Non-theist morality (ritual, morals, reject, homosexuality, blood)

[giant space amoeba]

Originally Posted by michel

I have always though that morality is a natural evolution of culture - and therefore can be malleable within different cultures.

The basics would, I feel, come into play through the need for them.
Thou shalt not kill, steal, make love to your neighbour's wife...etc. would naturally evolve with time in any society; they are rather obvious basic tenets of a group, and would develop as a result of the breaking of the rules.

Most non-theists, I believe, are just as well meaning and are equally in favour of a life free from the need for members of the society from being upset...feeling the need to take personal revenge...........as their theist counterparts. Moralities are an essential component to the day to day life of us all; as I mentioned earlier, though, moralities will be personal to differring Cultures, and their needs.

Agrred. Morality has evolved with culture and society...

I bet way back when early humans roamed the Earth there were certain "rukes" to govern the tribe, also that each felt a resposibility toward their fellow being.

I wonder if this exist in primitive form amongst pack animals?

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Storm

Is it wrong to kill in defense of another?

I'd have to say it's wrong, but maybe not as wrong as the alternative.

Originally Posted by Storm

Is it wrong to steal food for one's dependents, if there are no alternatives?

It depends. Will the people you steal from starve, or do they have a surplus? I don't think ownership is as important as survival, but you should consider the likely consequences of your actions.

Originally Posted by Storm

Do we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for the poor?

Yes. Apart from the moral obligation to be merciful, most of us profit by the same system that keeps them poor.

Originally Posted by Storm

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?

Immoral, both for abandoning hope for the criminal, and for the risk of wrongful conviction.

Originally Posted by Storm

Is promiscuity immoral? If so, where do you draw the line?

What about polyamory/polygamy vs. monogamy?

....prostitution?

Depends, in all cases. Are you harming, deceiving, or exploiting anybody?

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Storm

Is it wrong to kill in defense of another?

Depends, I would rather not but I know if someone held a gun to someone I love I would not hesitate for a minute to kill them. Afterwords I would probably feel guilty though

Originally Posted by Storm

Is it wrong to steal food for one's dependents, if there are no alternatives?

No, but we should never let such a situation arise.

Originally Posted by Storm

Do we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for the poor?

Yes, more should be done by government to help the poor

Originally Posted by Storm

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?

Immoral, this is not killing in defense but killing for revenge, that is never the correct answer.

Originally Posted by Storm

Sexuality is a goldmine here:

Is promiscuity immoral? If so, where do you draw the line?

If adult consenting partners then I see no problem

Originally Posted by Storm

What about polyandry/polygamy vs. monogamy?

Again no problem if all partys are willing and over the legal age of consent.

Originally Posted by Storm

....prostitution?

Perhaps we should be looking at the reasons people get into prostitution. How many of them actually want to be a prostitute? I have no problem if that is what someone WANTS to do but if they are forced to do it just do they have enough money or as part of the slave trade them no.

[khalou]

I'm kind of surprised at the answers so far.

Here's the deal-

According to every belief system (or none) on the planet, we all share one idea that is made absolutely bullet proof by its agreement by all regarding morality-

I'd say that a consensus regarding such a controversial subject might come in handy when pursuing a philosophy about it, wouldn't you all?

Everyone agrees that there is a greater propensity for human beings to worry about morality than less evolved creatures. After all, when a lion kills a gazelle because she is hungry, or has to feed her little ones, there is no dispute that she has not sinned.

When a kitten kills a bug that that kitten has been "playing with", no one would accuse that kitten of murder, would they?

There is the total and undisputed agreement that man, and only man, can sin.

There is an agreement of another kind that gets less press, but is easily as accepted.

The reason that man sins is because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before you atheists get too excited, let me explain it also in this way- The reason that man sins is because only he understands that there is such a thing as good and evil! Moral questions and the ensuing philosophies about morality are all based on the fact that we understand that there is such a thing as good and evil in the first place, right?

I am an atheist, by the way.

For all we know, the stories of Adam and Eve were inspired in the first place by the observation that animals cannot sin, but man is faced with this dilemma about morality. You can't argue that morality is a human dilemma, and the reason it is is because of our abilities to consider the question in the first place.

So let's all agree that there was an Eden Threshold that human beings crossed at some time in history. Let's all dispense with our differences on how that crossing came about, because that is not important to the goal of understanding morality.

Now, I suppose I must appease Christians who think that there is a very important difference. Let me remind you of Jesus' words regarding your ability to determine morality. "He that is without sin, cast the first stone." "Even the pagans can love their friends, what's the benefit of that?" And of Paul-

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

This is the sort of thing that you are asked to show for each and every person on the planet.

It seems that morality can be based on human law, and that there is no such thing as absolute judgment by human beings regarding any action- that your Savior would support. Send someone to jail? No problem. But withhold love from them by virtue of your own ability to determine their sin? No way.

Unless, of course, you are sinless yourself.

That all being said- here is the answer to morality-

Each and every one of us is born a baby. We experience things that show us how things work. We ALL decide what to do at any given moment with the absolute best result being our goal. In that way, we are all as innocent as the cat that plays with the bug. NO ONE, and I mean no one, decides what might be the best path to follow, and ignores that path in favor of the "second best" or "worst" path. Not one person in history has ever done so. All act according to their interpretations of the absolute best action.

In that way, we are all moral. That's not really true according to reality because we are not equivalent to animals that have no idea about morality, but our actions based on our experience are really no different.

What causes immoral actions are immoral experiences.

When love and acceptance are conditional on human expectations that are based on human interpretations of morality, then we only prove that Jesus was right. Human interpretations of morality are generally based on one thing and one thing only.

Fear.

And it isn't realistic fear either. It is, instead, fear that is based on human emotion.

We have crossed the Eden Threshold, and our fears are based on our knowledge that there is good and evil. It seems to me that Jesus (and others) have tried to tell us the folly of such fear because we are not capable of determining the difference. Even according to Christianity, such knowledge is the gift of Satan. It is the innocence of children that pave the way to the Kingdom, as was stated in the Gospels without the need for interpretation.

Let's consider the greatest immoral human beings of all time, wonder why they chose exactly as we would have (because they are us), and try to discern what fears they had that were caused by human beings who were greatly inspired by their own fears.

Then, let's further determine what might have been had they been the recipients of the love that Jesus (and others) have commanded.

The only thing standing in the way of loving your enemy is the idea that your enemy does what he does because he has chosen the second best, or worst, action while considering the best thing to do. That simply doesn't happen in reality among human beings!

And when Christianity itself is the catalyst of hatred with regard to the actions of others, then Christianity is making a mockery of what Jesus (and others) taught.

k

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by khalou

Each and every one of us is born a baby. We experience things that show us how things work. We ALL decide what to do at any given moment with the absolute best result being our goal. In that way, we are all as innocent as the cat that plays with the bug. NO ONE, and I mean no one, decides what might be the best path to follow, and ignores that path in favor of the "second best" or "worst" path. Not one person in history has ever done so. All act according to their interpretations of the absolute best action.

I do not believe this for a second. What most people do is struggle to stay within their "comfort zones". This is by no means their judgment of the best path. It is only the best path that they feel comfortable with.

When people do strive to extend beyond their comfort zones, they may amaze themselves with what they have done, and wonder why they didn't start stretching much sooner.

And people who don't do this keep their self-esteem low in the process. They know deep down that they have "sold their souls" -- that they aren't living up to their full potential -- and they spend their time rationalizing their lack of effort.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[khalou]

I do not believe this for a second. What most people do is struggle to stay within their "comfort zones". This is by no means their judgment of the best path. It is only the best path that they feel comfortable with.

But what influences their comfort?

When people do strive to extend beyond their comfort zones, they may amaze themselves with what they have done, and wonder why they didn't start stretching much sooner.

If people support you, you are more likely to extend beyond your comfort zone. If you are the only member of a group that is intent on beating someone up for some reason, and you know it isn't right, wouldn't it be easier to stand up if you know that some of their number would support you?

How about this? What if the irrational hatred didn't exist in the first place? There would be no confrontation at all. That's my point- man creates his own fears because he can. There's a lot more to it, but I'm at work.

And people who don't do this keep their self-esteem low in the process. They know deep down that they have "sold their souls" -- that they aren't living up to their full potential -- and they spend their time rationalizing their lack of effort.

True- the fear I spoke of is powerful. That person has weighed his position and decided according to reality as he sees it. He might even join in the beating just to prove that he isn't afraid.

We can throw him in jail, but I wouldn't be able to hate him because he is me in every way except his interpretation of reality based on his experiences and subsequent fear.

k

[Locke]

Originally Posted by khalou

But what influences their comfort?




If people support you, you are more likely to extend beyond your comfort zone. If you are the only member of a group that is intent on beating someone up for some reason, and you know it isn't right, wouldn't it be easier to stand up if you know that some of their number would support you?

How about this? What if the irrational hatred didn't exist in the first place? There would be no confrontation at all. That's my point- man creates his own fears because he can. There's a lot more to it, but I'm at work.



True- the fear I spoke of is powerful. That person has weighed his position and decided according to reality as he sees it. He might even join in the beating just to prove that he isn't afraid.

We can throw him in jail, but I wouldn't be able to hate him because he is me in every way except his interpretation of reality based on his experiences and subsequent fear.

k

It can be said that one's "comfort zone" is created through environment, upbringing and faith. That being said, comfort zones breed this "irrational hatred". Therefore, faith is responsible for hatred. Can it then be said that faith, although most speak out against killing, prostitution and so on, is responsible for the hatred that stems from human beings? If so, organized faith should be irradicated so as not to have the power to create this hatred.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Locke

It can be said that one's "comfort zone" is created through environment, upbringing and faith. That being said, comfort zones breed this "irrational hatred". Therefore, faith is responsible for hatred. Can it then be said that faith, although most speak out against killing, prostitution and so on, is responsible for the hatred that stems from human beings? If so, organized faith should be irradicated so as not to have the power to create this hatred.

Should environment and upbringing also be eradicated?

[UltraViolet]

I think the point is?
that when your whole life is set upon a foundation of fear....

fear of not making the mortgage/rent payment,
fear of having no health care,
fear of not keeping up with the Jonzes,
fear of no retirement savings,
fear of living a lesser life style,
fear of isolation for not going along with the world "stage"/system,
fear of (shadowy) "terrorists",
fear of "the enemy",
fear of going to hell,
fear of not going to heaven,
fear of immorality,
fear of being unworthy,
fear of being worthy,
fear of societal disapproval,
fear of family disapproval,
fear of mockery,
fear of slander,
fear of being "misunderstood",
fear of being undervalued,
fear of being/appearing "average",
fear of appearing ignorant,
fear of not fitting in,
fear of inadequacy,
fear of not being good enough to fulfill your dreams,
fear that your good and true personal desires are "selfish" or "deviant",
fear that your personal dreams are unobtainable,
fear of your sexuality,
fear of your spirituality,
fear of living for the deepest beauty and truth and good in you...
because the others around you just don't get it,
and condemn you for it.
etc etc...

This fear of poverty and condemnation
(as well as ACTUAL povery and condemnation)
causes people to not live life fully sentient in each and every moment,
as the wonderful, unique, and creative beings they are.
This fear and lack, causes people to DENY their TRUE selves,
to lose their true selves,
to "stuff" their true selves,
and so our real persons are dying inside...
and we don't even realize it,
until it gets so bad
that we find ourselves "crossing" this depraved system/society
in acts held up against us as "immoral & illegal".
(condemnation heaped upon condemnation...)

Until people learn to stop modeling and molding themselves
around a world system that doesn't give a damn about them,
and even seeks to supress their individualism for the sake of "the machine"(itself),
people will continue to hurt one another out of their own hurt,
and take from one another out of their own lack.

This is what I see anyway.

IMHO anything that steals/siphons people's individuality from them,
should be eradicated.
(we become theives only because we are SET UP to do so,
by even bigger theives.)

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by Storm

I realize that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics are decent, intelligent people.

However, we live in a society whose shared ethos (and hence, law) is based on Judeo-Christian concepts of good and evil, sin and righteousness. Many J-C morals are obviously right on the money, i.e. cold-blooded murder, rape, and pedophilia are bad. (Yes, I realize that the Old Testament is pathetically immoral by modern standards. It ain't my book, so let's just stick with modern ethics.) We can ignore those. On the other hand, there are issues which are obviously based in dogma and rejected by many of us, i.e. homosexuality and premarital sex are bad. I don't see any reason to discuss