Secular basis for morality?

Post Reply New Topic

I have a question for those who consider themselves agnostics or atheists. I personally do believe in God, but right now I have to say I am quite troubled about a lot of things. My concept of God is undergoing a change right now, and I really cannot explain why I do believe in the existence of a supreme being. I am starting to feel like I am becoming a deist. It seems to me that God really doesn't care about what goes on in the world.

O.K. now for my question. I would not be so arrogant as to say that people who do not believe in God are immoral and hedonistic based on the fact that they do not believe in God or a belief in a deity of any kind. I think that there is a dark side to religion; conversely, I think there can also be a dark side to a secular humanist outlook on life. I have a relative who is an atheist and that's fine. In her case, however, her life is completely devoid of any meaning and she seems drawn to the dark side of life in terms of drugs, etc. This is just an example; I don't really think all atheists are like this. In the absence of a religious framework for morality, how do you make decisions about moral issues and how to live your life? There has indeed historically been cruelty practiced in the name of religion such as slavery. Human rights abuses have also been committed in the absence of religion, such as in China.

yes, its possible to have morality without believing in god. its actually not that hard to do, i find it troubling people need a "god" to tell them how to behave and differentiate between right and wrong, its just not acceptable to me

What people don't see is that there is great freedom in choosing the kind of "morality" that you wish to pursue in being an atheist or agnostic. Although I can't tell you which one you should choose, I could tell you how I might go about doing it. There are two great things at determining this--consequences and experience.

Your experience tells you what has happened before, and based on that, you can tell whether or not following the same kind of events as before will benefit you or not. Learning the consequences, either by experiencing them or through reason also helps you determine whether or not those things will benefit you. You live your life around the things that you have seen and experienced, and think about how they may or may not benefit you and the people around you. Everybody learns different things from their own experiences and the consequences they have faced. So no two atheists or agnostics may follow the exact same "morality".

I think it has to do with empathy, although I know that answer might sound too simple. Extreme example: I don't want to kill anyone because I wouldn't want anyone to kill me, and because I love some people and don't want to hurt them. That is a human thing, not a religious thing.

Most atheists and agnostics I've known tend towards a type of utilitarianism, as does myself. Most people will follow their natures and inclinations over any religious prescriptions anyway.

Agreed. This is the best method, since everyone can be relied on to look out for themselves before others; you can't convince everyone of believing in the same thing all at once forever, which is what most religions and flavours of politics require.

Yes, it is possible to live an ethical life without being religious. Indeed, if the only thing keeping a person from being an a**hole is fear of eternal damnation that person is either immature or a sociopath.

I am a negative Utilitarian, that is, a Utilitarian that emphasizes reducing suffering instead of maximizing "pleasure" or "happiness", since suffering is far less subjective then happiness. people and society as a whole should work to minimizing suffering and exploitation and try to remove barriers that get in the way people having the opportunity to reach self-actualization.

Dear lord. Save us from the utilitarians.

Didn't that go out, like, 50 years ago? The whole, "Well, let's enslave Jeff over there because it would make us all even happier than it would make him miserable!"

I think the more interesting question here is, "Is deontological morality possible without God?" Most (educated) people would answer yes. Of course, if your morality implies you must do something to me, minding my own business (*cough* political liberalism *cough*) then I am less than impressed that I ought to be ok with this just because you feel it is the right thing to do; if you want my blessing, you'll need more than your gut!

I love this question. I am in the process of answering it within myself, but I'll try to give you an idea of where I stand right now.

I borrow a lot of wisdom from religion. I think that many valid and complex social goods have been simplified into religious commandments over the years. There's also a great deal of nonsense through which we have to sift in order to find those pearls.

Essentially my moral priorities are in this order:

1) Preservation of my own life
2) Preservation of the lives of those for whom I care, or who fall within my sphere of responsibility
3) Encouraging my own socio-intellectual growth
4) Encouraging the socio-intellectual growth of those within my sphere of responsibility
5) Maintaining my own happiness
6) Maintaining (or refraining from interfering with) the happiness of those around me
7) Trying to help people outside my sphere of responsibility

This isn't a rigid hierarchy. Each line should be followed by "... within reason." By that I mean that I probably would not sacrifice all possibility of fulfilling 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the sake of 2 or even 1.

Last edited by gwenevyn on 10 Dec 2007, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is the essence of it. There is no point of morality if there is only one person, it's about 2 or more people coexisting. There will be a struggle which will result in a synthesis. There is no "objective morality" that is the worst religion of all. We are animals, pure and simple, there is no utopia or perfect system, just people trying to screw each other around to various degrees.

Once people start dealing with what is only then can we deal with what should.

Or, as Bad Santa says, "S*it in one hand, wish in the other, see what fills up first."

That is exactly the reason I believe that moral and ethics depend on the individual and not on religion, there are bad and good people, religious and non-religious/non-believers. And I agree that if the only reason for a person to be moral is the fear of going to hell, then that person don't have a real sense of morality and ethics in my opinion, just as the same as the only reason for not killing is for avoiding prison.

Rational Egoist right here

In the desire not to be berated by everyone... I am not going to expound my principles here in this forum. It is a magnet for trolls such as no other topic on earth seems to be.

If any desire might be had for finding out... read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The virtue of selfishness" (both by Ayn Rand) or perhaps "Viable Values" and "Normative Ethics" by Tara Smith.

That's all, goodnight.

But really, isn't a sense of ethics dependent upon a dislike of the potential consequences for a given action, once "feelings" are taken out of the equation? A sense that "killing is wrong" is sort of nebulous. Once we dissect -why- it seems wrong, it boils down to two potential groups of reasons: openly selfish reasons and ideological reasons. You might not want to kill Bob because then you'd be thrown in jail, and you might not want to kill Bob because you think that everybody should have a right to life. But why do you think that everybody has a right to life? That boils down to potential consequences as well. Maybe you think everybody should have a right to life because you would be distressed at the idea of someone having the right to kill you or your loved ones.

So in regards to someone who is doing good just because of an obvious payoff, is that person really less moral or more selfish than someone who is doing good for the sake of a more complex sort of payoff? Certainly he's more dangerous to society--but is that the measure of morality?

I'm not saying one way or the other, but I think it's an interesting idea to explore.

Yes I agree, and I know that a potential consequence for an action is a basic reason, and understandable, that is how we learn actually, however, there is more than just that.

This is why law and punishment are required in a society, because by just going with personal morality and ethics is not enough, there are people that the only way to prevent them to commit crimes is the fear of punishment, however it is a lot better than breaking the law.

But being that the ONLY reason, not just the basic, for any action to do or not do, that is a different thing when personal morality is concerned.

The simplest rule of morality, and what I personally believe morality should be based around, is a belief held by many religions around the world and throughout time. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".... Well, within reason.... I agree with what gwen wrote actually.

As for my religious beliefs, theyr way too complex and complicated to categorize them as anything, either as atheist, monotheist, polytheist, or whatever...... I don't really have a religion so to speak. My views vary so much from one thing to the next, I've probably got a little bit of everything in my beliefs.