Rusting Car Bumper

Why?

Because X is a source of morality does not imply that I should be moral. In fact this is a non-sequitar. You simply haven't adressed the question.

Assume for example that God is the source of moralty, I then ask, "Why should I care what god says?"

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Not to contradict you or be nasty but let's keep the thread on topic.

The question of the thread is, "Why be moral?"

The question is NOT "What is moral?" Your post adressed that second question although they are good points.

DC

braces_for_impact

I think we should be moral because it (theoretically) gives the greatest amount of people the greatest chance of success and happiness, which is all anyone really wants, as far as I can tell.

Everyone realizes that even if you're in a good position now, the tables could turn, and then you could require protection, so it behooves everyone to protect the rights of the inividual.

Rusting Car Bumper

If I interpret Mr Neilsen correctly he would respond, "Why do I care if the greatest amount of people have the greatest amount of success?"

I think he is saying you could then ask a series of such questions where the result would be, "because that is my personal preference." Thus, it the end "Why be moral" is only answerable by personal preference.

DC

Keith Russell

Greetings:

No matter what you may feel as a result of having done wrong and 'getting away with it', you still know that you did wrong; you still know--unless you're psychotic--that you are 'evil'.

As a believer in rational self-interest, I don't much care about what others think of me, but I certainly don't want to have to think of myself--let alone know for sure--that I am an evil person.

Keith.

Infinity Lover

Because things get awfully messy if we don't.

Thomas Ash

It doesn't make any sense to say that just because X is a source of morality that doesn't imply that you should be moral. By definition, morality is what you 'should' do, so if there is a source of morality (I think there is), then the question of why you should be moral is answered - you only need to point to that source of morality. I don't see that there's any distinction, unless you assume that morality is just defined in a subjectivist way.

Sabine Grant

Hello all ! this theist will answer that being moral is a necessity to enhance society. If I were the only existing human being, I guess I could draw my own moral based on my personal preference regardless of how harmful my self made moral may be.

But considering that I must respect the individuality and freedom of others and think about not harming anyone by my personal preferences, moral is a necessity.
Of course I base most of my moral on the teachings of Christ. At least it is a goal for me in terms of behavior and one that may take a lifetime of failures and attempts. I evaluate his teachings in terms of behavior and treatment of others to be what will allow me to contribute to society. I could have focused on a philosophical movement or made my own....it simply was the best choice for me personaly. I can accept though that we each find a different path to focus on " how can I contribute?".

As long as the focus will lead to betterment of the person and betterment of humanity by the contribution of the same person, I evaluate moral as a necessity.

I also think that as much as some of us differ in the concept of " who inspires that moral", ( divine entity or humanism), we all agree on the overall goal to reach which is to not harm others.

The trick is to not impose our moral on others... that we as a society establish a code of behavior thru legislation and the judiciary system to prevent the perpetuation of crimes of all kinds is a necessity to protect one another. But we cannot and should not impose the personal code of moral. That we pertain to inspire that moral by our personal example is constructive. It keeps us on our toes.

DRFseven

Sabine: I also think that as much as some of us differ in the concept of " who inspires that moral", ( divine entity or humanism), we all agree on the overall goal to reach which is to not harm others.


But is there any reason other than "mere" preference to strive toward the goal of not harming others? Obviously not, I'd say.

Pomp

Thomas Ash,

It doesn't make any sense to say that just because X is a source of morality that doesn't imply that you should be moral. By definition, morality is what you 'should' do, so if there is a source of morality (I think there is), then the question of why you should be moral is answered - you only need to point to that source of morality. I don't see that there's any distinction, unless you assume that morality is just defined in a subjectivist way.

The problem is that, in saying that morality is, by definition, what one should do, you're making a moral assertion. Such an assertion is only meaningful to someone who has already accepted morality as governing his or her actions. Look at your first sentence, with one slight change to make it clear that you are defining morality as whatever one should do:

"It doesn't make any sense to say that just because X is a source of morality that doesn't imply that you [are morally obligated to] be moral."

Do you see the problem? You're invoking a moral obligation to be moral, but that isn't any more defensible than a logical argument for why logic works.