Morality And The Key To Life My Ramblings

[Aniki 0]

Someone once said christians and atheists weren't so different when it comes to morals. christians don't go around punching people in the face because that would be bad and therefore would increase the chance they'd go to hell. Atheists don't go around punching people in the face because they don't want to live in a society where everyone punches each other in the face, therefore they don't do it themselves. I've found that the core of morals comes from the ethic of reciprocity, or 'golden rule', which is don't do to other people that which you don't want done to you. Sometimes people act immorally, they steal, lie, hurt others, etc. But usually, we don't do immoral things, such as punching people in the face. On a basic level, I think, we abide by the ethic of reciprocity. Perhaps when an intelligence, a little-used one at that, is added to the equation, the ethic is ignored at times. Perhaps when we understand where morals come from, we can behave morally most, if not all, of the time.I often hear christians speaking of morals coming from god. I laugh. I consider whatever god-given morals they speak of to be common sense. 'Thou shalt not kill'? The thought of killing another horrifies me. 'Thou shalt not steal'? I remember a christian student actually somewhat mugging me to get at an apple I had. I was practically yelling this commandment, didn't stop him. All morals come from the ethic of reciprocity. It's so simple.Speaking of murdering, I hate the thought of snuffing out a life before its time. I even felt a bit sad when Saddam Hussein was hanged. Dreams, ambitions, memories, thoughts, all gone in the blink of an eye. Anyhoo...The KEY TO LIFE! I think the key to life would be trying. You need to try to control your emotions. Try to understand what other people are thinking, what their perspective is. Even if you can't, you need to try. That's the point. Everyone dies at some point, but you need to try to live your life to its fullest. Try.Sorry if I rambled, even if that was the point. Thoughts?

[mitchellmckain 0]

Someone once said christians and atheists weren't so different when it comes to morals. christians don't go around punching people in the face because that would be bad and therefore would increase the chance they'd go to hell. Atheists don't go around punching people in the face because they don't want to live in a society where everyone punches each other in the face, therefore they don't do it themselves. I've found that the core of morals comes from the ethic of reciprocity, or 'golden rule', which is don't do to other people that which you don't want done to you. Sometimes people act immorally, they steal, lie, hurt others, etc. But usually, we don't do immoral things, such as punching people in the face. On a basic level, I think, we abide by the ethic of reciprocity. Perhaps when an intelligence, a little-used one at that, is added to the equation, the ethic is ignored at times. Perhaps when we understand where morals come from, we can behave morally most, if not all, of the time.

I am currently involved in an argument in another forum concerning a proof for the existence of God based on the existence of absolute morality. I believe in moral pluralism rather than complete relativism, so I do believe there are some absolutes, that is, that there are some ethical questions with only one correct answer. However I do not believe that the existence of God can be either proved or disproved and therefore I am in the role of disputing the validity of this proof for the existence of God based on absolute values.

1. Absolute/objective morality exists.2. Morality cannot exist on its own; it must have its origin in a person
3. In order for morality to be absolute/objective it cannot come from a human being because none such have the required authority.
4. Therefore there must exist a person with absolute authority over all human beings.

Although I admit an absolute basis to ethical considerations, I do think that the first premise, that "absolute/objective morality exists" requires some explanation. I took the simple example of "thou shalt not kill" and showed that there were quite a few situational exceptions what causes one to wonder just what is absolute about this particular rule of right and wrong that is usually considered one of least ambiguous. My own example by which I dispute moral relativism is the question of whether torturing a child to death could ever be considered an acceptable form of entertainment. From this it seems to me that there are some universals but that the actual rules of behavior - the details may have a high degree of cultural relativity.

It is however with the second premise that I find my biggest disagreement. In fact, in my view the second premise seems to contradict the first. To clarify this I think we can make a distinction between the terms "absolute morality" and "objective morality". I think the whole idea of "objective morality" is that the rules of good behavior are something that already exist to be discovered rather than something that must be invented by someone. The idea of "absolute morality" on the other hand is the idea that ethical questions have only one correct answer rather than being relative to the society and situation. From this we see that in order to be consistent the argument must not use the term "objective morality" since the second premise seems to be claiming that morality has no objective existence. However I think these two aspects of morality are closely related. The only reason why morality would have to be invented rather than discovered would be because the answer ethical questions are fundamentally arbitrary - that is that is before society or this person of authority makes a decision, the ethical questions involved really have more than one correct answer. Therefore I would say that this whole argument is based on some kind of divine relativism rather than absolute/objective morality.

I often hear christians speaking of morals coming from god. I laugh. I consider whatever god-given morals they speak of to be common sense. 'Thou shalt not kill'? The thought of killing another horrifies me. 'Thou shalt not steal'? I remember a christian student actually somewhat mugging me to get at an apple I had. I was practically yelling this commandment, didn't stop him. All morals come from the ethic of reciprocity. It's so simple.

I basically agree with Aniki that there is an objective element to morality that can be derived from simple principles like reciprocity. Jesus, criticizing the legalism of the Pharisees, indicated that all the laws of God could be boiled down to a simple principle involving love, and that it was the principles behind the laws that were really important rather than the laws themselves. Furthermore, I think that good and evil can and should be defined in a manner that is independent of the idea of God. My own definition is: that which is evil pursues desires/needs without regard for the well being of others. For me this is a pre-requisite to an understanding of God, because in my mind God is more fundamentally defined by goodness and love rather than power and knowledge, and so to define good and evil based on God is somewhat circular. I certainly find the kind of divine relativism that says good is whatever God says it is to be morally impoverished.

However, although I see no fundamental conncection between morality and the existence of God, there is one sentiment in regards to morality and ethics that I share with my fellow Christians that sets me apart from the atheist. We find it difficult to understand how ideas of right and wrong can have any real meat to them if our actions ultimately have no consequences. I am talking about the escape into the sweet oblivion of nonexistence. If we are going to die anyway and all of us will someday, then what does it really matter what we do? I find the answer to the question of normative ethics in the kind of person that our actions make us, but if we cease to exist then even that basis for ethics vanishes. For me this is the most important reason for believing that we have an eternal aspect to our existence. And so I believe that the eternal spirit is a product the choices we make, reflecting the reality that we can never escape the consequences of our actions because that spirit is who we truly are. Without such ultimate consequences it is hard to see how the role we play in life is any different than choosing our role in a play, and then what is wrong with making the choice to live the exciting life of a serial killer if that is what pleases us. I cannot believe that it just boils down to personal taste and aesthetics, as this lack of ultimate consequences seems to imply.
Edited June 15, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

Speaking of murdering, I hate the thought of snuffing out a life before its time. I even felt a bit sad when Saddam Hussein was hanged. Dreams, ambitions, memories, thoughts, all gone in the blink of an eye. Anyhoo...

I share much of your sentiment. I am addicted to BBC English murder mystery programs but quite often I find myself lost in utter incomprehension as to why anyone would want to destroy the unviverse that is a human being for the reasons that are often given in such murder mysteries.
In various forums, I have noticed some discussion of the morality of pacifism. I can respect the position of pacifism and I even once considered myself a pacifist. However, it does seems to be true that all that is needed for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing. Right and wrong are just words unless one is willing to make sacrifices defending them. On the other hand, violence is so easily a neverending cycle of retaliation. So do not believe in the kind of justice that is based on some kind of vengence, but I have decided that I will kill and/or die to stop people who seem bent on pursuing their desires in complete disregard for the well being of others.

The question of the morality of killing is a complex one, and complex questions require some degree of legal flexibility and certainly some of tolerance for different points of view. I therefore I think pacifism is a personal moral commitment much like vegitarianism and opposition to abortion. However, the necessity for conservative rules in regards to killing is very clear, and anyone who takes what is universally recognized as a human life must be ready and willing to sacrifice their own for the sake of the public good to uphold law and order.

I believe in capital punishment not for any archaic, "life for a life" nonsense, but only to protect the well being of the public. Therefore regardless of the actual crime whether it is murder, rape, pedophilia, mugging, or even pollution, if there is a pattern of behavior disregarding the well being of others that demonstrates a menace to the public, especially preying upon the stranger, then I am in favor of the death penalty. Incarceration should be geared toward rehabilitation rather than mere prevention or deterent. People do escape and so anyone not worth enduring that risk should should be put to death.

The KEY TO LIFE! I think the key to life would be trying. You need to try to control your emotions. Try to understand what other people are thinking, what their perspective is. Even if you can't, you need to try. That's the point. Everyone dies at some point, but you need to try to live your life to its fullest. Try.

"Controlling your emotions" is dangerous terminology that is not supported by psychology. The problem is that this is often interpreted as bottling or supressing your emotions which is extremely dangerous. Finding the proper way to express your emotions is a much better way of putting it. A lot of what people identify as a failure to control your emotion can really be better understood as bad habits in the way we express our emotions, and the way of dealing with this is the same (very difficult) way that all bad habits must be dealt with. But an important part of this process is redirection - developing better habits to replace the old so that we can express our emotions in more productive ways.

HOWEVER, if instead of emotions, we substitute desires then I think what you are saying works much better. Excessive desire can indeed be found at the root of most evil. Some religions, especially Buddhism, are based on the goal of eliminating desire, and most have some element of this (consider some of the monastic orders in Christianity). So I think that the psychological danger involved in supressing emotions does not apply to suppressing desire.

This is only half the equation however. As hinted in what you have said the other half is empathy - regard for the well being of others. The psychopath may do evil even without strong desires simply because even a bored whim exceeds his nonexistent regard for other human beings. In addition I believe that some forms of desire such as the passion for something like science or art is the essence of genius and so I do not think that the suppression of desire is the universal solution to the problem of evil. So even in the case of desire it is the balance with empathy that is the real issue.

There are other mysteries in regards to desire. As a parent I have found the unbridled desires of my children to be rather curious. On the one hand they seem so strong that they practically go nuts when their desires are fustrated, on the hand when actually faced with the prospect of work to achieve those desires, they prove to be rather shallow. Perhaps it is simply a matter of learning patience which is a kind of suppression of ones desires. Children perhaps do not know how to respond to the desires they feel at first. As an infant their desires are basic and imperative, and so as they develop more abstract desires, perhaps they do not yet understand the difference between these and those that are imperative (necessary for survival).
Edited June 15, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)