to a benevolent moral code, you need some special support.

I wonder: why? Why is selfishness automatically justified? Do you think there are some magical 'reasons' that make selfishness proper, whereas there aren't any such reasons for generosity? It looks for all the world like you're relying on an ethical claim, at the same time that you dismiss ethics.

In any case, no one believes in a social contract. The social contract is just a hypothetical scenario, intended to illustrate the reasonableness of morality. The idea is that an amoral world is terrible for everyone, whereas a world with suitable moral codes is much nicer for everyone, so we all have good reason to endorse such moral codes.

Mr.Fantasy · 03-10-2003, 02:03 PM

"Mr. F,
The problem of how you act on your morals exists whether there is a God or not. " -- Neil

Could you clarify please? Sorry

"You face the same possibility of offending people for stating what you believe is right. "
-Neil

My point was exactly that. It was a rhetorical question.

"I think these are your presuppositions
* It's reasonable, by default, to act in your own selfish interests." -- Dr.Retard

Yes, it is reasonable to act in your own self interest, and it wasnt a supposition. Scientific research (and daily observation) will show that we humans have one inherent trait that makes us just like any other animal: self-survival.

"I wonder: why? Why is selfishness automatically justified? Do you think there are some magical 'reasons' that make selfishness proper, whereas there aren't any such reasons for generosity?" ---Dr. Retard

There is no magic, it is purely human nature and that of many other animals to want to survive. There is no scientific evidence supporting generosity from the view point of the self, unless it creates a more favorable position for that person. I merely notice how far this trait carries through people's lives. I dont think im stretching it too far when i say that this trait governs almost all of our lives. I see lots of conflicts between this "Natural Law" and the laws humans decided to institute for growth. We have grown beyond understanding where ethics came from and it blinds people into never questioning their validity, and just accepting them as truth.

"It looks for all the world like you're relying on an ethical claim, at the same time that you dismiss ethics." -- Dr.Retard

Im sorry, where is my ethical claim?? Point it out please.

"In any case, no one believes in a social contract. The social contract is just a hypothetical scenario, intended to illustrate the reasonableness of morality." --- Dr.Retard

Many people believe in a social contract (in my opinion as a loop hole). Ive heard tons of arguments from that point of view upon the subject of abortion.

"The idea is that an amoral world is terrible for everyone, whereas a world with suitable moral codes is much nicer for everyone, so we all have good reason to endorse such moral codes." -- Dr.Retard

From my point of view i agree. Ethics make life very pleasent and create a nice atmosphere for most poeple. However, i hestitate to use the words "Everyone" or "all." But my main point is just basically that we have to accept them as not being the romantic fantasy we think they are; in truth i think they started from self-interest.

LostGirl · 03-10-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

I am also bothered very much by the fact that there seems to be no universal mores when comparing societys (or so i think, although i would be extreemly happy to learn that there are).

Have you read Sissela Bok's book Common Values? In it, she tries to find a concrete, unifying "Minimalist common ground of values" recognised across cultures and societies.

Bok identifies three main categories of moral values which qualify as both:
- governing across societal and other boundaries, and
- necessary to collective survival
The three categories are
(1) mutual care and reciprocity
(2) injunctions against some violence, deceit and betrayal
(3) rudimentary procedures and standards for what is just.

She is very cautious, and emphasizes that these categories of value are:
(i) not systematically alike and admit all kinds of exceptions (in particular where outsiders or enemies are concerned)
(ii) limited in their application and obligation
(iii) not agreed to by everybody
(iv) make no claim to exhaustiveness

Her point is, although there may be no universal/worldwide standard of morality in the particular, standards of morality around the world share certain hallmarks that are constant across culture.

Just an interesting point. (NB: I adapted this interpretation of Sissela Bok's theory from the course manual: "Searching for a Global Theory of Value" by J.A.McMurtry; to give credit where it's due.)

03-07-2003, 04:29 PM	#1
Mr.Fantasy Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Washington Posts: 11	are ethics credible? Hello everyone, I was a christian...until i reached the age of reason (guided by a few friends). Ever since i lost my faith ive been struggling with the credibility of morals or ethics (not sure if there is a difference). I feel that without a God there is no one to enforce such beliefs and it almost seems preposterous now to care about the well-being of other people; or atleast to care about them before me. Once god is taken out of the equation it becomes a question of Natural laws i.e. Laws that nature enforces, specifically the survival instinct (which is the heart of this selfishness i am adressing) and Human Laws i.e. Laws that were not found in nature but laws that came about as society progressed. However both of these come in conflict often. I must bring up that when i talk of selfishness, believe me im purely talking ideology, and for the most part have not changed my behaviors in daily situations as compared to when i was religious. Although i do look out for my needs more than i did: i suspect that the only reason i have not gone gung-ho on these new revelations is because most of my ethical reactions are due to internalization (sociologically speaking). I am also bothered very much by the fact that there seems to be no universal mores when comparing societys (or so i think, although i would be extreemly happy to learn that there are). Although internally i still hold onto manners, and rules of conduct how can i tell other people that they should? How can i tell a person abusing another's mental wellbeing that they are wrong? Who am i to limit their actions and chide them on imaginary principles? Im not sure if this post makes any sense, if i re-read it my brain would fill in the gaps because i know where I am coming from. Basically the way that i have dealt with these things is somewhat illogical, i like to justify things to myslef through quotes of people i admire. Because i just cant face the facts... Please flame me, thats what im here for...btw i dont believe in a social contract.

03-08-2003, 10:38 AM	#6
Mr.Fantasy Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Washington Posts: 11	just my reply... "You do not chide them because of imaginary principles, you chide them for the simple reason that what they are doing bothers you" --- TronVillain So basically I must push what I feel is right onto other people? Why should he respect me if it annoys him? "No. At least, not if you do care about the well being of other people. I care about other people, not because of any imaginary principles, but because that is the way that I am. " --Tron I agree completely, however I dont think its right for me to force my beliefs on other people through social ostracism (or any other way). What you have told me is i have the right to chide people about their actions due to my disposition to humanity. I disagree. Thank you for the recommendation i wrote the name down. "If you needed your morals to be "inforced" by a greater power, than you never really cared about other people's well being to begin with. You were just following orders." -- Theli That is a bad assumption. No, i actually believed them to be true (the ethics). What i have realized now is that ethics are not laws of the universe as we seem to think they are. We have this odd conception of "good" and "bad" when we can not classify things as such. "Is this what christianity does to people?" --Theli No. "I like to think that not all christians are lacking social skills." --Theli Good. Im glad you dont generalize the population like that. "Morality is logical and right with or without any higher authorty telling us that it is so. If no-one has any respect for anyone apart for themselves and does what they want to others, then the biggest and strongest end up happy, and the rest exist in various degrees of suffering. Therefore it is in the interests of the masses that basic morality is abided by." -- Vivahedone Can you please explain to me how morality is logical? My only conclusion is that it came from each individuals want for survival. For example, there are two people on the planet, each wants to live so they make a pact not to kill eachother. That doesnt ticle our Romantic sense of "awww look at how nice they get along" the cold hard truth is that its selfish.---However i am still exploring this idea, the way that was put kind of implys they would have killed eachother, although they may have.--- Im not trying to say that without society humans are at heart vicous blood lusting animals. "The only moral standards that are worthwhile are those which we work out for ourselves." --- Viva Yes, but we dont all agree on a set system and never will. Many people obey norms because internalization has gotten the best of them. They act within their guidelines and dont think much of it. Im only posing the question of how truly credible morals are, because i find people who rape and murder to be just as legitamate in life. Although it saddens me deeply that people could do these things to eachother I do not feel correct in forcing my ideals on them (from the viewpoint of truth). The government sets-up laws from the view point of wanting society to continue existing (their society), and without these laws there would be no control and society could not grow. However i find it funny that governments often have to do things that are traditionally unethical (behind the scenes) to keep this process running. Hmmm...again i know that it will be hard to understand where im coming from; if you dont understand what im saying about viewpoints or anything else, please just ask for embellishment, politely ...as that is what, in my opinion, best facilitates our growth.

03-10-2003, 02:03 PM	#9
Mr.Fantasy Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Washington Posts: 11	I love this, thank you for joining this thread =) "Mr. F, The problem of how you act on your morals exists whether there is a God or not. " -- Neil Could you clarify please? Sorry "You face the same possibility of offending people for stating what you believe is right. " -Neil My point was exactly that. It was a rhetorical question. "I think these are your presuppositions * It's reasonable, by default, to act in your own selfish interests." -- Dr.Retard Yes, it is reasonable to act in your own self interest, and it wasnt a supposition. Scientific research (and daily observation) will show that we humans have one inherent trait that makes us just like any other animal: self-survival. "I wonder: why? Why is selfishness automatically justified? Do you think there are some magical 'reasons' that make selfishness proper, whereas there aren't any such reasons for generosity?" ---Dr. Retard There is no magic, it is purely human nature and that of many other animals to want to survive. There is no scientific evidence supporting generosity from the view point of the self, unless it creates a more favorable position for that person. I merely notice how far this trait carries through people's lives. I dont think im stretching it too far when i say that this trait governs almost all of our lives. I see lots of conflicts between this "Natural Law" and the laws humans decided to institute for growth. We have grown beyond understanding where ethics came from and it blinds people into never questioning their validity, and just accepting them as truth. "It looks for all the world like you're relying on an ethical claim, at the same time that you dismiss ethics." -- Dr.Retard Im sorry, where is my ethical claim?? Point it out please. "In any case, no one believes in a social contract. The social contract is just a hypothetical scenario, intended to illustrate the reasonableness of morality." --- Dr.Retard Many people believe in a social contract (in my opinion as a loop hole). Ive heard tons of arguments from that point of view upon the subject of abortion. "The idea is that an amoral world is terrible for everyone, whereas a world with suitable moral codes is much nicer for everyone, so we all have good reason to endorse such moral codes." -- Dr.Retard From my point of view i agree. Ethics make life very pleasent and create a nice atmosphere for most poeple. However, i hestitate to use the words "Everyone" or "all." But my main point is just basically that we have to accept them as not being the romantic fantasy we think they are; in truth i think they started from self-interest.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2003, 11:43 PM	#2
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	You do not chide them because of imaginary principles, you chide them for the simple reason that what they are doing bothers you. The principles come later, and are explanations and labels for what you feel. Is it preposterous to care about the well being of other people? No. At least, not if you do care about the well being of other people. I care about other people, not because of any imaginary principles, but because that is the way that I am. Anyway, I suggest reading Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue. It provides an interesting look at how cooperation and morality may have evolved, and if you enjoy Dawkins you should enjoy Ridley.

03-08-2003, 06:44 AM	#4
root New Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 1	Of course ethics are credible. The mere fact that they are derived from religion should by no means draw from their importance and position in our society, and most others. Further more, your "Natural and Human laws" are one in the same. And this can be attributed to the fact that we, humans, invented religion in part to create laws to control people. So it is no coincidence that the laws of a country highly reflect the laws of the religion most prominent in that region. If your qualm with "natural laws" is that they are not enforced, think again. If you fail to abide by the common decencies which you are fully aware of, the people around you will punish you in their own way. It is indeed ironic that the world's largest institution is also its biggest lie, but that's just how we've made it for ourselves.

03-08-2003, 07:09 AM	#5
VivaHedone Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Norwich, England Posts: 146	Morality is logical and right with or without any higher authorty telling us that it is so. If no-one has any respect for anyone apart for themselves and does what they want to others, then the biggest and strongest end up happy, and the rest exist in various degrees of suffering. Therefore it is in the interests of the masses that basic morality is abided by. Morality that comes from God is worthless - people aren't being good because they feel that it is right, they are merely obeying in order to get into Heaven. The only moral standards that are worthwhile are those which we work out for ourselves. Often, religious morals are completely wrong and unsubstantiated, anyway. (See 'Do atheists admire the philosophy of Jesus(aside from the religious aspects)?')

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.