because as a mother i nurture my children. i see how i feel about 'your' reaction to the child as an extension of that.
it doesn't really answer my question. but i can see how that would make sense since you are a mother. it still doesn't answer my question though.
forget that you are a mother and all your feelings of a mother are irrelevant. now put yourself in that perspective and think why would it be wrong if i were to leave the child for dead?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
it doesn't really answer my question. but i can see how that would make sense since you are a mother. it still doesn't answer my question though.
forget that you are a mother and all your feelings of a mother are irrelevant. now put yourself in that perspective and think why would it be wrong if i were to leave the child for dead?
see thats the thing, i can not separate myself from being a mother.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
see thats the thing, i can not separate myself from being a mother.
well, then let's use a different analogy. ok?
howabout someone umm, let's see, a guy that breaks his leg and asks, "can you take me to the hospital? my bone is literally breaking through my skin and i can see it. all i need is for you to take me to the hospital." what if you or i were to say, "get the hell outta here... i don't need to take you anywhere. i'm running low on gas so don't waste my time." how do you interpret that as wrong?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
howabout someone umm, let's see, a guy that breaks his leg and asks, "can you take me to the hospital? my bone is literally breaking through my skin and i can see it. all i need is for you to take me to the hospital." what if you or i were to say, "get the hell outta here... i don't need to take you anywhere. i'm running low on gas so don't waste my time." how do you interpret that as wrong?
if you were to say... cause i would have taken him to the hospital. or if i was low on gas calle an ambulance or something. i wouldnt have left him there to bleed.
i view the action as inconsiderate.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if you were to say... cause i would have taken him to the hospital. or if i was low on gas calle an ambulance or something. i wouldnt have left him there to bleed.
i view the action as inconsiderate.
yes... it certainly is inconsiderate. but why would it be wrong? what makes you determine that as inhumane, or "inconsiderate"?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
yes... it certainly is inconsiderate. but why would it be wrong? what makes you determine that as inhumane, or "inconsiderate"?
youve got me. i dont know why it would be considered wrong by society's standards. but by my personal standards i could not in all good conscience walk on by.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
youve got me. i dont know why it would be considered wrong by society's standards. but by my personal standards i could not in all good conscience walk on by.
i understand. in my personal standards i would certainly not walk on by... so i hope you wouldn't think i would do such a thing. i only wondered how atheists determined what is right and what is wrong. i mean, basically, it's part of our nature that makes us determine what is right and what is wrong. but i always wondered how atheists, or agnostics, interpret this.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i understand. in my personal standards i would certainly not walk on by... so i hope you wouldn't think i would do such a thing. i only wondered how atheists determined what is right and what is wrong. i mean, basically, it's part of our nature that makes us determine what is right and what is wrong. but i always wondered how atheists, or agnostics, interpret this.
well you do understand that even though i am an atheist my morality comes from a christian society. i am not fool enough to think i formed my morals in a void.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well you do understand that even though i am an atheist my morality comes from a christian society. i am not fool enough to think i formed my morals in a void.
well, that's a little complicated to understand cause a christian view of morality is based on their fear in God.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, that's a little complicated to understand cause a christian view of morality is based on their fear in God.
not really. i became an atheist at 11 years old. by then my morality had already been formed. it's not as if once i'd realised God was non existent everything i had learned would be stricken from my being.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
not really. i became an atheist at 11 years old. by then my morality had already been formed. it's not as if once i'd realised God was non existent everything i had learned would be stricken from my being.
so is that to say that you're fear in god is still there?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, i'm only assuming because you said that your views of morality are still based on a christian perspective.
ah yes i can see how one would be confused by such an assertion. i see nothing wrong or contradictory about the basic tenets of christianity as they pertain to the treatment of our fellow man. i dont even have any doubt that jesus existed. it is his divinity and the existence of God that i disbelieve. i certainly am not going to dismiss something i have been brought up on, solely because it comes from christianity.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ah yes i can see how one would be confused by such an assertion. i see nothing wrong or contradictory about the basic tenets of christianity as they pertain to the treatment of our fellow man. i dont even have any doubt that jesus existed. it is his divinity and the existence of God that i disbelieve. i certainly am not going to dismiss something i have been brought up on, solely because it comes from christianity.
well, i understand and i also respect that but the christian morality is based on their fear in God. It certainly does make sense, since you were brought up in a christian lifestyle you grew to obsorb the same moralities that your parents taught you. But in this case, what I am focusing on is the fact that the Christian interpretation for determining what is good and when to do it is simply due to their fear in God. i.e. in the case of the man with the broken leg, i would certainly feel obliged to do it because I have a fear in my heart that God is "looking" at me. So that is what I determine if it is good or not. In other words, it is what we call God's Holy Spirit that allows me to determine what is good and what is not good. So that's why it's a bit complicated to understand why your morality is based on a christian perspective.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, i understand and i also respect that but the christian morality is based on their fear in God. It certainly does make sense, since you were brought up in a christian lifestyle you grew to obsorb the same moralities that your parents taught you. But in this case, what I am focusing on is the fact that the Christian interpretation for determining what is good and when to do it is simply due to their fear in God. i.e. in the case of the man with the broken leg, i would certainly feel obliged to do it because I have a fear in my heart that God is "looking" at me. So that is what I determine if it is good or not. In other words, it is what we call God's Holy Spirit that allows me to determine what is good and what is not good. So that's why it's a bit complicated to understand why your morality is based on a christian perspective.
then perhaps morality is innate in all of us. i don't have an answer for you other than how ive explained it.
i dont believe your morality is solely based on your fear of God. that just makes no sense to me at all. but it surely makes sense that that is what you have come to believe. if one is told since infancy that if they don't behave in a certain way then they will burn in eternal hell, then that can surely have an effect on one's thinking and actions.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
then perhaps morality is innate in all of us. i don't have an answer for you other than how ive explained it.
i dont believe your morality is solely based on your fear of God. that just makes no sense to me at all. but it surely makes sense that that is what you have come to believe. if one is told since infancy that if they don't behave in a certain way then they will burn in eternal hell, then that can surely have an effect on one's thinking and actions.
well, i can agree with you to some extent. However, I don't do good because i fear the concepts of heaven and hell and if I don't do it I am taking one step closer to hell. That's really not at all how we believe and it's been obscured mainly by people's preconceptions of the teachings of the church. That's really not at all important in this discussion though. What I am explaining is that what enables me to do the good is the essence of God found in every single individual. True, it's what I have come to believe so I guess this is just a matter of belief.
People do good to others because they know that feeling when they have to do good. It's inside of us all. The sympathy to care for a sick child or a person who is in grave need is found in every single individual. I'm sure everyone will have their own interpretation about this. So that's why I originally asked you what yours was. And you answered that it was similar to that of a Christian. So now what I'm saying is that the Christian interpretation simply is this, the goodness that is found in a single individual is the image of God himself found in man. In other words, when someone does good it is like an image or an inherited gene that was passed to them by God. I could quote you a scripture if you'd like.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i understand. in my personal standards i would certainly not walk on by... so i hope you wouldn't think i would do such a thing. i only wondered how atheists determined what is right and what is wrong. i mean, basically, it's part of our nature that makes us determine what is right and what is wrong. but i always wondered how atheists, or agnostics, interpret this.
I could have a crack at it, as I am atheist/agnostic in the sense you ask for here. I too am formed by society ofcourse. And society have christian morals, or so we think at least. However, I would point out that many of the values we have in society easily predate christianity and are possibly evolutionary in nature. At the very least going very long back into our cultural origins.
As for christians basing their morality on fear of god, I think that's rather reductionistic as well, as I am sure any christian will tell you.
Now, what do I base my morality on then? Simply "The golden rule" which is also presented by Jesus, but in no way originates with him. "Do unto others what you would have others do unto you". If you behave and treat people nicely with respect, chances are, you get the same treatment in return. Humans have a great sense of reciprosity, or at the very least our culture does. If you get a gift, you feel obliged to return a gift at a future point. A friend gives you a loan of money at one point, you feel obligated to return the favour if he asks a loan, and so on. The golden rule works, and it works well. And the more that abides by it, the better it works, and the more cooperative we become. This hasn't really a root in religion, but is most likely partly genetic, as human and primates in general are flock animals where cooperation has always been key. Thus acting "pro-social" is really in your own best interests, while acting "anti-socially" will deprive you of the help of others at some point. Good is helping people, cooperating and building communities and societies. Evil is actively hurting people, short-sighted selfishness and destroying community in favour of self.
That answer your question?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
well, i can agree with you to some extent. However, I don't do good because i fear the concepts of heaven and hell and if I don't do it I am taking one step closer to hell. That's really not at all how we believe and it's been obscured mainly by people's preconceptions of the teachings of the church. That's really not at all important in this discussion though. What I am explaining is that what enables me to do the good is the essence of God found in every single individual. True, it's what I have come to believe so I guess this is just a matter of belief.
People do good to others because they know that feeling when they have to do good. It's inside of us all. The sympathy to care for a sick child or a person who is in grave need is found in every single individual. I'm sure everyone will have their own interpretation about this. So that's why I originally asked you what yours was. And you answered that it was similar to that of a Christian. So now what I'm saying is that the Christian interpretation simply is this, the goodness that is found in a single individual is the image of God himself found in man. In other words, when someone does good it is like an image or an inherited gene that was passed to them by God. I could quote you a scripture if you'd like.
sure you can quote me a scripture. it's not like i don't read the bible.
i do like to hear other people's thinking, even if i am direct conflict with it. but no i didn't say my thinking was similiar to a christian. what i said was my morality has a basis in christianity due to my formative years being shaped by the christian society in which i live. though of course due to that, my morality is similar to that of a christian.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I could have a crack at it, as I am atheist/agnostic in the sense you ask for here. I too am formed by society ofcourse. And society have christian morals, or so we think at least. However, I would point out that many of the values we have in society easily predate christianity and are possibly evolutionary in nature. At the very least going very long back into our cultural origins.
As for christians basing their morality on fear of god, I think that's rather reductionistic as well, as I am sure any christian will tell you.
Now, what do I base my morality on then? Simply "The golden rule" which is also presented by Jesus, but in no way originates with him. "Do unto others what you would have others do unto you". If you behave and treat people nicely with respect, chances are, you get the same treatment in return. Humans have a great sense of reciprosity, or at the very least our culture does. If you get a gift, you feel obliged to return a gift at a future point. A friend gives you a loan of money at one point, you feel obligated to return the favour if he asks a loan, and so on. The golden rule works, and it works well. And the more that abides by it, the better it works, and the more cooperative we become. This hasn't really a root in religion, but is most likely partly genetic, as human and primates in general are flock animals where cooperation has always been key. Thus acting "pro-social" is really in your own best interests, while acting "anti-socially" will deprive you of the help of others at some point. Good is helping people, cooperating and building communities and societies. Evil is actively hurting people, short-sighted selfishness and destroying community in favour of self.
That answer your question?
Peace
Dan
Yes, it does. A little. But in no means am I trying to be pretentious. I think it's a good answer and it sure makes a lot of sense. I used the "fear in God" explanation in order to avoid using lengthy explanations that sounds like I'm preaching. I also understand how the fear in God might sound reductionistic.
Now while the example of Jesus teaching, "do unto others what you would have others do unto you" helps a lot, it still leaves other of his teachings out on the open. Such as "turning the other cheek". Now of course, like you said, it doesn't originate with him so that really doesn't matter.
But let's talk about goodness apart from society. If a friend were to leave me stranded on the middle of the road without giving me a ride why wouldn't it be okay for me to turn around and do the same thing to him? Or the case of a murder and the victim's family, is it okay for them to sentence the murderer to death for killing their daughter? These are intangible things that do not directly affect society by any means. It's more of a matter that affects us psychologically, or otherwise, emotionally.
Again, what determines that which is good? What sparks that motivation inside of us to do good, as in the case with your friend that needs a ride? While of course you would say, "well, that's what I would want others to do to me so I will do it." But what if nobody evers does it to you? Cause I know people who are like that. Would you cease to help him/her? Now if it is justifiable to you that in this case if this particular someone never offers a helping hand then it would be okay for you to ignore him/her in their time of need. But that doesn't really flow with the teachings of Jesus either. 70 x 7 is what I'm getting at here. His teachings were also, "keep doing good even if nobody returns the favor." There are also teachings where he said that if you lend someone borrow money never ask for it back. And also never be in debt with anyone. Am I making sense? I don't know I'm kinda sleepy.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I could have a crack at it, as I am atheist/agnostic in the sense you ask for here. I too am formed by society ofcourse. And society have christian morals, or so we think at least. However, I would point out that many of the values we have in society easily predate christianity and are possibly evolutionary in nature. At the very least going very long back into our cultural origins.
As for christians basing their morality on fear of god, I think that's rather reductionistic as well, as I am sure any christian will tell you.
Now, what do I base my morality on then? Simply "The golden rule" which is also presented by Jesus, but in no way originates with him. "Do unto others what you would have others do unto you". If you behave and treat people nicely with respect, chances are, you get the same treatment in return. Humans have a great sense of reciprosity, or at the very least our culture does. If you get a gift, you feel obliged to return a gift at a future point. A friend gives you a loan of money at one point, you feel obligated to return the favour if he asks a loan, and so on. The golden rule works, and it works well. And the more that abides by it, the better it works, and the more cooperative we become. This hasn't really a root in religion, but is most likely partly genetic, as human and primates in general are flock animals where cooperation has always been key. Thus acting "pro-social" is really in your own best interests, while acting "anti-socially" will deprive you of the help of others at some point. Good is helping people, cooperating and building communities and societies. Evil is actively hurting people, short-sighted selfishness and destroying community in favour of self.
That answer your question?
Peace
Dan
right on. as another agnostic (leaning to atheist) I was trying to figure out how to put it, but you have covered it quite well. you explained it much better than what was swirling around in my head, thanks
If you get a gift, you feel obliged to return a gift at a future point. A friend gives you a loan of money at one point, you feel obligated to return the favour if he asks a loan, and so on.
it's this word i have a problem with. obliged connotes a feeling or sense of not wanting to reciprocate but feeling you have to.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
now for the sake of whatever the hell else there might be to understand... what drives us to do good? for instance, there are mean unsympathetic people who would do harm. not just physical violent harm but also untangible harm such as discriminizing, taunting and slandering for no particular reason. maybe just because they are bitter or because they love to harm others. but in essence what is wrong with that? what would drive others to fear doing this or the fear of harming others and feel remorse and sympathy for those in need?
for example, you see a child who is in need and you feel sympathy for the child. why? what harm would it do you if you just ignore the child and walk away and go on with your life?
There is a very solid natural selection explanation for why most of us have a moral compass. Basically there has to have been some form of survival advantage to our ancestors being good. Some of the survival advantages include (this applies to animals and humans- but to different degrees):
Protecting those in your family group ensures the survival of your genetic material is more likely then those who do not protect their family group.
Being a provider attracts mates. If you are continuously supplying things for others you are more likely to attract mates because they are genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to a mate that can provide for them and their offspring.
If you are an animal that lives in a community, reputation is everything. If you do not hold up your end of the bargain, in terms of communal living (eg- collecting food, protecting young etc.), you may be ostracized by the community, hampering your ability to pass on your genetic material. Equally, if you are 'good' to others, they will often be 'good' to you- increasing your chance of passing on your genes. These behaviors have been observed in many communal species.
Thus the desire to do good is ingrained in our genetics because overall, our ancestors were more likely to survive if they were good. Genetic anomalies can cause our moral compass to change, as can brain injuries and disease. And there is also the effect of nurture- how we are bought up and the effect of society- which can also change our moral compass.
So our morals are influenced by our genetics first, and then adjusted by other factors.
But let's talk about goodness apart from society. If a friend were to leave me stranded on the middle of the road without giving me a ride why wouldn't it be okay for me to turn around and do the same thing to him? Or the case of a murder and the victim's family, is it okay for them to sentence the murderer to death for killing their daughter? These are intangible things that do not directly affect society by any means. It's more of a matter that affects us psychologically, or otherwise, emotionally.
What affects us psychologically affects society. There's nothing happening in a society that isn't connected to or can have consequences for the whole. With the car example, I would certainly be justified in denying a ride back. Reciprocity again. However, one might also give that ride as a lesson, so maybe the person will think twice the next time. Single cases of unreturned reciprocity does little to the principle on a societal level. We act like we want everyone else to act, and establish values, norms and morals. The moment this "acting good as a general default rule" starts to fall apart, society unravels and implodes.
Again, what determines that which is good? What sparks that motivation inside of us to do good, as in the case with your friend that needs a ride? While of course you would say, "well, that's what I would want others to do to me so I will do it." But what if nobody evers does it to you? Cause I know people who are like that. Would you cease to help him/her? Now if it is justifiable to you that in this case if this particular someone never offers a helping hand then it would be okay for you to ignore him/her in their time of need. But that doesn't really flow with the teachings of Jesus either. 70 x 7 is what I'm getting at here. His teachings were also, "keep doing good even if nobody returns the favor." There are also teachings where he said that if you lend someone borrow money never ask for it back. And also never be in debt with anyone. Am I making sense? I don't know I'm kinda sleepy.
I would probably cease to help that person, as would most people around him I suppose. But in his deepest need, I might help anyway. That message of Jesus' there is the part of christianity I really like. It implies if we all just act nice and good no matter what, we can also win over those who doesn't act good. And that is important. If a few counter reactions was all it took to turn us away from community and society, then they would never hold together. Sending us into chaos and disorder (evil).
I think my principle of reciprocity still stands, even if single cases goes against it. Reciprocity and trust is also the cornerstone of all economic activity, as well as all personal activities. Without good (sustaining cooperation and society) and reciprocity, trust won't happen.
Anyway, to summarize, you asked what atheists/agnostics may have as a moral basis, I have now given you mine, which is simply "Reciprocity" perhaps also supported by "non-violence" or "non-harm". Although the latter two also derive from the former.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
it's this word i have a problem with. obliged connotes a feeling or sense of not wanting to reciprocate but feeling you have to.
But the word fits. Isn't that exactly how it is when you out of the blue receive a gift you hadn't expected (nor wanted) from someone you're not close to? You feel obligated to return something. Think of the potential tyranny of christmas cards, for instance.
There is a sense of "must" in the reciprocity, yes. I remember a story from the ancient norse about a man who was presented with a grand gift of a golden shield while he was away. When he returned and found this, he was furious and went and killed the giver of the gift. Why? Because by giving such a grand gift that he well knew couldn't be returned in kind, he then incurred unpayable debt and hence submission of the receiver. The vikings rarely suffered submission...
The word is chosen carefully actually. It can be a pleasure, but also a duty, and not a pleasant one at that.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But the word fits. Isn't that exactly how it is when you out of the blue receive a gift you hadn't expected (nor wanted) from someone you're not close to? You feel obligated to return something. Think of the potential tyranny of christmas cards, for instance.
There is a sense of "must" in the reciprocity, yes. I remember a story from the ancient norse about a man who was presented with a grand gift of a golden shield while he was away. When he returned and found this, he was furious and went and killed the giver of the gift. Why? Because by giving such a grand gift that he well knew couldn't be returned in kind, he then incurred unpayable debt and hence submission of the receiver. The vikings rarely suffered submission...
The word is chosen carefully actually. It can be a pleasure, but also a duty, and not a pleasant one at that.
Peace
Dan
no. i never feel obliged to return christmas cards. nor do i feel obliged to return gifts in kind. i never think that the person giving is expecting something for their generosity, but giving merely out of the goodness of their own heart. if the motivation behind their giving was that expectation of reciprocity, then too bad for them. that's their problem not mine. however if i feel that the occasion warrants a reciprocal gift then yes i would.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What affects us psychologically affects society. There's nothing happening in a society that isn't connected to or can have consequences for the whole. With the car example, I would certainly be justified in denying a ride back. Reciprocity again. However, one might also give that ride as a lesson, so maybe the person will think twice the next time. Single cases of unreturned reciprocity does little to the principle on a societal level. We act like we want everyone else to act, and establish values, norms and morals. The moment this "acting good as a general default rule" starts to fall apart, society unravels and implodes.
I would probably cease to help that person, as would most people around him I suppose. But in his deepest need, I might help anyway. That message of Jesus' there is the part of christianity I really like. It implies if we all just act nice and good no matter what, we can also win over those who doesn't act good. And that is important. If a few counter reactions was all it took to turn us away from community and society, then they would never hold together. Sending us into chaos and disorder (evil).
I think my principle of reciprocity still stands, even if single cases goes against it. Reciprocity and trust is also the cornerstone of all economic activity, as well as all personal activities. Without good (sustaining cooperation and society) and reciprocity, trust won't happen.
Anyway, to summarize, you asked what atheists/agnostics may have as a moral basis, I have now given you mine, which is simply "Reciprocity" perhaps also supported by "non-violence" or "non-harm". Although the latter two also derive from the former.
Peace
Dan
Well, it's a great idea and it makes complete sense. And I also find no reason to disagree, except for the part of every psychological aspect that affects us affects society. To a certain extent though. I agree that certain things in society affects us emotionally, or psychologically, and vise-versa, our psychological attributes will also affect society (i.e. neighbors, friends and relatives). But I also believe in something else that I don't know what to call it. But it really boils down to society not affecting you in any negative way. For instance, wars, hunger or plagues. I believe that we don't necessarily have to be affected by it. But anyways that really doesn't matter.
However, what you said reminds me of a scripture in the Bible that seems to flow very well with what is being said. You know, the part of "doing good to affect society in a positive way. Thus, benefitting from it."
Ecclesiastes 3:12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God
Basically, yeah, we do good because we conscientiously are desiring for that good to be done to us. I, on the other hand, believe that it's something that God has placed inside of us. Not that it matters to anyone though.
There is also a scripture that says that sin is in the heart of a person who knows how to do good but does not do it.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Basically, yeah, we do good because we conscientiously are desiring for that good to be done to us. I, on the other hand, believe that it's something that God has placed inside of us. Not that it matters to anyone though.
Oxytocin makes us feel good when we trust people and are trusted.
I've mentioned this a gazillion times, but no one listens to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
forget that you are a mother and all your feelings of a mother are irrelevant. now put yourself in that perspective and think why would it be wrong if i were to leave the child for dead?
see thats the thing, i can not separate myself from being a mother.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
howabout someone umm, let's see, a guy that breaks his leg and asks, "can you take me to the hospital? my bone is literally breaking through my skin and i can see it. all i need is for you to take me to the hospital." what if you or i were to say, "get the hell outta here... i don't need to take you anywhere. i'm running low on gas so don't waste my time." how do you interpret that as wrong?
if you were to say... cause i would have taken him to the hospital. or if i was low on gas calle an ambulance or something. i wouldnt have left him there to bleed.
i view the action as inconsiderate.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
youve got me. i dont know why it would be considered wrong by society's standards. but by my personal standards i could not in all good conscience walk on by.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well you do understand that even though i am an atheist my morality comes from a christian society. i am not fool enough to think i formed my morals in a void.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
not really. i became an atheist at 11 years old. by then my morality had already been formed. it's not as if once i'd realised God was non existent everything i had learned would be stricken from my being.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how can i as an atheist have a fear in something i don't believe exists?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ah yes i can see how one would be confused by such an assertion. i see nothing wrong or contradictory about the basic tenets of christianity as they pertain to the treatment of our fellow man. i dont even have any doubt that jesus existed. it is his divinity and the existence of God that i disbelieve. i certainly am not going to dismiss something i have been brought up on, solely because it comes from christianity.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
then perhaps morality is innate in all of us. i don't have an answer for you other than how ive explained it.
i dont believe your morality is solely based on your fear of God. that just makes no sense to me at all. but it surely makes sense that that is what you have come to believe. if one is told since infancy that if they don't behave in a certain way then they will burn in eternal hell, then that can surely have an effect on one's thinking and actions.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
People do good to others because they know that feeling when they have to do good. It's inside of us all. The sympathy to care for a sick child or a person who is in grave need is found in every single individual. I'm sure everyone will have their own interpretation about this. So that's why I originally asked you what yours was. And you answered that it was similar to that of a Christian. So now what I'm saying is that the Christian interpretation simply is this, the goodness that is found in a single individual is the image of God himself found in man. In other words, when someone does good it is like an image or an inherited gene that was passed to them by God. I could quote you a scripture if you'd like.
As for christians basing their morality on fear of god, I think that's rather reductionistic as well, as I am sure any christian will tell you.
Now, what do I base my morality on then? Simply "The golden rule" which is also presented by Jesus, but in no way originates with him. "Do unto others what you would have others do unto you". If you behave and treat people nicely with respect, chances are, you get the same treatment in return. Humans have a great sense of reciprosity, or at the very least our culture does. If you get a gift, you feel obliged to return a gift at a future point. A friend gives you a loan of money at one point, you feel obligated to return the favour if he asks a loan, and so on. The golden rule works, and it works well. And the more that abides by it, the better it works, and the more cooperative we become. This hasn't really a root in religion, but is most likely partly genetic, as human and primates in general are flock animals where cooperation has always been key. Thus acting "pro-social" is really in your own best interests, while acting "anti-socially" will deprive you of the help of others at some point. Good is helping people, cooperating and building communities and societies. Evil is actively hurting people, short-sighted selfishness and destroying community in favour of self.
That answer your question?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
sure you can quote me a scripture. it's not like i don't read the bible.
i do like to hear other people's thinking, even if i am direct conflict with it. but no i didn't say my thinking was similiar to a christian. what i said was my morality has a basis in christianity due to my formative years being shaped by the christian society in which i live. though of course due to that, my morality is similar to that of a christian.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Now while the example of Jesus teaching, "do unto others what you would have others do unto you" helps a lot, it still leaves other of his teachings out on the open. Such as "turning the other cheek". Now of course, like you said, it doesn't originate with him so that really doesn't matter.
But let's talk about goodness apart from society. If a friend were to leave me stranded on the middle of the road without giving me a ride why wouldn't it be okay for me to turn around and do the same thing to him? Or the case of a murder and the victim's family, is it okay for them to sentence the murderer to death for killing their daughter? These are intangible things that do not directly affect society by any means. It's more of a matter that affects us psychologically, or otherwise, emotionally.
Again, what determines that which is good? What sparks that motivation inside of us to do good, as in the case with your friend that needs a ride? While of course you would say, "well, that's what I would want others to do to me so I will do it." But what if nobody evers does it to you? Cause I know people who are like that. Would you cease to help him/her? Now if it is justifiable to you that in this case if this particular someone never offers a helping hand then it would be okay for you to ignore him/her in their time of need. But that doesn't really flow with the teachings of Jesus either. 70 x 7 is what I'm getting at here. His teachings were also, "keep doing good even if nobody returns the favor." There are also teachings where he said that if you lend someone borrow money never ask for it back. And also never be in debt with anyone. Am I making sense? I don't know I'm kinda sleepy.
right on. as another agnostic (leaning to atheist) I was trying to figure out how to put it, but you have covered it quite well. you explained it much better than what was swirling around in my head, thanks
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
it's this word i have a problem with. obliged connotes a feeling or sense of not wanting to reciprocate but feeling you have to.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
There is a very solid natural selection explanation for why most of us have a moral compass. Basically there has to have been some form of survival advantage to our ancestors being good. Some of the survival advantages include (this applies to animals and humans- but to different degrees):
Protecting those in your family group ensures the survival of your genetic material is more likely then those who do not protect their family group.
Being a provider attracts mates. If you are continuously supplying things for others you are more likely to attract mates because they are genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to a mate that can provide for them and their offspring.
If you are an animal that lives in a community, reputation is everything. If you do not hold up your end of the bargain, in terms of communal living (eg- collecting food, protecting young etc.), you may be ostracized by the community, hampering your ability to pass on your genetic material. Equally, if you are 'good' to others, they will often be 'good' to you- increasing your chance of passing on your genes. These behaviors have been observed in many communal species.
Thus the desire to do good is ingrained in our genetics because overall, our ancestors were more likely to survive if they were good. Genetic anomalies can cause our moral compass to change, as can brain injuries and disease. And there is also the effect of nurture- how we are bought up and the effect of society- which can also change our moral compass.
So our morals are influenced by our genetics first, and then adjusted by other factors.
I would probably cease to help that person, as would most people around him I suppose. But in his deepest need, I might help anyway. That message of Jesus' there is the part of christianity I really like. It implies if we all just act nice and good no matter what, we can also win over those who doesn't act good. And that is important. If a few counter reactions was all it took to turn us away from community and society, then they would never hold together. Sending us into chaos and disorder (evil).
I think my principle of reciprocity still stands, even if single cases goes against it. Reciprocity and trust is also the cornerstone of all economic activity, as well as all personal activities. Without good (sustaining cooperation and society) and reciprocity, trust won't happen.
Anyway, to summarize, you asked what atheists/agnostics may have as a moral basis, I have now given you mine, which is simply "Reciprocity" perhaps also supported by "non-violence" or "non-harm". Although the latter two also derive from the former.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
There is a sense of "must" in the reciprocity, yes. I remember a story from the ancient norse about a man who was presented with a grand gift of a golden shield while he was away. When he returned and found this, he was furious and went and killed the giver of the gift. Why? Because by giving such a grand gift that he well knew couldn't be returned in kind, he then incurred unpayable debt and hence submission of the receiver. The vikings rarely suffered submission...
The word is chosen carefully actually. It can be a pleasure, but also a duty, and not a pleasant one at that.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
http://www.theobservationist.com/story.php?id=367&PHPSESSID=7667a209499a0c3cfca4ec9d94eec04e
no. i never feel obliged to return christmas cards. nor do i feel obliged to return gifts in kind. i never think that the person giving is expecting something for their generosity, but giving merely out of the goodness of their own heart. if the motivation behind their giving was that expectation of reciprocity, then too bad for them. that's their problem not mine. however if i feel that the occasion warrants a reciprocal gift then yes i would.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
However, what you said reminds me of a scripture in the Bible that seems to flow very well with what is being said. You know, the part of "doing good to affect society in a positive way. Thus, benefitting from it."
Ecclesiastes 3:12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God
Basically, yeah, we do good because we conscientiously are desiring for that good to be done to us. I, on the other hand, believe that it's something that God has placed inside of us. Not that it matters to anyone though.
There is also a scripture that says that sin is in the heart of a person who knows how to do good but does not do it.
Oxytocin makes us feel good when we trust people and are trusted.
I've mentioned this a gazillion times, but no one listens to me.
This article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
Doesn't include Paul J. Zak's experiments
http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/ZakatalH.pdf
http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/?page=published