The Secular Philosophy of Morality

[Coyote]

Religion is probably the single most controversial topic of debate in the world. Though many people are learning to tolerate those of other faiths, those who are nonreligious, I.E. atheists, are often misunderstood. The most religious among us sometimes find the idea of not believing in a god too alien to comprehend.

I was Roman Catholic before I was a teenager, at which point I started to question my faith. My family is still strictly religious, and is angry that I have "abandoned the faith". The truth is that I don't really know if there is a god. And even if there was, I'd still rather go my own way than submit to it.

I'm Canadian, but I hear a lot about ugly religious fundamentalism that recieves so much media attention in the United States.

One very common argument I've heard is that good is impossible without God, because people would be less likely to exercise moral restraint if they didn't believe there would be divine retribution for wrongdoing.

Atheists find it very unlikely that a God exists. Many of us strive to be "good" people for personal reasons. Rather than being moral simply because we fear retribution if we are not, we draw the strength to do the right thing from ourselves alone. An Atheist is accountable to nobody but him/herself and may do as he/she wishes. Which is precisely the reason we try all the harder to rise above base, selfish human nature and be more than we are. To fall prey to selfish urges would be, in our eyes, a sign of weakness of character. Atheists follow no written code of conduct, but develop their own personal sense of honour and code of ethics. We would rather ask questions, make mistakes and learn from them than blindly follow someone else's rules. Being for us is becoming. We can't blame a devil for our transgressions, and we can't shrug off failures. We don't pray for help, we help ourselves. When we screw up, we get up again, brush ourselves off, and try harder. What makes many of us aspire to be "good" people is the knowledge that we only live once. We are therefore driven to live well, and avoid causing others unwarranted pain on their journeys through life. When we help others in need, we do so out of compassion for them and not out of fear of punishment for neglect.

A man can have all his material posessions, his family and even his life itself taken from him, but nothing can ever take away his identity and pride. We want to be proud of who we are. We want to be strong and altruistic because it is too easy to be weak and selfish. We want to enrich the lives of those around us.

All this so that when the end comes, and knowing there will be no life after death, we can look back and say "I lived well. I was strong where others were weak. I was a steadfast friend and/or a caring lover and/or a good father/mother. I did it my way, and I made it on my own steam. I have made at least one other life better because I lived."

After all, if a god did exist and this god would condemn us for the trivial crimes of refusing to follow and refusing to worship, then that god would be a tyrant. I'd rather burn in hell.

NOTE: I'm a Humanist. I don't like to take a solely scientific approach to life, as you can tell. I believe that if one tries to explain all human behaviour through chemical changes and electrical impulses in the brain, then one loses what makes one human. One would start to see other human beings as biological machines and nothing more.

[Questatement]

One very common argument I've heard is that good is impossible without God, because people would be less likely to exercise moral restraint if they didn't believe there would be divine retribution for wrongdoing.

I think the underlying premise there is that for good to be truly good, it must be accurately defined in light of competing values (greater good and/or lesser of two evils, etc) then remain constant to that accurate definition. The Judeo/Christian God provides a reasonable definition in black and white via writings (constancy) shown to be largely reliable to represent the original texts. Although open to limited interpretation, these collective texts are 'morally' comprehensive and have been largely adopted by civilized societies for thousands of years.

Atheists follow no written code of conduct, but develop their own personal sense of honour and code of ethics. We would rather ask questions, make mistakes and learn from them than blindly follow someone else's rules.

This relativistic morality works well for society depending on the individual atheist (Bill Gates), but shows disastrous in other circumstances (Stalin). I don't see a blanket approach working to something without an agreed upon set of values and beliefs as is found in atheism.

[Coyote]

Yep, Questatement. You're absolutely right there. But I don't believe Morality can be defined in black and white terms anyway. Universal absolutes do not exist when it comes to morality, because there will always be circumstances in which certain rules do not apply. So "good" can only be defined as "the decision that harms the least amount of people" or "the lesser of multiple evils" or "The most altruistic decision".

[L00zer]

I would argue that because we know what morality is, we can choose to do good or bad, or to be moral or not. Therefore, I would say that in the broadest terms, we are "moral" people. The thing is, I find it unlikely that humans would be inherently moral, or evolve into moral beings. Therefore, I believe that for morality to exist God must too. I am open to all types of thought on this, however.

[Praxius]

Religion is probably the single most controversial topic of debate in the world. Though many people are learning to tolerate those of other faiths, those who are nonreligious, I.E. atheists, are often misunderstood. The most religious among us sometimes find the idea of not believing in a god too alien to comprehend.

I was Roman Catholic before I was a teenager, at which point I started to question my faith. My family is still strictly religious, and is angry that I have "abandoned the faith". The truth is that I don't really know if there is a god. And even if there was, I'd still rather go my own way than submit to it.

I'm Canadian, but I hear a lot about ugly religious fundamentalism that some know in the United States.

Well I'm Canadian and I grew up Roman Catholic as well with much of what you described as a family upbringing.... I can relate of course.

One very common argument I've heard is that good is impossible without God, because people would be less likely to exercise moral restraint if they didn't believe there would be divine retribution for wrongdoing.

However, before most religions we know today we seemed to do just fine without them.... we're here afterall.... we existed perfectly fine at the time of the current religions came to be..... so....

Atheists find it very unlikely that a God exists. Many of us strive to be "good" people for personal reasons. Rather than being moral simply because we fear retribution if we are not, we draw the strength to do the right thing from ourselves alone. An Atheist is accountable to nobody but him/herself and may do as he/she wishes. Which is precisely the reason we try all the harder to rise above base, selfish human nature and be more than we are. To fall prey to selfish urges would be, in our eyes, a sign of weakness of character. Atheists follow no written code of conduct, but develop their own personal sense of honour and code of ethics. We would rather ask questions, make mistakes and learn from them than blindly follow someone else's rules. Being for us is becoming. We can't blame a devil for our transgressions, and we can't shrug off failures. We don't pray for help, we help ourselves. When we screw up, we get up again, brush ourselves off, and try harder. What makes many of us aspire to be "good" people is the knowledge that we only live once. We are therefore driven to live well, and avoid causing others unwarranted pain on their journeys through life. When we help others in need, we do so out of compassion for them and not out of fear of punishment for neglect.

A man can have all his material posessions, his family and even his life itself taken from him, but nothing can ever take away his identity and pride. We want to be proud of who we are. We want to be strong and altruistic because it is too easy to be weak and selfish. We want to enrich the lives of those around us.

All this so that when the end comes, and knowing there will be no life after death, we can look back and say "I lived well. I was strong where others were weak. I was a steadfast friend and/or a caring lover and/or a good father/mother. I did it my way, and I made it on my own steam. I have made at least one other life better because I lived."

After all, if a god did exist and this god would condemn us for the trivial crimes of refusing to follow and refusing to worship, then that god would be a tyrant. I'd rather burn in hell.

Decent explination and I agree apon a God punishing us that I wouldn't care for.

All current religious people have to go by is what they are told by other humans and not to question...... but where do they actually think for themselves to truly feel what is right and wrong?

Afterall, they say God is within all of us, and if he exists, then these questions and thinking about what is right and wrong is what God would want us to do.

Rather then following what feels true and just from within us, people follow an old book or what others tell them as if those people or the people who wrote the bible so long after jesus's existence know better then us.

They don't know anymore or less then the next person..... so we're left to go based on what is right for us.

However, I am not an athiest in the strict sense of the term, nor am I religious.

I don't believe in a God, but I do strongly believe there is existence beyond this life in which we know.

[dan4reason]

Well I'm Canadian and I grew up Roman Catholic as well with much of what you described as a family upbringing.... I can relate of course.



However, before most religions we know today we seemed to do just fine without them.... we're here afterall.... we existed perfectly fine at the time of the current religions came to be..... so....



Decent explination and I agree apon a God punishing us that I wouldn't care for.

All current religious people have to go by is what they are told by other humans and not to question...... but where do they actually think for themselves to truly feel what is right and wrong?

Afterall, they say God is within all of us, and if he exists, then these questions and thinking about what is right and wrong is what God would want us to do.

Rather then following what feels true and just from within us, people follow an old book or what others tell them as if those people or the people who wrote the bible so long after jesus's existence know better then us.

They don't know anymore or less then the next person..... so we're left to go based on what is right for us.

However, I am not an athiest in the strict sense of the term, nor am I religious.

I don't believe in a God, but I do strongly believe there is existence beyond this life in which we know.

Christians believe in a morality which is universal. Atheists believe in a morality based on emotion. Atheists have a morality of sorts, bu not as strong as Christian morality.

[Praxius]

I think the underlying premise there is that for good to be truly good, it must be accurately defined in light of competing values (greater good and/or lesser of two evils, etc) then remain constant to that accurate definition. The Judeo/Christian God provides a reasonable definition in black and white via writings (constancy) shown to be largely reliable to represent the original texts. Although open to limited interpretation, these collective texts are 'morally' comprehensive and have been largely adopted by civilized societies for thousands of years.

However many of those morals and practices that the religion holds to and made black and white, existed long before these religions existed and many already followed most of these practices.

This relativistic morality works well for society depending on the individual atheist (Bill Gates), but shows disastrous in other circumstances (Stalin). I don't see a blanket approach working to something without an agreed upon set of values and beliefs as is found in atheism.

The simple basis is don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. If you expect to have help and care given by others, do the same. If someone does wrong, they should be punished in an equal fashion.

^ While the whole "Eye for an Eye" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are in those religions, these core beliefs have existed in many cultures for many centuries, but perhaps with different wording.

These are the core ethics of just about any human and religion, which just about everybody can agree apon....... everything else flows from these core beliefs imo.

[Praxius]

Christians believe in a morality which is universal. Atheists believe in a morality based on emotion. Atheists have a morality of sorts, bu not as strong as Christian morality.

That's quite subjective.

How do you know it is not as strong?

I see, interact and treat those around me now better then I did when I followed christianity. Just because a religion has a list of morals written down that are commonly accepted by those who follow, doesn't mean those morals are somehow more effective then the morals athiests hold to.

Overall, the end results are the same in both, the only real difference is that Athiests don't normally interfeer with other people's lives and choices like religious people do...... religious think it's their moral responsibility to impose their views, their will, their guilt apon those who don't believe exactly what they believe....... their so-called morality has clouded their view to the point where they, imo, lose their morality because of this.

An athists morals usually state that you don't try and force people, by any means, to believe what you believe.

From my observations, the only reason why athiests get aggressive in debates, mock other's views, and trivialize peple's beliefs, is because they were attacked first.

For me, if someone wants to believe something.... so long as it doesn't directly harm me or my life, I don't care...... because I would expect them to do the same for me and my beliefs. But the moment they start trying to meddle into my life and my affairs when not asked, then eye for an eye comes into play.

[dan4reason]

That's quite subjective.

How do you know it is not as strong?

I see, interact and treat those around me now better then I did when I followed christianity. Just because a religion has a list of morals written down that are commonly accepted by those who follow, doesn't mean those morals are somehow more effective then the morals athiests hold to.

Overall, the end results are the same in both, the only real difference is that Athiests don't normally interfeer with other people's lives and choices like religious people do...... religious think it's their moral responsibility to impose their views, their will, their guilt apon those who don't believe exactly what they believe....... their so-called morality has clouded their view to the point where they, imo, lose their morality because of this.

An athists morals usually state that you don't try and force people, by any means, to believe what you believe.

From my observations, the only reason why athiests get aggressive in debates, mock other's views, and trivialize peple's beliefs, is because they were attacked first.

For me, if someone wants to believe something.... so long as it doesn't directly harm me or my life, I don't care...... because I would expect them to do the same for me and my beliefs. But the moment they start trying to meddle into my life and my affairs when not asked, then eye for an eye comes into play.

Great response. Christian morality is about charity, compassion and tolerance. Just read the new testament.

If you are an atheist, then you will cease to exist after you die. Using logic, you would then try to make your limited existence as happy as possible. Morality is irrelevant because sometimes it stops your happiness. The only reason you would sacrifice for the sole reason to help others is your emotions alone. There emotions change all the time.

[Questatement]

However many of those morals and practices that the religion holds to and made black and white, existed long before these religions existed and many already followed most of these practices.

The simple basis is don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. If you expect to have help and care given by others, do the same. If someone does wrong, they should be punished in an equal fashion.

^ While the whole "Eye for an Eye" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are in those religions, these core beliefs have existed in many cultures for many centuries, but perhaps with different wording.

These are the core ethics of just about any human and religion, which just about everybody can agree apon....... everything else flows from these core beliefs imo.

The Protestant position on that might be that all cultures stemmed from one in which God was present and active in sharing true morality. God was also active along the way within the various cultures that split off. That many cultures share the biblical presentation of true morality when those writings are/were absent is no coincidence either as human conscience is an intentional creation within mankind to both limit evil and recognize our need for God to accomplish the good of others and self.

I guess it comes down to our assumptions based on origins and/or our world-veiw.

[Praxius]

Great response. Christian morality is about charity, compassion and tolerance. Just read the new testament.

Just looking through debates in these forums alone, it would seem the tolerance part kinda got left behind

If you are an atheist, then you will cease to exist after you die.

Good thing I'm not an athiest then.

Using logic, you would then try to make your limited existence as happy as possible.

For me, regardless if there is existence after this or not, I will still try to be as happy as possible.

Morality is irrelevant because sometimes it stops your happiness.

I have learned that the more you ignore your morals, the less happy your life is down the road, because your morals will come to bite you in the arse...... or karma, whichever.

The only reason you would sacrifice for the sole reason to help others is your emotions alone. There emotions change all the time.

Indeed... which is also why many of us have principles to back up our morals if the emotions begin to interfere.

For myself, my morals are based around principles, which are based around logic, which are based around my overall life experience. I know what was done to me that I did not like and what was done that I did like. To make others feel good in their lives, big or small, returns in kind.

I have learned that if I do as much good as possible, it reduces the amount of troubles that may occur later on. I have also learned that if I do not stand up when others do bad against me or others around me, they will only continue to do bad, simply because the eye for an eye aspect has not been carried through and they continue through life without consequence all the while others suffer.

This is also why some may see me joke around and be all friendly to everyone in one thread.... and then shat all over people in the next.... there are always reasons for my actions/reactions.

Because of this system I live by, I tend to do alright for myself and most people don't hate me.

..... well, those outside of the internet that is

[samsara15]

Utitarianism seemed like a pretty good secular philosophy. The greatest good for the greatest number of people.

If nobody hated you, now and then, Prax, that would mean you had said nothing of substance. You can't please all of the people all of the time, and you can't ever please some people.