Carlos

There are different ways in which one "acquires" a new philosophy. One is the "top down" method: you accept a more general premise or starting point and develop the details from there. For example, buying into a new religion or acknowledging a source of authority and then learning and trusting the tenets of that religion or source. Another way is the "bottom up" method: you accept a number of specific details and try to build a "grand unifying theory" that can justify them all. The problem with the former is that if the base is knocked out, the whole structure fails. The latter is not without fault either - finding something that unifies all those beliefs is difficult, and you can be left with a jumbled mess (and little in the way of philosophy or moral compass). These are not the only ways, though - I see them as the two extremes. I do think it's important to realize that not everyone's beliefs come about through similar processes.

I suggest you look at this not as being lost without a moral compass, but as realizing that the one you were using was broken. In a way, you're still lost - but you still have the compass with you, and it was you who realized it was broken. This, in and of itself, is the first step towards developing your own compass. If you had nothing to guide you internally, how would you have know that objectivism was not right? Think about why you are rejecting objectivism. Is it because of Ayn Rand's flaws, or because of flaws in the objectivist doctrine? From what you said it sounds like the former. Regardless, if you develop on these ideas, I think you'll be starting on the right path.

It might be tempting to find a new source, one without flaws, and to acquire a new moral compass as a package deal. But that could lead you down the same path - rejecting the package if/when you realize the base is not solid. It is safer, but slower, to build your compass piecemeal.

banditoloco

I agree. It does appear that you can generally tell when something is wrong or not since you didn't deny that the holocaust was "evil," but just couldn't quite figure out why. In many ways, I too feel like I am "lost without a compass." What I've realized is that even though I don't have a compass to point me exactly in the right direction, I usually end up in the right place anyways. I'm still looking to find a more solid base for morality than just intuition or conscience, whether it be an existing philosophy or one I just piece together, but until I find one I just accept that I'll be pretty much okay in the meantime. My only advice for you is to realize that you do know where you're going and you don't necessarily need a compass to help you (though it can be comforting and helpful when you eventually do find one).

Aerion

If I may be so bold, it sounds like your real problem is you're lacking a label. Most of us atheist have adopted "Secular Humanist" to describe our philosophy of caring about humans but without an ecclesiastic basis. I hope that helps.

thebeave

About the only morality rules of life I live by are, "Do whatever the hell makes you feel good, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody". I have yet to see where this could steer me wrong.

d'naturalist

The first thing you need to do is relax. You're not lost, you're living life, and life is a work in progress. You live your life, you experience things, you learn things, and along the way, you figure things out.

No one can tell you what your ethical standard is or should be. They'll try, but it's your responsibility to define yourself. You've learned what other people think -- don't be afraid to learn more. Only, instead of simply accepting these ideas, evaluate them; question them; take them apart, see why they tick, and put them back together again. Ask yourself how those various ideas feel rumbling around in your head. Do you support those ideas or do they make you feel uncomfortable? Feel free to steal selected ideas and create your own simple patchwork philosophy. Then you can fill in the blanks with your own ideas. And don't think any idea is ever set in stone. As you grow older and become wiser, more knowledgable, and better at this "thinkin' stuff", some of your favored ideas will change or you'll come up with "new & improved" ideas. In the end, what you come up with will be uniquely yours.

You've stumbled upon the true purpose of life: to figure out who you are, what you believe, and what you want to do with your life.

In the meantime, the safest moral compass to embrace is simply this: if it don't get you sued, killed, or thrown in prison, it's probably okay.

Eric Starnes

Wow, thanks for all the replies everyone. My problem definitely fits into Philosoft’s category a). I do have a conscience, so i dont have a problem with the big things like: should i firebomb my annoying neighbor? I "know" that it is wrong, but if someone asked me i couldnt give them a better explanation then” I dont want to go to jail." I guess i am just realizing that there is no absolute morality and i will just have to do the best i can with what i can patch together. The problem is that this kind of moral relativism really feels wrong to me. Its probably just a result of all the objectivist writings i read telling me that moral relativism is evil.

Thanks for the help everybody, you have given me a lot to think about.

azidhak

Hi Eric, I haven't read Ayn Rand myself, but have read a lot of Steve Ditko's work (the Question, Mr. A, Spiderman) to know what it's about. Living without a moral compass can be scaring, but even if you have broken your Objectivist compass; remember you do have a spare: That spare compass is the moral values of the society that you live in. That is most often the bedrock you build from, although you might discard some of those values, they are most likely in your subconciousness when you make moral decisions. Since breaking those social rules can lead to you being shunned, put in jail, or perhaps even put to death, most people follow them unquestionably. It's important to understand that I'm NOT talking of laws here, but the underlying "rules" for correct "moral" behaviour. In our liberals societies most of these rules are based on what Hume called "fellow feeling" or in other words: empathy towards people. "Why shouldn't I firebomb my neighbour?" "Because it would hurt him!" "Why is hurting people bad?" "Burn yourself and find out!" The golden rule principle "Don't do to others what you wouldn't like done to yourself" is one of the most influential principles in moral thinking and is a good place to start. Myself? In my profile it says that I'm a moral hedonist, it should perhaps rather say Epicurean. I think that "hedonism" in the original meaning of the word, not the egoistic drivel it is in popular belief has much to say for it. You start with yourself: "What is important for me?" the answer is most often "happiness and pleasure". The avoidance of pain and misery then becomes man's ultimate goal. This seem like self sentered egotism doesn't it? But Epicurus says "Does the suffering of my fellow man bring me pleasure and happiness?" If you're not a psychopath the answer is "No it brings me guilt and sadness to se him suffer so." Then for your own happiness sake, you try to help him attain his happiness as well." Epicurus advocates a "middle way between extremes" in the same way as Buddha. The great thing about hedonism is that it becomes in your self-interest to help others and it's easy because it's all about doing things for yourself. Epicurus also has my favorite quote about death:"Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?"
Haakon

Jamie_L

Eric,

I never had a moral compass in the way you describe. That is, I never really worried about "why" something was wrong. I just felt it was wrong to hurt people. Everything flowed from there. I didn't worry about why it was wrong to hurt people until much later in life.

Ultimately, I find I just like life better if I and other people aren't hurting people. From a practical standpoint, that's all I need to get from day to day. Lately I enjoy philosophizing about the underpinnings of my practical morality, but it doesn't make life any harder or easier. I just live my life, try to stay happy, and try not to do it at anyone else's expense. It seems to work pretty well.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

*shrug*

Jamie

TomboyMom

Eric-
1. You have raised an issue which is important to all of us, possibly the most important issue that we have to face, as freethinkers--developing a personal ethics when we no longer have one we ordered from a catalog.
2. When you thought you had a moral compass, it was an illusion. Now you have realized our true condition--that we have to figure out every damn little thing about life ourselves, that we can't get the answer out of a book--any book, that we are responsible for our own moral decisions.
3. This is scary. If we don't follow a set of rules that we receive from someone else, will we behave badly? Will we be incarcerated?
4. But it's also invigorating and liberating. Now that you know the truth--that the Truth is something you have to figure out yourself, you are at the beginning of the true path and on the way to find out your true purpose in life. Now you have a chance--before you had none.

Everyone else-
Great responses. Well thought out, helpful, supportive. Very interesting discussion.

Now, the hard part, trying to actually take a stab at even a small part of an answer. These are just some isolated thoughts, atomic contributions toward the subject:

Religious codes are actually a poor source of moral authority. They are often wrong, are inconsistent with each other, are prone to misinterpretation, and can be used by unscrupulous or misguided religious leaders to inflict great harm e.g. 9/11/01. You can delegate your moral responsibility to Jesus, Ayn Rand or Pat Robertson, but you can't actually evade it.

Virtue is the science of happiness. Aristotle said that, and I think he was right. What leads to human happiness? Now we're getting to the crux of the issue. Some nominees: loving and being loved, useful and creative work, helping others, making the world a better place. These are a few that come to my mind. All of these are moral goods. A little hedonism doesn't hurt, either, and makes a positive contribution to happiness, as long as it isn't hamful to self or others.

I disagree ( I think) with those who gave answers like: follow your conscience or follow your intuition. I think that Eric and many of us are suspicious of unexamined sources of moral guidance, and want to be able to apply our brains to the problem.

Hang in there, Eric.

Philosoft

Hmm. It seems you are uncomfortable with premises like, "Action A is wrong because I feel it is wrong." Some call this "relativism" or "subjectivism" and some are unnerved at the realization that their feelings are not necessarily shared by others. However, it has always seemed to to me that the theistic solution to relativism is mere handwaving. If God's moral standards (for humans) are mere manifestations of the ways God feels about certain human actions, the problem of relativism remains; the only thing different is that there's no one who can meaningfully disagree with God.

If you think critically about it, the evidence that moral subjectivism generally works is pretty strong, even if the reasons why it works are not always so obvious.