A friend of mine said yesterday that there are only two kinds of morality: one is a morality dictated by a higher authority, and the other is a lack of higher authority in which moral assertions by anyone are equally invalid. This will deal primarily with the latter.
It makes sense that if there isn't an absolute external morality that anything I come up with is no more right than what that guy over there comes up with. I might decide that wearing the color orange is a moral outrage, and he may say that it's unforgivable not to do so at least three times a week. Perhaps I think it's acceptable to kill people so long as you don't sexually violate them, and he has it the other way around. Someone else says, "I do whatever I please." What's wrong with that and why?
You could easily say that there are some things human nature inherently regards as immoral, but what are those things? Certainly there's dissent on every possible issue, otherwise those things would never have surfaced to be named and considered in the first place. A lot of people in America, for example, would agree that it's wrong to eat cats, but look elsewhere, and it seems as silly as saying it's wrong to eat cheeseburgers, which, incidentally, a number of groups wouldn't approve. Some things are more universal, such as the thought that it's wrong to hunt and eat people, but there are cannibalistic peoples who wouldn't think anything of it. For any immoral thing you can imagine, there's someone who disagrees. This is observable and for the informed ought certainly to lead to
moral relativism, which is tantamount to
amoralism.
But the idea that those who reject the idea of a higher authority must also accordingly reject the idea of morality altogether is, in practice, untrue. For example, I know several atheists, and I'm fairly certain that most of them would either laugh or be offended if I tried to tell them that because they don't believe in God, they can't believe in the concepts of right and wrong and must therefore be indifferent to all wrongdoing, no matter how depraved. There really are some people like that, but they tend to end up dead, isolated, or locked up in our society. So what is the explanation to account for the disparity between what seems logical and reality?
I have a some thoughts on the matter, and I'll post about them soon, probably later this weekend, but I want to know what you think. What morals do you live by and why?
Comments (27)
The 10 Commandments always seemed like a good starting point.
You bring up some interesting points that I am not sure I can really answer. There are certain things I would agree on with on with a lot of people, like killing is wrong, rape is wrong, that sort of stuff.
And then there are some things that people would say are immoral like smoking pots, which I don't really think smoking pot is actually a moral question. More like a personal choice.
@Paul_Partisan - To me, smoking marijuana would be more of legal issue than personal depending on where you live and the laws in that area. That also brings up the question of whether it's all right to break laws if the laws are unfair, and if citizens must obey the law because it's the law (there are some pretty stupid laws too).
I am an atheist. I believe something is good or bad because it does harm, and it does harm or not usually because of human nature. If you could grow back an arm after it was cut off in like a an hour, and cutting off your arm tickled rather than being excruciatingly painful, then cutting off someone's arm would be much less egregious, would it not?
Morality is determined by the nature of things. YOUR concept of morality is that it is rules handed down by an authority. When you say that that is the only possibly notion of what morality is, you are broadcasting your own ignorance. It's like saying if you're not a republican you can't have a political party. Because either you're a republican or you don't have a political party, those are your only options.
In logic this is called a false dichotomy.
The irony being that the concept that morality is rules handed down by god is the bankrupt notion of morality, because if something is moral because god says so then anything can be moral. If god says raping little boys is moral, then yay, go rape some little boys. If he says cutting peoples' heads off is fun, then you ought to go out and do that. If on the other hand god says things are moral because they are, and he's just pointing out right and wrong, then your point falls as well and no deity is needed.
Either way it's obnoxious that christians pretend they have some kind of copyright on morality, as if it didn't exist until their prophets came along.
Sorry, but the buddha, socrates, confucius, lao tsu and many other people stated the golden rule a long time before jesus, and none of them were magic men sent by god.
I promise, I had a real reply ready, but...yeah. That thought slithered away...bleh. I'll try though, I guess. Umm...morals, obviously, are affected by many different sources, like religion, your culture, your upbringing, and personal decisions. Well, I decide things like that, I'm not sure about other people. And if your culture says cannibalism is okay, then why would you think any different? If you were born and raised in that culture, if it's all you knew, how would you know better? Or different, I suppose. Better is subjective. Anywho, my morals are gonna have a Christian, American base to them because that's how I was raised. And I mean old-American-morals, not new-sex/drugs/alcohol is okay-American-morals. Ugh I'm sorry. I really shouldn't type in this state of mind
I... Don't know how to answer that. I've had people tell me that I can't have morals (or question where my morals come from) because I don't necessarily believe in a god, or their god. That usually just leaves me staring blankly, because there isn't really any one thing that cause me to have morals, and I don't even know where to begin. And now I'm kind of thrown spinning. Ick.
You know me; Christ.
Totally off topic, forgive me, but this post reminded me of someone...
*pondering*
You have a right to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't bother others. Once you start treading on other people's proprietary rights, shit hits the fan. You COULD say that you think it's ok to kill people, but using your same logic, are you saying it's ok if I kill you? Of course, I don't have to find killing people to be right or wrong, but according to your realm of logic, since it's an acceptable action, its application should be valid on both ends of the spectrum.
Anyway, I agree that there are no obvious clear-cut definitions of right and wrong and for the most part, everyone is just born so different that there will never be any agreement on what is morally acceptable/unacceptable. Anyway, even with the lines drawn clearly on morals, most people lack perspective anyway. Unless you know the full information and data behind a situation, who are you to make a judgment on someone without the full story? IMO, I think everyone should just mind their own business and stick their hands in their own pocket. I think it's a combination of uneducated and trashy people that make this world look hideous, but that's just from my own experiences growing up. There really isn't a right or wrong, but there is a mind your own fucking business. Charity doesn't help the situation either.
I live by our laws 'coz I'll get arrested if I don't. Well, not just that. Also because they make sense to me. They seem right so I follow.
@bluedreamer85 - Maybe me? Haha, no I don't think you've read my post...
@topic: There was this kind of question on revelife before, it was phrased something like "Can there be morals without a God?" Go ahead and read it, you might find it interesting: http://silence-of-words.xanga.com/667356285/re-do-atheists-have-morals/
Morals as a system arise out of our attempt to classify preventative behaviors. These behaviors are the ones that can help prevent negative consequences. The development of language and other abstract social constructs warps, extrudes and bevels the natural, pain-averting moral systems that arose in animal society. This is how we arrive at books of law and concepts of justice.
Morals and the laws that are built from them should always be examined for efficacy. There is no harm in questioning even the most remote taboo. Name a single taboo that some society, some community, some tribe somewhere didn't defy. That's how people roll.
If you cannot name the source of your own sense of right and wrong, naming the Creator is a default position, not a logical conclusion.
what agnophilo said. lol.
pretty much I question every action with "does this hurt me?" or "Will this hurt someone else?"
its as simple and complicated as that.
@Paul_Partisan - I think pretty much everyone agrees that rape and murder and such are wrong, but I wonder how many more people would do them if there were no consequences to them. Even though I'd say most people are moral in a more principled way, I'd wager a strong enough motive can overcome principles more easily than principles plus the risk of being killed back.
@mycontinuity - That's a good point. I definitely think there's a difference between legality and morality. I think that law can add to morality but can't take away from it. If, for example, there were no laws against rape, it would still be wrong. But if there were laws against, say, using Xanga, would it make it wrong? Just as importantly, would you still use it if you knew you could get away with it?
@agnophilo - I think you've missed my point in your presumptions about me. In case you missed my implication, I was saying that it's laughable or offensive to claim that morality is impossible without an external influence. As I said, this isn't about authoritative morality, which, by the way, needn't be God-given, as there are many who reject the notion of God and yet believe in inherent values of right and wrong in the universe. Don't get too caught up on one example. This is an acknowledgement of another variety of morality and a question regarding its foundations.
As for your views, you say that the basis of your judgement is on the ability of an action to cause harm, but how do you define harm, and how do you weigh it? What if something would help one person and harm another? Is that wrong? More importantly, why do you believe that causing harm is wrong? If it were of great benefit to you to harm someone, and you could get away with it with no consequences, what would keep you from it?
Oh, and my responses to all of the above will be given from a completely humanistic perspective. I'm not attacking your beliefs, rather merely looking for understanding, so I'd appreciate it if you would likewise refrain from attacking mine (or assumptions of what mine are) unsolicited. Thank you.
@Chinese_Sait0u - See above.
@FallenReign - Yes, you seem to have gotten my point very well. Better is subjective. Or is it? And I was raised the same: American Christian, so I agree on those things.
@IfonEarth - Well, I hope that my next post gives you some more to think about on the topic, even if it doesn't really explain everything.
@LittleEngine - I know. You know me. Same.
@bluedreamer85 - Well now I'm curious. Who?
@Ironstove - You sound like a libertarian; I like that. And yeah, if it's fair for me to do something to someone else, it's equally fair for someone else to do it to me. If killing isn't wrong, I need to watch my back.
@school_geek_oddball - Haha, in two short sentences you've summed up quite a bit of the foundations of morality. Good work.
@silence_of_words - Thanks for the link; that looks worth checking out. I'll be reading that before posting my thoughts on this.
@dirtbubble - I agree; as much as it's good to follow the rules, it's good to question them. I think it is lazy to just accept things and roll over. We should be able to independently justify the values by which we live. And yes, I do think that most things develop as rules of society because they're conducive to the existence of a successful society. All members of a society benefit from the existence of the whole, and thus outliers are subjugated, but I'll have more on that later.
@kipahni - Those are good, but what happens when they come in conflict?
@grammarboy - can you give me an example?
@kipahni - Okay, let's say you're on a boat in the middle of the ocean with one other person. A storm hits and throws most of your supplies into the deep. You have barely enough for one person to survive on for the long journey to the nearest land. What do you do?
@IfonEarth - That's the point. Your morality comes from half a dozen different things, it's a very complicated subject. Their goal is to prey on your ignorance and con you into thinking you must believe in their religion... or else.
@Ironstove - There's a quote, something to the effect that you have the right to swing your arms as much as you like, but only so far as the other man's face.
Basically what you were saying, and I agree.
@grammarboy -
"I think you've missed my point in your
presumptions about me. In case you missed my implication, I was saying
that it's laughable or offensive to claim that morality is impossible
without an external influence. As I said, this isn't about
authoritative morality, which, by the way, needn't be God-given, as
there are many who reject the notion of God and yet believe in inherent
values of right and wrong in the universe. Don't get too caught up on
one example." (emphasis added)
You said, and I quote:
"I know several atheists, and I'm fairly certain that most of them would
either laugh or be offended if I tried to tell them that because they
don't believe in God, they can't believe in the concepts of right and
wrong and must therefore be indifferent to all wrongdoing, no matter
how depraved. There really are some people like that, but they tend to
end up dead, isolated, or locked up in our society."
Now you're backpedaling on this comment and pretending like you never said it.
"This is an acknowledgement of another variety of morality
and a question regarding its foundations.
As for your views, you say
that the basis of your judgement is on the ability of an action to
cause harm, but how do you define harm, and how do you weigh it?"
The same way everyone does. Harm = pain, suffering, sadness, loss, destruction etc.
"What
if something would help one person and harm another? Is that wrong?"
Generally, yes. But if the disparity between the two is so great that it would save person A's life and have a negligible effect on person B, ie a homeless man stealing a loaf of bread from a millionaire, then the moral dilemma becomes a bit simpler does it not?
"More importantly, why do you believe that causing harm is wrong?
I explained this already.
"If it
were of great benefit to you to harm someone, and you could get away
with it with no consequences, what would keep you from it?"
First of all, only a sociopath can get away with no consequences, the rest of us feel emotional pain and guilt when we hurt people. So that would stop me. I also philosophically do not believe in it, that would guide my behavior. I have a capacity for empathy which also reinforces my sense of right and wrong, etc. And if all that were not the case and I were a sociopath, I probably still wouldn't do it because I'd probably go to jail or risk some kind of retalliation.
I once turned down sex from a gorgeous 18 year old girl who was literally begging, *begging* me to have sex with her, because while I had feelings for her, she had problems and I thought she needed a friend more than a fling. That was quite hard to do and didn't benefit me at all. At the time I was a virgin and veeeeery much wanted to have sex, so you can imagine how difficult this was.
A capacity to act selflessly is in no way dependent on the belief in a personal god.
The military's poster boy for recruitment was a guy named Pat Tillman. He was an atheist who turned down a 3.6 million dollar NFL contract to join the army and fight the taliban in afghanistan, and was later killed.
Don't tell me only theists have a capacity for selflessness. Which is a joke anyway because for a theist to be selfless they have to ignore the massive incentives and disincentives their religion offers for good and bad behavior.
"Oh, and
my responses to all of the above will be given from a completely
humanistic perspective. I'm not attacking your beliefs, rather merely
looking for understanding, so I'd appreciate it if you would likewise
refrain from attacking mine (or assumptions of what mine are)
unsolicited. Thank you."
I might honor this request if you'd done so yourself in writing this blog. Instead you suggested atheists who act in accordance to their beliefs are sociopaths and end up "dead, isolated, or locked up in our society".
@agnophilo - Perhaps, but I've never seen it that way. I'm more... In disbelief that it's even a question, y'know? I mean, if that's the intended effect, it pushes me nowhere near there... Hrm. Interesting thought, though.
@IfonEarth - It's the new tactic in evangelism, to convince people that they desperately need to believe in religion # 5,468. They can't argue that their religion is true because, well it isn't. So they play on peoples' emotions. If you were desperately hopeless or say suicidally depressed you might just be desperate enough to go to church and believe what they told you if you thought it was the only way you could be happy.
This is evil cult bullshit and I loathe it.
Most born-agains get converted this way. Many famous christian apologists converted because of drug addiction or after a suicide attempt etc. They inevitably got better as time went on and thus saw christianity as the cure for their ills, when the fact is they probably would have felt better as time went on anyway.
I was suicidally depressed and on the verge of a nervous breakdown once. Now I'm happy and content with life. And it never occurred to me to believe in magic men in the sky or read the bible.
@agnophilo - Well, I have to admit that I've read parts of the Bible (and am still getting through it, albeit extremely slowly), but only because of all the freakin' allusions to it in literature. *shrugs* I read it as another piece of fiction, not as fact. I suppose there are some who would hang me for it, but oh well.
I suppose that makes sense, though. If someone weren't sure of themselves, then perhaps that would be convincing. Or confusing enough to be convincing. Either way.
After christianity and I had a falling out, I tried to figure out what was moral and what wasn't, and I decided that the only immorality is causing harm to others.
@IfonEarth - Yeah. The shame of it is that then they're shackled to that religion forever, because they're convinced they will stop being a good person or become horribly depressed etc without it.
And I have read much of the bible too, but also as a work of fiction. And what a crazy work of fiction it is too.
@pandapanda2 - Yup : D