Morality without religion

[scitsofreaky]

I guess this isn't intended to really be a debate, but just in case I will post this here.
How do those who don't have a religion define thier morals?
I'm curious because I am trying to get to "the bottom" of human morality, and it seems that the best way would be to see how those who haven't been "tarnished" by religion find morality.

 

[robtex]

Tarnished is a rough word. Atheist don't rebel against God they just don't percieve him to exist within their understanding of reality.

I have always contended that religion is philosophy with expectations of divine intervention. If you take the God out of the religion the philosophy still stands. The only differnce would be that the inspiration was not divine. I would further contend that a non theist could agree with the morality of various religions while rejecting the notion of their divine inspiration.

Having said that I myself am the most strongly inclinded to utilitarianism. I feel that we are a community and as such actions that affect the community at large should weigh them in at the extend that which it is possible. It is hard to fit neatly in any category and subscription to one line of thought is not entirely unscription to other lines of thought. Metaphyics in general is hard to contextualize and sometimes the major categories are best segregated to find more narrow parameters by asking such questions as the value of life, happiness, love, hate, community ect. Working backwards in this way will create a paradign overtime as long as checks are done along the way to find contradictions or conflicts within ones personality.

In the absense of God the meaning of life becomes arbitrary and self assigned and as such is free from the reigns of a doctrine or creed. This encourages mix and match and some of the philosphies overlap poorly. I state this to give you a list of people whom I have found wisdom in that hold places of prestige in the field of philophy

JS mills, Micheal Shermer, Petyon Quinn, Immanual Kant, John Locke, Bernard Russell..though there are many i am so unfamiliar with....

with a question as broad as this maybe shrinking it down into smaller componets overtime a pattern will be found and a paradign will emerge.

 

[scitsofreaky]

I think that tarnish was appropriate for what I mean: their morality is now based on the teachings of a particualr "thing"(bible, Qar'an, what have you) and is not their "natural morality," which is what I am searching for.
And I will try to shrink it down when/if I get more responses. (Oh, and I wouldn't be against responses/rebuttles by "religious types")

 

[Green Gaia]

There is a wonderful quote that is attributed to Abraham Lincoln (I think someone has it in their sig line, in fact) that states, "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion" Replace the word 'religion' with 'morality', and I think you have your answer.

Many people who do not prescribe to a particular religion want to live in a more sane, peaceful, and just world than the one we have at present, and we wish to pass on a better world to succeeding generations.

I too think 'tarnished' is a bit harsh. Perhaps, 'influenced' would be a better word. 'Tarnished' implies that there is something wrong with their morality now that has been influenced by a religion, which can go either way and usually depends on the person, not the morality taught by the religion. Boil all religions down to their basic teachings on morality, and most, if not all, say "Be nice to others and do good."

 

[michel]

I must admit to still feeling uneasy with your use of the word 'tarnished', although you have justified it to your point of view.

I'm in the middle of reading 'A Godless Morality' By a Scottish Bishop, who wanted to define morality without allowing anything pertaining to religion to come into the the definition, nor into how morals evolved.

It is a very good read (If anyone wants to read it, I can give you the ISBN number etc). One of the conclusions that he came to, that surprised him was that, for an Atheist (For example) to aspire to a moral view that is identical to the same moral view held by a religious person, almost implied that the Athiest was a better person than the religious man. I don't know that I would go that far, but I can understand the point he is making.

 

[MrMorden]

for a long time my notion of morality was tarnished by my religion, but i now see a lot more clearly, and although i have a long way to go, i feel as if my notion of morality is my own and not the by-product of some random sermon. although god still plays a part, and arguably ultimate part of my morality, i feel as if i have finally found something that i got from god himself and not from countless religious practices. with that being said, i do believe that other relgious contain values that arent stressed in christianity, but the problem is that many people adhere to these values as if they are a burden or a job when in fact, if they are true moral values they will not be a burden but will be the burning desire of a person. my burning desire is to be this moral person i have in my mind, inspired by god? perhaps, but nonetheless and i cannot perceive my self to be any different in the future, but only a better representation of this person

 

[Pah]

Morality can be founded on contracts or on a sense of justice or recipical self-interest or a theory of the "good" or a theory of the "fair" or a theory of "equality" - in fact there are many ways to establish a mature morailty. The "Golden Rule" is not exclusive to Christianity nor are humanistic principles.

Morality is developed as a person or society matures. The first stage is one based on authority (do as I say) which gives way to one based on association (peer pressure of the group) to one of theoretical understanding

 

[fromthe heart]

I can't say I have ever thought about any stage of my religion tarnishing me...It's never been the religion or how I learned to feel which part I felt was right or wrong for me...it was the ministers and most religious leaders I might say had a tarnishing effect. At one point or another they disappointed me with their version of scripture. It's amazing how scripture can be misused...now that would be a way to tarnish my religion. As for morality with me it didn't ever start with religion I don't think. I feel it began with my parents teaching me the basics of simple right and wrong and seeing the natural consequences of behavior in people. I feel morality begins for most people with parents then somewhere along the line religion does come into the picture. Then you are taught a type of 'lifestyle' based on that particular religion.


Well, not to be too long winded about it; life teaches morality...good and bad and then balanced against religion to become what we then have as our lifestyle. That's my personal opinion.

 

[linwood]

I believe religion can and often does "tarnish" morality.
We have only to look at the Schiavo drama to see what I mean.

Religion itself doesn`t do the tarnishing but too often followers are told to follow one strict interpretaion of a moral rule , in essence making morality black and white.
Morality is almost never black and white, good or evil.

I can think of only one act that is intrinsically evil and that is rape.
Everything else is subjective to culture, situation, and need.

Religion often creates guilt by stating that certain acts are indeed intrinsically evil or wrong when this is obviously not always the case.

In this way religion can "Tarnish" morality.

Edit:

An excellent book on the topic is
"Does Morality Change?"
By Father Sean Fagen

 

[scitsofreaky]

I will have to check out that book (literally). All of your responses are very helpful, keep them coming.

 

[BUDDY]

I think that the basis for morality is found in human interaction more than in a religious philosophy. I believe that God has created us in a way that we can regognize the value of treating others in and living in a moral way, without having to hold to a written law or set of laws. A rational being can recognize that you should treat others the way that you should want to be treated (i.e. golden rule). I think it is a part of our human nature. Where I differ with the atheist is that I think that this nature was created by God and the atheist does not. But we can all agree usually on what is right and what is wrong, without having to open a Bible to do so.

 

[scitsofreaky]

A rational being can recognize that you should treat others the way that you should want to be treated (i.e. golden rule)

It is actually something along this line that started me on my search. A fellow deist developed what he called "the platinum rule": treat others how they want to be treated. He pointed out a flaw in the golden rule with a historical event: a couple of preists (I think during an inquisition, but I'm not sure about the details) would baptize babies then kill them to send them to heaven. They used the golden rule to justify their actions by saying that they would rather be in heaven then on earth. But, I wasn't completely satisfied with the platinum rule either, I mean is it right to kill a person if they want us to(for an extreme example)? So, I took up the abitious journey to develop a "rule" that is better (like a combination of the platinum and golden rules). I have long since given up on trying to create one that every person could always follow, but I am still searching for myself.

 

[linwood]

I have long since given up on trying to create one that every person could always follow, but I am still searching for myself.


You will have a very long and unsatisfying search.
Morality is almost always subjective.
There is no single rule that can possibly encompass it.

I do applaud your seeing through the Golden Rule, many never do.

 

[scitsofreaky]

You will have a very long and unsatisfying search.
Morality is almost always subjective.
There is no single rule that can possibly encompass it.

I'm not really even worried about getting a rule defined for myself, but I feel that right now I need to do some searching.

 

[MrMorden]

well, it isnt so much the rule that is flawed but people's perception of the rule. it does not mean that you should always, no matter the situation, follow the rule, its simply a guideline the works very well 99% of the time. it was the priests' interpretation that was flawed not the rule itself. for this same reason many innocent-hearted people are probably in jail, because sometimes breaking the law is the best thing to do at a given moment, i can think of several situations, but none need to be pointed out. but that doesnt mean that the laws should be changed, it simply means that people's perception of the laws need to be changed(an almost insurmountable task i might add).

so yeah, god gave us a golden rule but he also gave us a brain. he intends for us to use what he gave us wisely, and if people are truly wise, then they will use all things that are within their power wisely, and they will realize that certain things(such as taking the babies' lives) are not desicions that should be left up to them.

i think deep down that everyone knows true morality and that these notions are very similar, but the reasons for them are different. and then again, im entirely sure that ceratin mental illnesses can obcure morality, as well as reality, amongst other things. so, although, imho, black and white morality does exist, its so complex that it creates the illusion of being grey andi think that ultimately, its better to think of it as being grey, but nevertheless, still observe situations with enough patience to make a wise, informed decision.

 

[robtex]

Mr Morton in your above post you are implying there is a divinely inspired universal morality set forth by God but than when you say he (God) gave us a brain you are contending that this universal morality is relative to the situation. What you may not realize is those two theories are not compatable. Morality is either universally divine or situationaly relevant. It cannot be both. As an atheist I obviously reject universal morality but I have to ask you at this point, why s would one need to ponder any moral contingencies at all (God gave us a brain to use your analogy) if it wa s divinely inspired ? Wouldn't it than be automatically programmed into us instead of something that needs pondering like a moral system that is subjective contingent and relative?

 

[scitsofreaky]

MrMorden, you are correct that the perception of the golden rule is what is flawed, but that is what I see as the flaw. While most of us do use reason in our morality, there are still many people who use their "religious reasoning," if you will, which is flawed (as demonstrated in the example).
I also think that as morality gets more complex, which it undoubtedly does, it gets more and more grey. We are faced with many tough descisions, and they only way that people see that as black and white is when they have some book telling them what is right and wrong. For example, in the Terri Shivo(spelling?) case, the only ones who are trying to jump into it are the christians who "know" what is the right thing to do, for them it is a balck and white issue. But, I think for the rest of us, it is not black and white, but a deep shade of grey, which is why we (not trying to represent everyone else here) don't want intervention in the situation.

 

[MrMorden]

Mr Morton in your above post you are implying there is a divinely inspired universal morality set forth by God but than when you say he (God) gave us a brain you are contending that this universal morality is relative to the situation. What you may not realize is those two theories are not compatable. Morality is either universally divine or situationaly relevant. It cannot be both. As an atheist I obviously reject universal morality but I have to ask you at this point, why s would one need to ponder any moral contingencies at all (God gave us a brain to use your analogy) if it wa s divinely inspired ? Wouldn't it than be automatically programmed into us instead of something that needs pondering like a moral system that is subjective contingent and relative?

yes i understand what you mean, but i knew this before i posted the topic. my point was, that morality is so complex that one set of rules cannot dictate it, and thats where our brains come into play. but its my belief that if two people are truly moral, then they will reach the same conclusion about a particular topic, even though both had to think hard about it. its a controversial and difficult posistion to defend, i agree, but nonetheless, i believe it to be so. as far as your question as to why god didn't automatically program us with the black and white ability to know right and wrong, i must admit that i cannot answer that. however, i believe that it has something to do with free will and the desire to search for the truth. but like i said, according to my theory, the truth isnt relative, and i believe that a true search from any person will yield true, constant results.

i must point out that religious morality and divine morality are two separate entities. religious morality is flawed, and its subjects, like the priests, have flawed perceptions. even though they claimed to be doing the works in gods name. this kind of morality is what you get when you do not search hard enough.
divine morality is the kind of morality i was trying to convey in the first paragraph, and i believe that it is achieved through true, heartfelt search. seek and ye shall find, the bible says, and i believe it to be so. not for the sake of being in the bible, but because, indeed, i sought and found.

for example, the schiavo case. its certainly terrible to prolong suffering, but its also certainly wrong to commit murder. whether the murder is from a painless needle or from starvation is not the point. but likewise, its also bad to prolong and individuals suffering. but bottom line is that, no matter what the girl or her family or husband thinks, it simply isnt our place to end a life by any means, even if they requested it beforehand. but i must admit, if i was in the same situation, i would probably go against my values and end my own life, and if i was unable to end my own life, i would wish someone to do it for me. as painlessly as possible perhaps, but whatever got the job done. but i must contend that its wrong. when i truly analyze the situation for what its worth, i forced to say that taking life is wrong, and there seems to be no way around that, as bad as i wish there were.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Here is a new question: what role does the conscience play in your morality?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... its certainly terrible to prolong suffering, but its also certainly wrong to commit murder. ... it simply isnt our place to end a life by any means, even if they requested it beforehand.

I think this is an excellent example of what Linwood was referring to when he said that morality is never black and white, but is always situational. You are applying your religiously tainted morals (isn't our place to end a life by any means) to this situation. My morals are not tainted by a religious background, and in my opinion, allowing Terri Schiavo to die was CLEARLY the morally correct thing to do. The use of the phrase "murder" or "killing" when addressing the death of Terri Schiavo is, in my opinion, simply the use of emotionally charged rhetoric, in an attempt to curry sympathy for one's position on this case. No one killed or murdered Terri Schiavo - they simply let her body finish it's natural journey into death. If Michael Schiavo (or anyone else) had walked into that room and placed a pillow over her face to smother her, then you would be correct in saying he had killed (or murdered) her. That would then be a case of euthanazia, which is another matter entirely.

Thanks,
TVOR