Religion vs Morality.

DeVore

Ok, some of you may go "Well DUUUH DeV" and I might be REAL feckin slow but I've been thinking about this a long time now.

I grew up with Religion and Morality tightly intertwined. "Thou Shalt Not... XYZ" etc...

Rejecting constructed religion made me feel like I was rejecting it all and some of it I agreed with ("Treat others as you would like to be treated" for example) and for a fair length of time I felt that I was living a hedonistic lifestyle which does fit my personality exactly.

Lately I have been giving the whole "communities of morality" a lot of thinking.

Morality doesnt require religion but it does require rules or perhaps better put as "standards" that you call yourself to keep.

Thinking about it the commandments are an odd bunch of standards when you look at them...

"Thou shalt not kill" ok, I doubt anyone could argue with that one, but then they drop "Thou shalt not take false gods before me". Which isnt a moral issue ... its a "keeping our gravy train on the tracks" thing.

Placing something like that in between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" is a well accepted way of getting something past the weak of mind. I give you the Nice Treaty as an example
The truth is the best place to hide a lie.

But another thing about them is the way they are phrased:
They arent worded
"I shall not..."... they are worded "YOU shall not..."
I think thats a big problem with the clergy of today, they want you to do as they say not as they do....

Just a thought.

DeV.

DadaKopf

The clergy want us to do what they say because they've been indoctrinated to believe that they hold priviledged knowledge, given by God, that gives them the authority to tell us what to do. As if we're not clever enough to work out that pain and suffering is bad and wicked anyway.

As much as various aspects of modern civilisation have undermined moral certainty (which has always been a Chimera anyway), the Church has undermined its own position due to its septic hypocrisy. Who can trust them now? The Church has no significant moral authority anymore.

But does that mean there's no morality anymore? Certainly not. There's always been a battle between the just and unjust but people still aspire to a better world - despite its obvous flaws, the UN stands as a testament to a truly global desire for this. But that's in the overview.

If the Church has any important role which will be missed, it's the importance it has to people's moral lives on an individual, everyday level. Right now, people are far too content to satisfy their own desires without reference to the community or the world at large. The Church always placed an emphasis on community, solidarity, social capital. I think this is the birthplace of morality and without the Church (I personally don't want the power of the Church or religion to return), we're desparate to find a meaningful replacement and our ability to buy stuff isn't going to fill the gap.

DeVore

I dont think I've read a post on Boards with which I simultaneously want to agree and disagree with more, Dada

The clergy want us to do what they say because they've been indoctrinated to believe that they hold priviledged knowledge, given by God, that gives them the authority to tell us what to do. As if we're not clever enough to work out that pain and suffering is bad and wicked anyway.

I agree.
Not only that but they have no other gravy train to ride. What are they going to do...flip burgers?

As much as various aspects of modern civilisation have undermined moral certainty (which has always been a Chimera anyway), the Church has undermined its own position due to its septic hypocrisy. Who can trust them now? The Church has no significant moral authority anymore.

I disagree that morality is a chimera. There isnt a country on earth where murder is acceptible. Theres a base of morality that doesnt change.

And what does religion have to do with it at all??
Why do we look to religious leaders for moral guidance? what does it have to do with religion?


Does that mean there's no morality anymore? Certainly not. There's always been a battle between the just and unjust but people still aspire to a better world - despite its obvous flaws, the UN stands as a testament to a truly global desire for this. But that's in the overview.

I agree, the UN Charter of Human Rights is one of the outstanding documents the human race has created. Including all the "scriptures".

If the Church has any important role which will be missed, it's the importance it has to people's moral lives on an individual, everyday level. Right now, people are far too content to satisfy their own desires without reference to the community or the world at large.


NOOOooooo! Why does the Church have an important role to play in Morality? Why cant we have non-religious moral communities? Why do we have to take the bathwater back just to have the baby?

The Church always placed an emphasis on community, solidarity, social capital. I think this is the birthplace of morality and without the Church (I personally don't want the power of the Church or religion to return), we're desparate to find a meaningful replacement and our ability to buy stuff isn't going to fill the gap.

The church has used that "community" to perpetuate its position.

I think humanity IS keen to find a replacement (hence a lot of the New-Religions etc).
I think we need to split morality and religion as they arent necessarily entwined....

DeV.

DadaKopf

And what does religion have to do with it at all??
Why do we look to religious leaders for moral guidance? what does it have to do with religion?

I suppose there's two levels to look at it as regards a definition of religion. On one hand, religion is just one kind of approach to answering the unanswerable questions of life (as opposed to science or philosophy for example). The second level involves the kinds of institutions that attempt to enforce doctrines and, as much as the UN is one a modern day morality enforcing institution, so too is the Church. So the reason people look towards religious leaders for moral guidance is because they embody some kind of moral authority which is meaningful and significant to millions of people in the world. But, in the end of the day, it's fundamentally no different to an athiest who puts all his faith in the UN Carter on Human Rights - which itself embodies a certain approach to those unanswerable questions.

NOOOooooo! Why does the Church have an important role to play in Morality? Why cant we have non-religious moral communities? Why do we have to take the bathwater back just to have the baby?

Well, when it comes to morality, I don't think anyone can ever have a monopoly or absolute certainty on the Truth - it generates all kinds of dangerous problems. So morality doesn't have to have anything to do with religion, but in the extent to which it's significantly meaningful to a community or nation then it's at least as valid as an irreligious morality like Classical Liberalism.

The church has used that "community" to perpetuate its position.

I think humanity IS keen to find a replacement (hence a lot of the New-Religions etc).
I think we need to split morality and religion as they arent necessarily entwined....

Yeah, it has and I don't think they're wrong in this regard. If you ask yourself what effect modern living has had on society, you'd probably agree that it's broken down communities and people are more isolated. That's why people are to keen to find a replacement morality but unless trust is regained between individuals (which requires communities), this isn't really going to work. I think things need to become more localised.

Or something.

DeVore

I want irreligious morality.

Where do I find a community of such people?

DeV.

Shinji

Where do I find a community of such people?

Why do you need one?

How is an organised "un-religion" any better than an organised religion? In a "community" of such people, wouldn't your community leaders just be priests by another name? Wouldn't the same gravy trains start rolling onwards and the same stupid stale thinking take hold after a short amount of time?

Laws are an issue for society; but morality is a personal thing. I don't see the need for a community such as you describe - believe in your own principles and your own morality, and stand by them.

DeVore

Interesting question Shinji... but Boards.ie is a community. I'm its community "leader"... does that make me a priest?

Why do I feel I need the company of other people who (morally) think like I do? Maybe I'm lonely
Actually being serious for a second, I dont think any man is an island, I can recognise the need in myself to have a community of people who's base is similar to mine so that I could bounce ideas off to "box my moral compass" (a nautical term meaning to reality check myself).

Plus, its not like when we get together for Boards Beers that we ever think about doing charity work. (Something I do quite a bit of but I dont go round beating my chest about it).
Do you ever talk to your mates about doing something for charity together? I know I dont since I ceased doing the Gaelcon charity and its something I miss.
I've done charity work personally since but somehow it isnt the same without organising a group of people to make a bigger change.

Ironically considering the post on Admin I'm working on supporting an event in the 2003 Special Olympics, but without the other guys I'm doing it with I probably would just give up and stick money in a box somewhere.

Hmmm, we're getting off the point and onto my personal morals...

DeV.

Beruthiel

Originally posted by DeVore
I want irreligious morality.

Where do I find a community of such people?

DeV.

here Dev!
would you not consider boards exactly that?
I have no time for religion, I would have to agree with a lot of what Shinji says, as long as you have been brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, you can usually come up with your own set of morals if you have half a brain. In fact, I found the search helpful in getting to know myself and others and useful in a way religion is not. When you are given a set of rules without having to put too much thought into them, how does it help you as a person?
More often than not I consider religion to be unhelpful, it has been the start of more wars and the killing of too many people.

Beruthiel

lol - ah feck Dev!
you got there before me! anyway, you no priest my man, but there's nothing wrong with this community, it has a pretty good moral stick.

I can recognise the need in myself to have a community of people who's base is similar to mine so that I could bounce ideas off to "box my moral compass"

I would have to say, I'd be the same for this, I love a good ol' discussion with people on what their thoughts are, it does the soul good and can sometimes give you new insights and angles you may not have come up with yourself.

Shinji

Interesting question Shinji... but Boards.ie is a community. I'm its community "leader"... does that make me a priest?

Boards.ie is in no way a community linked by a common morality, or a common approach to morality - which is what you were suggesting.

A community of people who all take their own approach to morality and don't believe in having it dictated to them by others, well, that's a different thing entirely.

Why do I feel I need the company of other people who (morally) think like I do?

See, I think the problem here is the definition of a community. I go drinking or play games or talk crap with a lot of friends who have similar ideas about morals and so on (and quite a few who don't, which is what makes it interesting).... Now to my mind that's not really a "community" since that suggests a certain extra something; a level of interdependancy and seperation from other "communities".

I tend to be concerned that when you deliberately and knowingly organise something around a set of moral principles, even if your own intentions are excellent, the structure you've created is very open to exploitation by others will less pure intentions...

DeVore

2000 years from now I'll be a feckin GOD... you just wait Beruthiel!!! There'll be the Book Of Boards! "And thus the Muppet was CAST OUT from the paradise of the server... "
"Thou shalt not Spam!"



Anyway my morality goes like this:

" Treat others as you would like to be treated, so long as they wish it". (the latter bit is tagged on to close a logical hole which would allow sado-masochists to run around whipping people (that being how they would like "to be treated")).
I've given this a lot of thought you see

If thats too complex then "Be Nice" is a close approximation.

My day to day rules are:
1. You do what you want so long as it hurts noone else.
2. I'll do as I see fit so long as it hurts noone else.
3. I will stop people from hurting other people
4. I will NOT stop people from doing what they want UNLESS they are hurting others.
5. In general I will try to "see fit" to help people who need it.



Go in Peace.

DeV.

DeVore

Actually to give the idea its fair address;
Boards is a community and it has certain loose "moral" standards but its by no means a moral community and its purpose is not to support or instruct or assist someones morality. Nor should it beyond the kind of discussions we have here to date.

Boards is a great community and something I'm very proud of but its not the sort of thing that I would rely on for moral support.


I've been offered everything from IRA money to dodgy contracts on agreement that I'll kick back a % to the tenderer... theres the constant temptation to trade recklessly or squander the payroll on an investment in the hope it turns up trumps (you'd be surprised how many managing directors do that)...
That can wear you down eventually when you start to think there are ONLY evil **** in the world.

DeV.

neuro-praxis

Just one thing I noticed Dev - you're of the opinion that there are some things which are blatantly right and wrong that everyone can agree with.

I don't think you're right about that.

You say that everyone thinks killing is wrong.

In Egypt, to name just one example, they practise what is known as "honour killing". This entitles a father to murder his daughters (I'm unsure as to whether or not sons are included in this) if they have dishonoured him. Dishonouring one's father can be achieved generally by having sex outside of marriage with some guy. Your father is then entitled to kill you, call it an honour killing, and nothing more will be said.

In many parts of Africa and the Middle East, female circumcision is enforced and believed to be right.

In Iran, women are flogged publicly 80 times if they are caught by the morality police in the company of a man.

In most European countries, abortion (the killing of a developing human child) is permitted and even at times, encouraged.

These are just a few examples that demonstrate that people do not all agree on basic moral principles.

That having been said, I agree with you that there are definite things that are right, definite things that are wrong, and there are the things that have room for movement.

I wouldn't for a moment imply that non-religious people are not concerned with morals, but I think that you'd be hard-pushed to find other people for whom good moral behaviour is a priority.

In Christian circles, we talk and argue a lot about what is right and what's not...but I think that in the long run we're as crap at living up to our standards as anybody else.

Perhaps you should find some kind of social activism group that you could get involved with? Or, you could try a church that is concerned with social justice (there are a lot of independent churches in Dublin whose main concerns involve working for this city's poor, etc.)

Otherwise, be as good as you can be, and be the best example you can. If you're a good person, you can challenge those around you to be the same.

DeVore

There is right, and there is wrong, there are grey areas too but that doesnt affect the existance of the others.

Every culture has times when killing is allowed (self defence here) but cold bloodied murder for no reason isnt allowed anywhere to my knowledge.

I'm not going to defend Egyptian laws, I dont want to in fact, but even there you cant just kill someone in the street.

My biggest problem with religions is their tendancy to prosletyse and preach. They spend more time telling you how to live your life then trying to live their own by their own moral code.

I've found more moralistic athestists then I have christians tbh Neuro but I dont want this to descend into a religious war I just think morality and religions arent necessarily *required* to be together and wanted to discuss that.

DeV.

DadaKopf

So basically you're saying that a categorically immoral act is one which is fundamentally meaningless? There's a certain case to be made for this but since meaning itself is pretty much a matter of interpretation (given certain constraints/limits), an objective principle is still pretty difficult to rationalise.

The reality today anyway is that we have a kaleidoscope of meanings throughout the world and the attitude is that (theoretically at least) all of them are equal in status. But we still have to decide which ones we like and which we don't like. But in the interest of "being nice", we should at least listen to the people we immediately wish to condemn.

Just because an act is meaningless to us doesn't mean we should condemn it for being immoral, it's a call for us to understand it. We can never walk in someone else's shoes - we can only ever see things from our perspective - but at least if we can frame it properly, we see that there really isn't black and white moralities, only shades of different colours.

So if you're looking for an athiestic morality, you won't find one right now, if ever. What you will find is liberal pragmatism that tries to transcend all ideologies, theistic or atheistic. But that's assuming that that discourse isn't controlled by a dominant ideology itself.

DeVore

Ok Dada... you lost me at "So Basically".

I dont care what you say. Walking up to someone with a gun and shooting them dead for no reason is wrong.

Is that a subjective judgement? Hell yeah and I'm making it

DeV.

Shinji

Every culture has times when killing is allowed (self defence here) but cold bloodied murder for no reason isnt allowed anywhere to my knowledge.

Yeah, but cold blooded murder for no reason isn't exactly a common human act...

I don't necessarily believe that there are basic standards of morality that all humans have. I'd love to believe that we have those codes built in, but I don't honestly think that's the case; if you strip a human down to his or her most basic level of cognition, I don't think there's ANY morality, just a survival instinct. It's up to our higher consciousness to add that layer of morality to our behaviour.

This makes things much more difficult, of course. If there's no basic code of morality, you're not talking about just deconditioning some of the extreme beliefs and morals enforced by certain societies (extreme Islamic ones are particularly unpleasant), you're talking about reprogramming morality from first principles.

Without absolute morality then, you're left with simply having to be arrogant and believe that your morals are right and the morals which teach people to kill their daughters for dishonouring them are wrong. Me, yeah, I believe that. My morality IS better than that of someone who believes in killing others or mistreating/mutilating each other; yes, that's arrogant and possibly illogical on a philosophical level, but it helps make sense of the world, in my view.

Bard

Originally posted by DeVore

My day to day rules are:
1. You do what you want so long as it hurts noone else.
2. I'll do as I see fit so long as it hurts noone else.
3. I will stop people from hurting other people
4. I will NOT stop people from doing what they want UNLESS they are hurting others.
5. In general I will try to "see fit" to help people who need it.

Go in Peace.

Ever considered paganism?

Shinji

Er, "paganism" isn't actually a religion is it - it's a derogatory term used by members of the large, organised monotheistic religions in previous centuries to describe those who lived outside their belief systems....

I know it's been associated with druidic faiths and wicca in recent years but as far as I know it's still not a specific religion.... Happy to be corrected on this though.

DeVore

Originally posted by Bard
Ever considered paganism?

What would it add?


It would add a bunch of "religious beliefs" which I'd have to pretend to believe in.

What would it do to enhance me?

DeV.

Talliesin

Er, "paganism" isn't actually a religion is it - it's a derogatory term used by members of the large, organised monotheistic religions in previous centuries to describe those who lived outside their belief systems....

Yes and no. "Pagan" was originally used as a derogatory term (it translates as "rural" and hence can be considered as equivalent to "bumpkin" or "bogger") but it was adopted by Pagans themselves during the period in which "old" Paganism was still practiced.

You are correct that it is used as an umbrella term for Wicca, Druidry and other faiths rather than being a specific religion in and of itself. That said there are plenty of people who are Pagans but aren't a member of any of the paths within Paganism, and as such "Paganism" is as specific a term as they can use for their beliefs.

Bard is also correct in noting that DeVore's "day to day rules" are quite compatible with most modern Pagan thinking about the extent to which we can mandate moral behaviour (though questioning just what is or isn't hurting others generally leads individuals to devise more specific rules for their own behaviour). Rules 1 and 2 are practically paraphrasing the Wiccan Rede, and most Wiccan's would argue that 3, 4 and 5 are entailed by the Rede.

However I don't think it follows that DeVore should immediately adopt any form of Paganism. For one thing I can't imagine DeVore casting a circle without casting a doubtful eye on the athamé and saying "surely if I want to use this to protect the circle I should just sharpen it and stab anyone that tries to harm us"

hedgetrimmer

Although I am chirping in late, this topic is the basis of a philosophy I am working on with a friend of mine who is doing a masters in Theoretical Physics - and I mention that only becuase while I am taking the philosophy approach, he's doing the mathematics to support/ refute those theories.

I'm not going to go into the full thing here - that would take volumes. But basically, there are as many moral philosophies as religions, and believe me that is a whole truckload. I've been researching this for about 5 years, in spare time now, not in a collegial fashion (would that I could!) and I have only tipped the iceberg.

But morality can only be learned by the individual and guided by that persons community and societal values. By which I mean, you can receive all the morality from dogma, teachings, philosophy et al that you want, but still if things feel fundamentally *wrong* to you and you feel that you are not doing *right*, it opens up the issue of personal morality over teachings (assuming the person is stable and sane, but that's another set of books).

The above may sound like Crowley's often misunderstood "Do what thou Wilt" (which is *not* a licence to do *anything*).

Rather than going on, you don't *need* to assign your morality to a recognisable dogma or teaching, and even if you do, you'll find hundred of versions of that religion, and numerous moralistic intepretations within those versions. Roman Catholicism has currently 4 major schools of Moral and Canon Law. The recognised Pagan structures have quite literally hundered.

I really fear that I could go on for pages here, so I best leave my point, for now, at the above paragraph before I produce a nove here.

Talliesin

It does indeed bear some resemblance to the Law of Thelema, but whether it is truly comparable depends on where that "feeling" of right and wrong comes from.

Trojan

Originally posted by DeVore
I want irreligious morality.

Where do I find a community of such people?

DeV.

Maybe they'll be easy to find, but I wouldn't trust such a group straight off.

I think that such people are inherently going to be quieter about their own beliefs, morals, etc, and thus would perhaps not exist as a "community" in this sense.

Al.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DeVore
My day to day rules are:
1. You do what you want so long as it hurts noone else.

2. I'll do as I see fit so long as it hurts noone else.

3. I will stop people from hurting other people

4. I will NOT stop people from doing what they want UNLESS they are hurting others.

5. In general I will try to "see fit" to help people who need it.

Problem with that is that the terms hurt and people are too open to interpretation. Is the hurt direct or indirect? Sure, punching a guy on the street is an easy one to categorize, but is dropping a bit of litter? On its own it hurts no one, but if this becomes an accepted practice in society then it begins to affect quality of life for all around you.

As for no one, then that depends on how you define people. Is a woman, a black, a Jew, a non-citizen or foetus a person? Are their rights equal to yours? Is your right to a job greater than the right of a non-citizen to the same job? Is a mother’s right to choose greater than the right to life of the foetus (assuming we’ve ascribed either of the non-citizen or the foetus the status of humanity).

In short, those are fine rules to go by, if they were not so open to abuse and convenient interpretation. “Thou shall not kill... unless it’s a just war, or capital punishment or a mercy killing or...” - we, as governments or as individuals make these moral exceptions and reinventions all the time.

Don’t get me wrong Dev - I know you would never abuse them, but would you trust others to be as philosophically and morally disciplined as you

Say what you will about pretty much every organized religion, but its dogmatic stance to morality is far less susceptible to such interpretations. You can argue with philosophers or even your conscience, but not with an abstract divinity.

Shinji

I think you're inventing problems where there need be none, Corinthian.

Admittedly the definition of hurt can be a tricky one in certain situations - the example you presented is a very simple one, as it's patently obvious that littering damages the environment and thus the people living in that environment. However, more complex ones exist; some would argue that watching pornography is hurting, in some way, the people involved in the sex trade because it's degrading to them. Now, personally, I think those people are wrong but it's a potential bone of contention.

In 99% of instances however, the definition of "hurt" is very simple and straightforward. Some people might not like it though; the anti-drug lobby might have a lot of trouble with accepting that the simple act of taking drugs actually doesn't hurt anyone else, and thus falls well inside the scope of this interpretation of morality.

As to the definition of humanity.... There's no argument here, and I while I see what you're trying to say, I think it needs to be recognised that the definition of a human being is a scientific one, and is not open to interpretation by politicians, religions or anyone else on the face of this earth.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Shinji
Admittedly the definition of hurt can be a tricky one in certain situations - the example you presented is a very simple one, as it's patently obvious that littering damages the environment and thus the people living in that environment.

Patently obvious, thanks to decades of advertising and propaganda.

Some people might not like it though; the anti-drug lobby might have a lot of trouble with accepting that the simple act of taking drugs actually doesn't hurt anyone else, and thus falls well inside the scope of this interpretation of morality.

Many legal drugs cause a lot of hurt. Third party smoking or drunk driving to name a few. To say the illegal drugs are benign in comparison is a delusion. However, that is your interpretation of morality, not someone else’s, and this is where moral problems begin (see DeVore rule #4 above). This is one of the flaws with such rules.

As to the definition of humanity.... There's no argument here, and I while I see what you're trying to say, I think it needs to be recognised that the definition of a human being is a scientific one, and is not open to interpretation by politicians, religions or anyone else on the face of this earth.

An inconclusive situation in that we would rely upon definitions that have been brought about by the interpretation of others. Scientists are as prone to prejudice as anyone else, and at best science has been continually refining and reversing its view of the World for centuries. Quite a few Nazi scientists ‘proved’ that the Jews were strictly not human, after all.

Still, I suppose you could be accused replacing one omniscient dogma with another as your moral compass

DeVore

Hang on... (real quick answer cos I'm running to the LOTR premier... *sound of a name being dropped* )


1. Those are *my* "rules"... I'm not suggesting everyone follows them but you should have some yourself.

2. They actually arent rules as such but general guidelines. Like the Rules of Boards I will change them as circumstances require and ultimately trust my "gut feeling" of "is this right or not". That avoids the "hoist by your own petard" problem when someone deliberately perverts the rules to create paradoxes.

3. They work for 99% of the time... I'm human... I can stand being wrong 1% of the time. In fact if that was ALL I was ever wrong I'd be feckin chuffed!

Cornithian, I'll answer your points in depth later.

DeV.

DadaKopf

But morality can only be learned by the individual and guided by that persons community and societal values. By which I mean, you can receive all the morality from dogma, teachings, philosophy et al that you want, but still if things feel fundamentally *wrong* to you and you feel that you are not doing *right*, it opens up the issue of personal morality over teachings (assuming the person is stable and sane, but that's another set of books).

But that still begs the question: why does it feel wrong?

If morality is a matter of feeling, then it's just psychological. The feeling of being wrong is just a state of neurosis - some kind of mental conflict between two or more psychological motivations/desires. It may be an intellectual conflict but it's a neurosis nonetheless. But can this view of morality provide a firm grounding for moral principles? Probably not in isolation, but applied to the community, possibly. In terms of biology, we're at least mostly similar in our ability to process experiences but we know that human beings can also go very, very wrong. Can we base a morality on feeling alone?

neuro-praxis

Great thread.

hedgetrimmer

One of the big issues in discussing morality and religion is the problem of language. By which I mean, there are words that come to the table which people often have presuppositions about, and as we all know, presuppositions lead to subjective discussion and objectivity becomes difficult.

Words like God, Mysticism, Moraliry, Right and Wrong - all and sundry such terms when mentioned immediately evoke a series of preupposed ideals via which the person enters that argument. If we are talking about God, for example, you enter with your own presupposed version of what God means to you, and I, with what God means to me.

There has been talk of re-inventing language to suit a form of "open" debate, but to be honest, that's not a very *human* approach. I think this kind of discussion can attain more value if we try to step away from the *terms* used in favour of the meaning, flavour and central point of what is being discussed. I think, most often, that people understand the fundamentals of what is being said, and that is more important, IMO, from a HUMAN point of view rather than an analytical discussion

DeVore

Originally posted by DadaKopf
But that still begs the question: why does it feel wrong?

If morality is a matter of feeling, then it's just psychological. The feeling of being wrong is just a state of neurosis - <snip> Can we base a morality on feeling alone?

You seen the film 12 Monkeys ... where he's finally happy that he's accepted he's "mad" because that means the world isnt going to end etc?
Well I kinda feel like that about your post... I so wish it were true because then nothing would really matter... i mean I could go out and be a wanker to everyone a meet and besides not having any friends, well theres no reason for me NOT to... I mean, not only is "God" dead but Right and Wrong are too...

But I dont believe it and I cant prove it, I cant draw a theorem of it and I understand your slightly-nihilist-inspired "we are only products of our conditioning, there is no ultimate right/wrong, only perception and conditioning" argument but I just cant agree.

I honestly think there IS right , wrong, truth and falsehood whether we agree, observe or accept.

You should note that my answer to "if a tree falls in forest, and noone hears... does it still make a sound?" is to smack the person and say "DUH!".

DeV.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DeVore
1. Those are *my* "rules"... I'm not suggesting everyone follows them but you should have some yourself.

One of the practical applications of morality is that it acts as a social framework that a society may hold in common, allowing its members to peacefully coexist.

Your I’m all right Jack philosophy is all very well for yourself, but try to imagine a society where everyone has decided, like you, on their own mutable and loosely defined definition of right and wrong.

Now imagine them living together in harmony...



[edit]Left out a wee word...[/edit]

DeVore

Immutable laws come to grief Corinthian. There has to be a little flexibility.

My guidelines are pretty strict and I'd expect others to be too, but they are not immutable was my point.

They are also written in a fashion that if everyone adopted them we'd be in a better position as a society imho. I dont favour myself over others in my guidelines and I DO think about the sort of thing both in my life and with Boards.ie (I've referred to sustainable behaviour any number of times).

DeV.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DeVore
Immutable laws come to grief Corinthian. There has to be a little flexibility.

Sure. I never said there shouldn’t be a little flexibility - that’s why we don’t consider burning witches at the stake such a good thing anymore. Morality is flexible and does change, but it does so slowly.

My guidelines are pretty strict and I'd expect others to be too, but they are not immutable was my point.

No, defining rules as “general guidelines” would not be “pretty strict”. At least that’s how I would interpret it

They are also written in a fashion that if everyone adopted them we'd be in a better position as a society imho.

Again, it depends on how everyone would, rightly or wrongly, interpret what you have written.

All I see is a collection of wishy-washy ‘I’m all right Jack’ type guidelines that could be interpreted in so many ways as to make them nothing more than a philosophical justification for complete licence.

DeVore

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Again, it depends on how everyone would, rightly or wrongly, interpret what you have written.

Without being bloodminded about them, any relatively sane person would come to an acceptible (if not uniform) interpretation of those rules. I think you are being perverse for the sake of the argument.

All I see is a collection of wishy-washy ‘I’m all right Jack’ type guidelines that could be interpreted in so many ways as to make them nothing more than a philosophical justification for complete licence.

I dont agree with you're statement above. I also dont like the "im all right jack" implication.
I think you should go back and read my "guidelines" again. I fail to see where I'm feathering my own nest or treating myself preferentially to warrant an "im all right jack" comment.

DeV.

Talliesin

I think we can roughly classify the rules we run our lives by as follows:

1. Rules we demand everyone follows (if you kill someone in cold blood we, as a society, will do something about it).
2. Rules we expect others to follow (we'll think you are an asshole if you don't).
3. Rules we follow but don't necessarily expect others to follow (I give a donation to the SVP every Yule, but I couldn't expect others to do the same).
4. Rules of Doctrine (observing the Sabbath, eating according to Kosher, Halal or other dietary laws, not touching another person's magickal tools without asking first, etc.)

Where we draw the line between each of these is of course a debatable matter, but I think a lot of the discussion so far has been taking all of these rules as equivalent.

Indeed the manner in which we draw the line varies itself. Some societies draw the line between the first and second because of the degree of harm it does to the society. Others do so on the basis of the morality of the matter itself (though arguably that itself is the society defending itself, although that may have been forgotten).

In a secular society we don't expect anyone to follow Rules of Doctrine unless they themselves choose to. This is the clearest case were morality follows from religion, and many would argue that it is a separate matter to morality. To some extent there is a matter of etiquette involved (I wouldn't eat a bacon sandwich during a short stay in a Jewish household out of politeness, but if I actually lived with a Jew I would feel I had a right to follow my own practices) and the degree to which etiquette encodes moral principles is also unclear.

There is an interesting Sufi story that has a something to say about the question of religious rules. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I thought I'd paraphrase it for you all here:

There was once a man who as a good Christian. As such he was bound to go to heaven if he continued to live his life as he did. One day he converted to Islam, but he continued to drink wine. Because he broke the Prophet's prohibition on alcohol he went to hell.

DeVore

I'll post them again for those in the cheap seats:

My day to day rules are:
1. You do what you want so long as it hurts noone else.

2. I'll do as I see fit so long as it hurts noone else.

3. I will stop people from hurting other people

4. I will NOT stop people from doing what they want UNLESS they are hurting others.

5. In general I will try to "see fit" to help people who need it.


DeV.

Talliesin

All I see is a collection of wishy-washy ‘I’m all right Jack’ type guidelines that could be interpreted in so many ways as to make them nothing more than a philosophical justification for complete licence.

Not if you actually try to live your life by them.

I won't defend DeVore's rules (he can do that himself) but I'll defend the Rede, against which exactly the same argument has been made (similarly the Law of Thelema, the Golden Rule, "Do the Right Thing", and other such moral guidelines).

Such general guidelines (as opposed to a piece of legislation such as either the Penal Codes of modern societies, the Book of Deuteronomy, etc.) can indeed give you room to defend just about any action.

But why defend such actions? If you are genuninely trying to live by them you will not do so. Indeed the very flexibility gives you less lee-way than a legislative system. With a legislative system you can seek for loopholes and enjoy them (and defenses for murder, assault, rape, slavery and treason as well as minor crimes have been found and used in loopholes in Canon law and similar).

However if you are genuinely attempting to live by a guideline that isn't completely clear about a matter (e.g. "if I smoke, and do so away from non-smokers, I am only harming myself, is that okay?") then you are not given an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
Rather you are forced to actually think about the morality of your actions.
And you are forced to think about it more than once.

That is a sound basis for a humane morality.

hedgetrimmer

I think what we are talking about here is essentailly a humanist approach and a dogmatic societal approach to morality, which are not necessarily at loggerheads with each other.

I think there are some moral rights which while some societies may brush them under the carpet, go against the gain of most human consciousnesses (such as child brutality), and the morality of such things can be regarded as somewhat universal.

But a moral judgement cannot be made without a full understanding of a given situation.

So societal guidelines are more of a structured approach to protect us from things that go against the human grain - such as murder of an innocent, but these break down into legalities, be it actual law or moral law, and morality, as the individual perceives it, cannot be applied to legality - and systems don't allow often for the merits or otherwise of a given situation.

Personal morality is a path one chooses to live by, and while that individual lives in society which has societal guidelines, if that perosn chooses to deny those guidelines, that person must accept the consequences of his/ her actions. But that is not to say that an individual cannot champion their own morality.

After all, we only have our own consciousness to go by, no matter what external influences pull us towards

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DeVore
Without being bloodminded about them, any relatively sane person would come to an acceptible (if not uniform) interpretation of those rules. I think you are being perverse for the sake of the argument.

You're assuming that everyone is 'relatively sane' - or at least thinks with the same education, logic, culture and thought processes as yourself, resulting in everyone coming to "an acceptable (if not uniform) interpretation" of your rules/guidelines.

What happens if other people are not like you then?

I'm not being perverse for the sake of the argument, but arguing that others may be peverse - from your viewpoint.

I dont agree with you're statement above. I also dont like the "im all right jack" implication.

It's not directed at you personally DeV, but your rules/guidelines do have the advantage of allowing one an almost infinite moral flexibility.

davej

Originally posted by The Corinthian

I'm not being perverse for the sake of the argument, but arguing that others may be peverse - from your viewpoint.

I'd have to agree with you Corinthian. The idea / belief that everyone should be free to anything they want to do so long as no one is hurt is admirable, but flawed, imo.

1. You do what you want so long as it hurts noone else.

The problem arises in determining whether or not someone is "hurt" by your actions. These rules are just too simplistic. Simply by participating in a consumerist society you are exploiting ("hurting") many 3rd world countries. Where do you draw the line?

You can never know whether an action you perform won't have an adverse side effect somewhere down the line and end up negatively effecting someone else. History is littered with examples of people who thought they were doing the "enlightened" thing with regards to other people but with hindsight we consider their acts abhorrent.

davej

DeVore

Ok, but I dont hear anyone else attempting to define how they live? Anyone else want to give it a go?

DeV.

davej

I'd define how I live thusly:

follow the least path of resistance

davej

DadaKopf

Originally posted by DeVore
You seen the film 12 Monkeys ... where he's finally happy that he's accepted he's "mad" because that means the world isnt going to end etc?
Well I kinda feel like that about your post... I so wish it were true because then nothing would really matter... i mean I could go out and be a wanker to everyone a meet and besides not having any friends, well theres no reason for me NOT to... I mean, not only is "God" dead but Right and Wrong are too...

But I dont believe it and I cant prove it, I cant draw a theorem of it and I understand your slightly-nihilist-inspired "we are only products of our conditioning, there is no ultimate right/wrong, only perception and conditioning" argument but I just cant agree.

Oh no, I don't actually think a morality can be based on feelings alone. I used to think that but not anymore. I was genuinely asking what people thought about that question. However, I also don't think morality can be summed up by 'natural laws'.

I'm not exactly a relativist but I just can't trust anyone who claims to have special objective knowledge of right and wrong like priests, certain philosophers and scientists.

DeVore

Originally posted by davej
I'd define how I live thusly:

follow the least path of resistance

davej

And you claim MY guidelines are mutable enough to expose flaws?heheh...

In fact you said of my "rules"

These rules are just too simplistic.

I'm a bit confused now



Can you provide some examples of how that works in day to day terms? Thats a very esoteric guidline...

DeV.

DeVore

Corinthian, there may be a communications problem here:

I said:

---

I dont agree with you're statement above. I also dont like the "im all right jack" implication.

---

You said:

---

It's not directed at you personally DeV, but your rules/guidelines do have the advantage of allowing one an almost infinite moral flexibility.

---

The phrase "I'm all right Jack" is (at least in my circle of friends and family) followed swiftly by "so fvck the rest of you" and is used in a derogatory manner about the person being referred to.

As in: That person is a selfish person who looks after themselves first and cares little for how others are faring.

Perhaps you werent aware of the baggage the phrase brings cos thats not me (or so I'd like to think....)

Is that common usage? or are my friends and family particularly judgemental?

DeV.

DadaKopf

One good attempt at a completely stripped down ethical code was put forward by Kant.

His Categorical Imperative held that an act is immoral if it cannot be applied universally. For every action a person makes, he should ask himself "what would happen if I applied this universally?" If the answer results in rational incoherence, it's immoral.

Take stealing. You ask: what would happen if everyone stole? Answer: no one would own anything and there'd be no such thing as stealing. The answer ends up in rational incoherence/stupidity. It can't be applied universally so the universal law, or maxim, regarding theft is: theft is immoral. This therefore implies that, objectively, theft is intrinsically wrong.

This concept of morality seemingly gets around the problem of relativism. However, it has problems. The theory is too black and white and it doesn't satisfactorily address predicaments where either outcome is negative - Kant would hold that in such circumstances, it's best to do nothing because at least you've done nothing wrong. But is that really fair?

The other problem is that real life moral issues are much more complex; conceptualising the universal applicability of, say, the 'Oil For Food Programme' is still a matter of interpretation. So while the Categorical Imperative is a good tool to aspire to, the issue of relativism continues to cause problems.

If you want to develop a personal maxim, you should just always expect it to fall short of real life scenarios - they're values to aspire to, not shackles to be bound to. There's nothing wrong with them, they're just limited.

davej

Originally posted by DeVore
And you claim MY guidelines are mutable enough to expose flaws?heheh...

In fact you said of my "rules"


I'm a bit confused now



Can you provide some examples of how that works in day to day terms? Thats a very esoteric guidline...

DeV.

Ok Ok so I was being a bit flippant in my response. I suppose what I mean is that I take each situation in its own context and make a decision on what I will do based on that. I don't have any concretised guidelines that I apply to a situation. If I have any guidelines they are almost completely mutable depending on the situation. This often results in a "go with the flow" response to a situation, but not always because I may perceive some future negative (or positive) effect in the longer term.

If I were drafted into the army for a war next week, to defend myself I would be forced to kill others. We change the labels around - "murder", "casualty of war", or most the insidious - "Collateral Damage" to suit ourselves. Its handy therefore to be able to have a law like, "you must never commit murder" rather than "you must never end a life". Society is a completely mutable phenomenon. Therefore we, as social beings - along with the laws and labels we attach to our actions, are too.

davej

hedgetrimmer

The central tenet to my life is awareness. I try to be aware of the big picture in a given situation and apply a solution I feel inately and understand academically to be the best decision, by which I mean the one that brings most happiness to me and those around me/ affected by the situation.

In all things, I try to be happy, but I acknowledge that when I am sad, I should *be* sad

If I have a bad experience, make a mistake, I try to learn from in and assimilate that knowledge.

I am learning to live life, and that is all I can try to do

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DeVore
The phrase "I'm all right Jack" is (at least in my circle of friends and family) followed swiftly by "so fvck the rest of you" and is used in a derogatory manner about the person being referred to.

As in: That person is a selfish person who looks after themselves first and cares little for how others are faring.

Perhaps you werent aware of the baggage the phrase brings cos thats not me (or so I'd like to think....)

The rules/guidelines you put forward are altruistic on the surface, however (and more importantly) they do allow their observant a virtual moral carte blanche.

Putting it another way: If you were such an individual as you define in your "I'm all right Jack" description, and wanted/needed a morality to observe so as to feel good about yourself (moral admonishment for looking after number one, as it were), what set of moral guidelines would you find most convenient?

The set you proposed come pretty much hit the mark.