1. For Athiests or Agnostics, how do you distinguish between right and wrong? What's the standard you use?

2. Who says that standard is correct?

3. What gives that authority the right to say it's right & wrong?

Just curious.

1. Morals and ethics are not mutually exclusive to religion so I imagine that many Agnostic and Atheist rely on similar moral and ethical codes that other societies have developed over thousands of years. Don't hurt others, don't steal, don't lie, respect the rights of others and the laws of the land.

These are universal ideas and many religions have embraced similar ideas because it is helpful to build a stable society and maintain the rights of others as long as it does not interfere with the health or well being of others. Development of ethical codes of conduct helped build bigger societies and encouraged trade and commerce to emerge.

2. My parents, friends and other people I encounter, if I were to act in a manner that was seen as violent or destructive I would be punished or jailed. This would be the case in any society; if I were to murder a person I would be arrested and tried for the crime. In the absence of authority you might see lawlessness emerge but most people would rather live in a land of laws then in one of absolute anarchy.

3. Most are either elected or appointed to serve in a leadership role. We elect or appoint sheriffs and judges, town councils and even in the church you have leadership bodies.

As long your group represents your beliefs you continue to rely on their services to help maintain peaceful authority. Yet if they act in a manner that does not respect your rights or the rights of others then you can remove them through peaceful or violent means and replace them with a body that will govern in a manner that is seen as more respectful.

The Golden Rule?

What Losman said...

To boil it down and use a bible phrase:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.



and no, I'm not religious in the least, but I believe heavily in morality and justice.

Christianity or your code of morals are based on what men wrote in the bible and ancient tradition. Who is to say that they are right or wrong?

Bottom line, all morals come from an individual. One christian is not like another just like one atheist is not like another. A person still has to choose to believe in christian morals or a person can think and discover their own, or a person can choose not to think and do what everyone else does. A tad of redundancy in that last sentence.

quote:

---

Bottom line, all morals come from an individual.

---

if this is true, then we're all screwed. I can say, arbitrarily, that yours suck and mine rule. I can also, arbitrarily, say that mine suck and yours rule.

I don't think the question is who or what developes and defines morals, but rather, what gives them dignity.

I'm also the most irrational poster on texags.

vt

Does a belief in God determine the answers to the following questions:

Is it wrong to walk on the MSC grass?

Is it wrong to drive on the left side of the road in the United States?

But to answer the question:

quote:

---

1. For Athiests or Agnostics, how do you distinguish between right and wrong? What's the standard you use?

---

For me, it's a combination of tradition, reason, law and gut instincts.

quote:

---

2. Who says that standard is correct?

---

Nobody. I'm not even sure that it is correct. But there seems to be a sort of nutural selection to morality - the morality best suited toward survival gets passed on. A society that didn't have a taboo against murder wouldn't make it very far. I guess you could view this as an argument for a common law view of morality versus statutory law.

quote:

---

3. What gives that authority the right to say it's right & wrong?

---

It doesn't. Why must it have authority?

The answer is gut feel and personal opinion. Just what we need in America. 300 million people all deciding what is right and wrong based on their gut feel and their personal opinion...

Thanks for the replies.

Follow up question:

Do moral right and wrong ever change? Can it be wrong today, but ok tomorrow?

I guess my underlying question is this: for people who do not believe in God, are there moral absolutes - where right and wrong never change?

quote:

---

The answer is gut feel and personal opinion. Just what we need in America.

---

Which Catholic teachings on morality go against your gut feeling?

quote:

---

Do moral right and wrong ever change? Can it be wrong today, but ok tomorrow?

---

Sure. It used to be okay for a grown man to marry a fourteen year old. Now it isn't. Slavery was probably always wrong, but there was probably a place for indentured servitude. Now we frown on both practices.

quote:

---

are there moral absolutes - where right and wrong never change?

---

I'm sure there are some issues of morality that a majority of societies throughout time have agreed on, but I don't think that's makes them moral absolutes.

quote:

---

Just what we need in America.

---

If you aren't comfortable with people deciding what is and isn't right perhaps you shouldn't be living in a democracy.

was this thread intended for me?

consequences.

quote:

---

consequences.

---

All arguments for a real morality apart from a God (who provides for us an absolute standard) boil down to this very honest one word answer provided by our friendly resident Heretic.

However, most of us instictively realize that this is insufficient. When Lechnerd asks

quote:

---

Is it wrong to walk on the MSC grass?

---

the only logical answer Heretic can give is, "only if you get caught." And most of us instinctively know that just isn't "right."

In a way, the athiests are correct. Doing good is "good" because it always the thing that is best for us, even when it doesn't seem so from our limited perspective. However, apart from the brilliant answers given by Jesus to these very complex questions, nothing suffices. I recommend the Sermon on the Mount.

without religion one has only survival in this life

taking away religion means that one does not believe in an afterlife or reincarnation and therefore has to cling to this life more dearly.

right & wrong are solely based on whether or not it helps you survive.

wrong becomes not stealing that loaf of bread to eat

Another way to ask the question is "Does the non-existence of God preclude a belief in absolutes?"

The post-modern philosophers, as much as I don't like what they stand for, have yet to be refuted. All human knowledge and experience is inherently subjective and therefore nothing can be known with absolute philosophical certainty. Of course, the original philosophers that gave us this way of thinking did so in an attempt to save faith from reason. In actuality, they showed us relativism.

Einstein said God doesn't play dice. Quantum mechanics says either God doesn't exist or if he does exist, he does, in fact, play dice.

Maybe String Theory will help answer the question; but, if it does, what will that do to faith?

It seems to me that the absence of faith in something transcendent precludes morality based on absolutes. Morality that is not based on absolutes is simply situational and subject to the whim of whoever is in power.

Hawking said it beautifully, "Not only does God play dice, he throws them where we can't see them."

quote:

---

If you aren't comfortable with people deciding what is and isn't right perhaps you shouldn't be living in a democracy

---

NoAc- All this time, I thought I was living in a Republic (a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them), not a democracy(a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making)...

NoAC, is our inability to answer QM's version of the Heisenberg Principle a result of insurmountable randomness or is it our as yet insufficiently sophisticated models? If it's the latter, perhaps it's just a matter of time? Perhaps String Theory will prove to be the answer.

If String Theory unifies Einstein and QM, what then?

the only difference between a mere "gut feeling" and a divine moral compass is belief. so to answer the original question, the non-believer recognizes that gut feeling, that instinct as originating internally, whereas the believer sees it as a reminder from above of what one ought to do.

to be honest, the only morals that have NOT changed throughout time (yes, even religious morals change, only recently has killing in the name of good been considered evil) have been natural morals. the only true moral is to survive. (break it down further, and the survival of species/progeny takes precendence)

[This message has been edited by conver2sations (edited 7/17/2006 10:55a).]

I just love it when Atheists try to argue that they themselves are moral because it is helpful to build a stable society and maintain the rights of others, so that they themselves will be treated as such.

The claim they are making is that all of the godless people in the world were just sitting around one day, and decided to do the right thing because they reasoned that crap above in their hearts.

Empathy, as I have stated before.

In psychology, children develop through stages to adulthood. Children need external means to control their behavior, such as time outs and being grounded. But the highest level of human development is when they develop the internal capacity to control their own behavior. This is usually based on empathy as well as the idea of treating others as you would want to be treated. I do not steal because I know it would be hurtful to others. I am kind because that is how I want others to treat me. It seems that religion has prevented a large portion of the earth's population from ever progressing to this highest level. Religion controls behavior through the threat of eternal damnation. Most atheists exist at the highest level of morality, which is why religious people have difficulty understanding them. At this point, I do not advocate getting rid of religions because it is a very powerful means to control people who are incapable of self-control. It unfortunately is "a necessary evil". But more and more people are obtaining this higher level of moral existance and hopefully eventually these myths will no longer be needed.

Rational self-interest

So naturalists are moral because they are all about themselves...

Yes.

Why is it possible that markets can work because of rational self interest, but not morality?

quote:

---

Yes.

---

Well, there you have it. Everything you do is all about what’s in it for you. How good a deal it turns out to be for you in the end… Your just far thinking enough so as to do the right thing for a potential payoff to you in the end. And what about when you can’t see a lucrative enough payoff from doing the right thing… What do you do then?

quote:

---

NoAc- All this time, I thought I was living in a Republic (a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them), not a democracy(a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making)...

---

You need to take polysci again. We're a democratic republic.

And that has nothing to do with addressing the point I made.

quote:

---

Why is it possible that markets can work because of rational self interest, but not morality?

---

Well the same kind of godless utilitarian arguments were given for slavery (greatest good for the greatest numbers of people) by your ilk back 150 years ago. Apparently the only thing from keeping people like you from doing it again is a fear that it might happen to you if you are for it… This really shines a whole new light on why liberals do what they do, and why they are so fear driven.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/17/2006 1:35p).]

Most slave apologists were southern Christians who used the Bible to defend their institution, not utilitarians. In fairness, most opponents of slavery were also Christians using the same Bible.

(BTW, utilitarians aren't the same as people who believe that rationals self-interest can control markets, morals or anything else. Also, I'm not sure that utilitarnisms even supported slavery in the first place. Mill certainly didn't.)

[This message has been edited by lechnerd02 (edited 7/17/2006 2:10p).]

quote:

---

Everything you do is all about what’s in it for you.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

And what about when you can’t see a lucrative enough payoff from doing the right thing… What do you do then?

---

Care to provide me with a scenario where a moral set based on rational self interest would not 'do the right thing'?

[This message has been edited by ChrisAg05 (edited 7/17/2006 4:42p).]

quote:

---

Most slave apologists were southern Christians who used the Bible to defend their institution, not utilitarians. In fairness, most opponents of slavery were also Christians using the same Bible.

---

Assert what you like, however you never refuted my point.

quote:

---

(BTW, utilitarians aren't the same as people who believe that rationals self-interest can control markets, morals or anything else. Also, I'm not sure that utilitarnisms even supported slavery in the first place. Mill certainly didn't.)

---

So, this seems like your trying to squirm out from being lumped into a group, then you admit your ignorance of them and what they believed, or supported. The funny thing is that this ignorance you claim of what they believed or supported, is totally inconsistent with your previous implication that it was not arguments for utilitarianism that most slavery apologists were appealing to.

quote:

---

Yes.


Care to provide me with a scenario where a moral set based on rational self interest would not 'do the right thing'?

---

Sure, Your wife is no longer as pretty as she was, and she is a nag. No longer the bargian she was when you got her. Why should you keep her?

If you have a chance to cheat at something with no chance of getting caught…

If you have a chance to gain something by not being honest, but will have no negative ramifications.




[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/17/2006 5:08p).]