nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Score your own morality - on a scale of 1 to 10

antiskeptic

Where ever it might stem from, an atheist would likely say that they operate within a moral framework. Which means that they would likely see some folk as less moral/good than they themselves are and others as more moral/good than they themselves are. They might for instance, see Hitler or Stalin as scoring lower than them on the moral scale. And Nelson Mandela or Gandhi as scoring higher.

So, if your choice of 'Hitler' is said to score 1 on the moral scale and your choice of 'Gandhi' scores 10, where do you place your own morality/goodness on that scale of 1 to 10.

Find more posts tagged with

morality

Comments

meryem

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying that whilst you might e.g. like to tell the truth on all occasions, it's too dangerous to actually always do so?

Seems you are quite serious with your debate from the reply. :rolleyes:

To be true I find going along the truth is safer for the long run. Although it makes me look like a person with no smartness among the society members. Telling truth on all the occasions will come with the tendency that your social credibility graph getting higher and higher while growth otherwise.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll rubberstamp the Vatican hypocritical sight unseen, robin.

You must be the only person except Ratzinger who believes that the Vatican's treatment of the child abuse scandal isn't hypocritical

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for 'religious people'? Again I think you do a Dawkinsian-like generalisation and spread your traps too widely to catch anything

Er, it's not a generalization - it's an observation, and one that's backed up by your own belief that you're not living up to the "moral framework" that you have chosen.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suffice to say that if someone adopts Christs impossible standard (in which the words "try your best" don't feature) then they are automatically going to be more 'hypocritical' than someone who chooses a less strenuous standard.

Well, we agree on that point then.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

You must be the only person except Ratzinger who believes that the Vatican's treatment of the child abuse scandal isn't hypocritical

For the purposes of the point under discussion, it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the moral framework erectors think. Not what they say. What they think.

Er, it's not a generalization - it's an observation, and one that's backed up by your own belief that you're not living up to the "moral framework" that you have chosen.

I haven't polled all religious to find out their views - have you?

I was considering polling a range of others (including types in the the Religion forum) but got my first attempt in After Hours locked (it's probably considered spamming to poll the same thing across the board). I'd be suspecting the same kind of results as here for other religions - a bunching around the 7 mark

antiskeptic

Doctor DooM wrote: »

So then, you accept that Robin was not dodging, in fact he was providing a tangible example that it is not implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it?

What Robin quoted me as saying:

Does it strike you as implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it [...]

What I said:

Does it strike you as implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it then manage, to almost a man, to score a first-class honour wrt it?

You might give your view on the plausibility aspect whilst your at it.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

No. I'm saying that no one chooses to be a Christian.

I think a transaction occurs between people and God that results in them being saved*.

...

*that transaction is, I believe, choice-based but that choice doesn't involve choosing for God/Jesus/Religion. A person doesn't believe in these things at this time in order to be able to choose for them.

You have contradicted yourself. No-one chooses to be a christian, but the process is choice based? Exactly how much of the process of being a christian is in the persons hands as opposed to gods hands (rough percentage wise)?

antiskeptic

Nevore wrote: »

I answered 10, but my ethics probably border on immoral for most people. I do meet my own ethical expectations nearly perfectly though.

I'm slightly confused as to what this poll is supposed to answer. Without each and every voter qualifying with a statement, all you get is a picture of whether or not people think they do things that are reprehensibile to their own selves, which is largely meaningless.

Murders, rapists and child molesters apparently score themselves along the lines shown in this poll - with an overwhelming bunching up around the 7 mark. A first class honour in other words.

I suspect a poll of any of the performance-driven religions (e.g. Roman Catholicism, Islam) would reveal the same kind of thing (although there would be slightly different reasoning given by 1's and 10's)

-

If we are to suppose that people erect moral frameworks based on what they think is right and wrong then they would be erecting that framework independently of their ability to actually perform well against it. It strikes as implausible that such a significant proportion of people should perform so well against what would be effectively, an independent standard.

An alternative possibility is that people construct (and adapt) their own moral frameworks in order to suit their moral performance. In other words, they adjust the height of the moral bar so that they can jump it with relative ease. This could explain why rapists and murders score themselves 7

-

In addition to that, I'm interested in hearing from people who scored themselves low (say 2-3). If people are doing what I suggest above, then some people are prepared to live with the potential discomfort of a low moral score (they consider themselves immoral in their own eyes) rather than adjust the goalposts for comforts sake. It's be interesting to hear how and why from them

Zombrex

Doctor DooM wrote: »

So then, you accept that Robin was not dodging, in fact he was providing a tangible example that it is not implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it?

Yeah but I mean it is a terrible edge case, there are only a few hundred million Catholics in the world :P

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Murders, rapists and child molesters apparently score themselves along the lines shown in this poll - with an overwhelming bunching up around the 7 mark. A first class honour in other words.

I think the simplest explanation is that the number seven is typically the number chosen by a person if they're asked to randomly choose a number between one and ten. If you started another poll titled "choose a number between 1 and 10," I'd suspect that it would have a very similar distribution to the poll in this thread. In other words: this poll probably means very, very little.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have contradicted yourself. No-one chooses to be a christian, but the process is choice based?

You can choose to take an action which produces, by the by, results you had no inkling would occur. Can you be said to have chosen for the result you had no idea would occur?

Exactly how much of the process of being a christian is in the persons hands as opposed to gods hands (rough percentage wise)?

As outlined before, I draw a distinction between becoming a Christian and being saved. The former is a consequence of having been saved and is down to circumstance (i.e. whether the saved person is exposed to the Christian message or not after they are saved)

As for salvation, the precursor event? The choice that will produce the unexpected result of salvation is completely down to the person. God assembles the mechanism so that a choice can be made but the person is the only one responsible for pushing (or not) the button that produces salvation.

antiskeptic

gvn wrote: »

I think the simplest explanation is that the number seven is typically the number chosen by a person if they're asked to randomly choose a number between one and ten. If you started another poll titled "choose a number between 1 and 10," I'd suspect that it would have a very similar distribution to the poll in this thread. In other words: this poll probably means very, very little.

That suggests people aren't capable of assessing their moral performance when asked to do so. Instead, they default to the same number they'd give when asked an utterly unrelated question.

You sound like your belief in people matches your belief in God

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

That suggests people aren't capable of assessing their moral performance when asked to do so. Instead, they default to the same number they'd give when asked an utterly unrelated question.

You sound like your belief in people matches your belief in God

No, not really. Your poll would have been far more useful if you'd offered substantiated options, with selections along the lines of, say, "I stick to my moral framework always" and "I try to stick to my moral framework always, but sometimes come up short," etc. Offering an arbitrarily defined 1-10 scale is generally useless, not least because biases often come into play--such as a person's propensity to choose the number seven.

Truley

Today I bought regular battery farmed chicken instead of the free range chicken because it was cheaper

I also told a dead baby joke

antiskeptic

gvn wrote: »

No, not really. Your poll would have been far more useful if you'd offered substantiated options, with selections along the lines of, say, "I stick to my moral framework always" and "I try to stick to my moral framework always, but sometimes come up short," etc. Offering an arbitrarily defined 1-10 scale is generally useless, not least because biases often come into play--such as a person's propensity to choose the number seven.

Did you read the annotations attaching to 1 and 10 on the poll?

antiskeptic

Truley wrote: »

Today I bought regular battery farmed chicken instead of the free range chicken because it was cheaper

If I were a chicken (whose time-to-table is measured in a short number of weeks), I'd much prefer that the fat industrialist controlling me didn't make a massive premium just by giving me a few square metres of dirt to scratch around in during those times the auditors happen to be on site.

Take comfort.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but I mean it is a terrible edge case, there are only a few hundred million Catholics in the world :P

FYI

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72911124&postcount=95

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

As outlined before, I draw a distinction between becoming a Christian and being saved. The former is a consequence of having been saved and is down to circumstance (i.e. whether the saved person is exposed to the Christian message or not after they are saved)

As for salvation, the precursor event? The choice that will produce the unexpected result of salvation is completely down to the person. God assembles the mechanism so that a choice can be made but the person is the only one responsible for pushing (or not) the button that produces salvation.

This was all that I was looking for in terms of an answer. A lot of the christians I have talked to equate becoming a christian with salvation, which was why I asked you about it not being a choice (as it would seem odd for someone to be punished by god for something that wasn't their choice). You, if I'm reading you right, are saying that the salvation is ultimately up to the individual and that the label "christian" is not entirely up to them (it depends on their circumstances). Thats all I wanted to check.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

And go where? Are you suggesting that I shift to a different moral framework such that my performance produces a somewhat less 'guilt ridden' score*?

It's an interesting idea. Indeed, I figure it a plausible explanation for why it so many people in the poll, each with their own morality systems, happen to score themselves a first class honour in the morality dept.

The thing is though, shifting the goalposts around to achieve a better score wouldn't have altered my moral performance. I'd be acting the same and would be just scoring better. Do you think I should be fooled by this?

Can I just remind you that the poll measures how well people think they live up to their own standards. That's not the same as "scoring themselves a first class honour in the morality dept." Agreeing with the statement "I always act according to my own moral standard" guarantees a 10/10 score, even when that standard is low.
Hitler and Gandhi would probably both have given themselves a high score.

If you shifted to a moral code that you felt you could comply with, you might feel happier in a way. On the other hand, if you failed to comply, you would have to bear the weight of the responsibility (guilt) yourself. You can't just eat a wafer and say "OK I'm forgiven now, it never happened."
Anyway I don't think atheists can choose their own moral code, its just how they have learned to see the world.
If you choose/fall for a religion, then obviously you are given someone else's pre-packaged moral code to live up to.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This was all that I was looking for in terms of an answer. A lot of the christians I have talked to equate becoming a christian with salvation,

Which is understandable enough for at least two reasons:

1) From the persons perspective, it's something being passed in front of their eyes which informs them they are able to see. Open eyes where there is nothing yet to see will seem almost as blindness.

In this part of the world that 'something' passed in front of now-seeing eyes will most likely be some or other aspect of the gospel. It would be easy to confuse a consequential (seeing the gospel to be true) with the causal (that which opened your eyes to see the gospel as true).

2) The 'mechanism' through which the actual choice unto salvation is made involves (I think) a component whose purpose is to apply pressure onto the unbeliever. For unbelievers with a religious background, pressure can be brought to bear via aspects of the Christian message (the idea of a holy God who judges, a final reckoning, guilt and shame attaching to actions). People with this background will therefore tend to see salvation coming only through a formal Christian message delivered.

However, I see guilt and shame (to think of an obvious example of pressure applicator) as something universal, something which transcends religion.

Even atheists can feel guilty. Even atheists can fear death. Even atheists can despair of life.

"Come to me all ye who are heavily laden and I will give you rest" are words on a page but they speak to the exhausted heart of folk - whether they have been read or not.

(as it would seem odd for someone to be punished by god for something that wasn't their choice).

Indeed. A sense of what's fair and right too is something I think is universal. Everyone bar the Calvinist seems to define a fair God as someone who would give folk a balanced choice for/against salvation.

You, if I'm reading you right, are saying that the salvation is ultimately up to the individual and that the label "christian" is not entirely up to them (it depends on their circumstances).

That's about the size of it.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

If I were a chicken (whose time-to-table is measured in a short number of weeks), I'd much prefer that the fat industrialist controlling me didn't make a massive premium just by giving me a few square metres of dirt to scratch around in...

antiskeptic wrote: »

The new bike was a stolen bike.
I didn't even pause for thought and remember smirking when I encountered a magnetic medal of the virgin Mary stuck to the frame under the seat: "fat lot of good she did you..."

Even though I'm atheist myself, I do believe that certain people are better off in a religion, where their own personal lack of morality can be constrained somewhat by an imposed morality.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Can I just remind you that the poll measures how well people think they live up to their own standards. That's not the same as "scoring themselves a first class honour in the morality dept."

The morality dept under examination is their morality dept. 70% is a first class honour. What have I missed?

Agreeing with the statement "I always act according to my own moral standard" guarantees a 10/10 score, even when that standard is low.

The standard isn't low. It's personal.

Failing an absolute standard to compare with there is no such thing as high or low. Only relative: relative to society, relative to your parents, relative to international practice. Relatively low so.

If you shifted to a moral code that you felt you could comply with, you might feel happier in a way. On the other hand, if you failed to comply, you would have to bear the weight of the responsibility (guilt) yourself. You can't just eat a wafer and say "OK I'm forgiven now, it never happened."

"Eating the wafer" doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means the penalty which is going to be applied by God to you is transferred. Your debt to God has been forgiven by God.

Anyway I don't think atheists can choose their own moral code, its just how they have learned to see the world.

Whether they follow the code they find they've evolved into or they adapt parts of it in new directions on reflection it is still theirs. A moral decision is theirs whether permitting the default to reign. Or whether inserting the adapted/reflected on morality.

If you choose/fall for a religion, then obviously you are given someone else's pre-packaged moral code to live up to.

Indeed (in so far it's a static lump which broaches no question - I know of no religion like that). In all cases, the moral framework is your own adoption.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't even pause for thought and remember smirking when I encountered a magnetic medal of the virgin Mary stuck to the frame under the seat: "fat lot of good she did you..."

Is this one of the reasons why you're protestant, and not catholic?

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Even though I'm atheist myself, I do believe that certain people are better off in a religion, where their own personal lack of morality can be constrained somewhat by an imposed morality.

Hmm. Choosing a religious morality is the same as choosing any other. It's still you electing to subject yourself to it.

If it's imposed, Taliban-like morality then it's imposed an all and sundry whether they would be better off with it or not.

I can't think of any way to target an imposed morality on a specific individual.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Is this one of the reasons why you're protestant, and not catholic?

Nah..

I just never liked the 'smell' given off by Catholicism (although I did like the smell of the incense they swung around on a chain). By the time the dust settled on my conversion I was irretrievably lost to them.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

I just never liked the 'smell' given off by Catholicism

You mean you rationally concluded that their claims were false, right?

antiskeptic

Zillah wrote: »

You mean you rationally concluded that their claims were false, right?

No. I meant I didn't like the 'smell' given off. All that pomp and ceremony, creepy statues and superstitious practices, Hail Mary's rattled off like machine gun bullets, the sense that most folk were't all that taken in but were there for reasons of fear, boring services, the fawning of some when the priest came near..

It smacked of 'bogus' without my giving it very much rational consideration.

robindch

No offence, but:

antiskeptic wrote: »

were there for reasons of fear [...] the fawning [...] superstitious practices [...] smacked of 'bogus'

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

No offence, but..

No offence taken. Your doing 'vague' again.

Great photo btw

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't think of any way to target an imposed morality on a specific individual.

You could tell them "if you don't come to believe this morality is right I will slowly torture you with fire", then let their fear and instinct for self preservation do the work. Or say "if you can manage to convince yourself that this moral outlook is correct I will grant you bliss on tap for a really really long time". Or you could work the carrot and stick together and throw in something about knowing where all their seemingly dead friends and relatives are and promise to take you to re-unite with them for good measure. You would be surprised what you can get people to believe when you apply the right pressures.

It's not tailor made for the individual admittedly but I reckon it would work as pretty good scatter gun mechanism.

(Just for the purpose of disclosure I should point out that I can't take credit for the above approach, I read it in some book.)

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

No. I meant I didn't like the 'smell' given off. All that pomp and ceremony, creepy statues and superstitious practices, Hail Mary's rattled off like machine gun bullets, the sense that most folk were't all that taken in but were there for reasons of fear, boring services, the fawning of some when the priest came near..

It smacked of 'bogus' without my giving it very much rational consideration.

As does your faith. But then when ever we tell you that you go into a long rant about how God can place knowledge in our heads, God can choose to circumvent any form of assessment, how everything we know is just assumption so all assumption is equally valid, how your 6th sense has been opened to see God, how you "know" God exists yada yada yada.

So what does rational consideration of what is or isn't bogus have to do with anything Christian?

(that was the non-vague gist of what Robin was getting at, though his post was some what funnier)

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

The morality dept under examination is their morality dept. 70% is a first class honour. What have I missed?

The standard isn't low. It's personal.

Failing an absolute standard to compare with there is no such thing as high or low. Only relative: relative to society, relative to your parents, relative to international practice.

I agree that its all relative, but there is still high and low.
Would you agree that Hitler should get a high score in your poll?
The Vatican in 1940 should get a low score, because they failed to condemn what Hitler and Mussolini were doing.

Perhaps a more interesting poll would ask the question; "On a scale of 1-10, where the current Pope scores 5, how do you rate your morality?"

As the Pope seems somewhat ambivalent towards child welfare, and has no interest in animal welfare (unlike the Buddhists for example) there should be some people rating themselves above 5.