|
Morals
|
| tiesto14 |
OK i got into a tiny debate tonight with my friends about morals.
I said that a person does not have to beleive in religion or God to have a good sense of morals and they disagreed.
They then said government with laws and religion have always set the standard for morals and rules to live by in a civilized society.
I still said that a person can have morals without religion but maybe the laws do set someone in the right direction...
Then they said that religion was the first government and most of the laws of today stem from religion...so they said i HAD to agree that religion was the main reason for good morals and without religion or government no one would have morals...
I still disagree..but i simply can not think of why...can someone fill me in? Does religion and the government give people morals..and without them we would not have any?? |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
You have to examine the root of religion and morality. Were these principles mystically printed to text or were they formulated by someone? You really can't argue against religion and government setting the standards of morality in a given society, because those influences essentially define the society.
A good question would be, "If there was no laws against murder, would you kill someone?" and hope the answer isn't yes:p . If they answer no ask them why. It may take a while to formulate a response when not allowed to quote from scripture or law, but it's possible to argue that conscience can influence one's behavior in situations where someone is not subject to external laws.
Of course there's always the Taoist doctrine, tell them to read the Tao Te Ching. ;)
Lao Tzu had it going on:D |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I don't think that philosophers have yet found a way to explain morals without involving either mysticism or utilitarianism - which in the extreme becomes religion and government.
Kant thought that minds have synthetic a priori knowledge on this point, meaning that we are somehow born with a built-in moral code. When faced with a moral question such as "should I do A", the moral code can be accessed by asking yourself if you would want "everybody should do A in this situation" to become a universal law. If yes, then you should do A.
As can be seen this doctrine involves some mysticism/religious traits in the shape of the built-in knowledge. If you cannot accept that, then utilitarianism is an alternative. It prescribes that we should always do what contributes most to the total happiness in the world.
For some reason this seems to be a hard doctrine to live by when you are faced with the moral choices directly, so laws are put into place by government to make sure you always take the right choice.
So, no, I don't think that you can come up with any source of morals, which do not in some way relate to religion or government.
As to the question about "commiting murder if there was no law against it", you might want to read the fable of "Gyges' Ring" in Plato's "Republic". It speculates on what a nice person would do if he gained the possibility to become invisible. It's quite thought provoking. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Having a good sense of morals is precisely the ability to sense when religion or government is wrong. Anyone can do what they are told. It takes a special person, dare I say a moral person, to do what is right when they are told not to.
At least, those are my morals, but what are yours?
The truth is that there is no such thing as good morals, there are only my morals, and your morals, and his morals, and her morals. There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about any of them. We call morals we like and that are similar to ours "good" and we call ones that we don't like and aren't similar to ours "bad." But these words are opinions, not facts.
Saying there are "good" morals is like saying green is the "best" color. In reality, there are only your favorite morals and your favorite color.
So, I think your friends might be on to something. After all, wouldn't it be the same people who deceive themselves into believing they possess knowledge of the supernatural who would deceive themselves into believing that their opinions are really facts? Not that such behavior is anything to be proud of - at least in my opinion. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
They then said government with laws and religion have always set the standard for morals and rules to live by in a civilized society. |
I'd argue that laws are simply a reflection of a societies morals. Whatever the society or the people in power believe - that's reflected in the laws.
They don't se the standard for morality - they reflect the standard. As for religion, even the most devout religious people don't follow the moral laws set down in their holy books. How many Jews & Christians do you see who go about murdering witches or giving away all of their possessions to help the poor?
| quote: | | I still said that a person can have morals without religion but maybe the laws do set someone in the right direction... |
I'm not religious in the slightest, but laws have nothing to do with what I believe is moral/immoral. Quite frankly, I think that's it's erroneous to link the two. Most people don't even understand the law - and intern aren't even aware of most laws.
| quote: | | Then they said that religion was the first government and most of the laws of today stem from religion...so they said i HAD to agree that religion was the main reason for good morals and without religion or government no one would have morals... |
I'd argue that religion is often responsible for bad and illogical morals. The denomization of gays is something that we've inherited from religion - and I’d hardly call that a positive or a useful moral ideal. To refute this, you need to look at religion from the following perspective: man created every religion - thus, every religion's moral laws are merely a reflection of what certain men (or women) thought at the time.
It's blatantly obvious that you don't need a religion to live an ethical life - otherwise atheists, humanists & objectivists would be disproportionately represented in terms of the amount of crimes they commit and so forth. They aren't, in fact, most studies tend to show that atheists and non-religious people are often more 'moral' than religious people. You could also mention that the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to be non-religious - and intelligent people are often more concerned with ethics and ethical behavior than less intelligent people.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I don't think that philosophers have yet found a way to explain morals without involving either mysticism or utilitarianism - which in the extreme becomes religion and government. |
Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know, utilitarianism doesn't necessarily 'explain' morals (which form of utilitarianism are you talking about by the way? preference? act? rule?), it's simply an ethical theory. There are others.
You could be an objectivist who values ethical egoism - they certainly seem to think that they have a monopoly on the truth. As far as I know, there are also other forms of consequentialism, there are eudemonist type theories, non-theistic natural law theories, and hey, if you're into it - you can always become a nihilist.
I suspect that you're looking for an explanation of why we have morals and how they got here. If you're looking for that, then there's one possible answer: evolution. If you want to understand the origin of morals and ethics, you simply need to understand the theory of evolution - because that's where morals evolved and developed, and where we'll ultimately 'explain' ethics IMHO.
| quote: | | If you cannot accept that, then utilitarianism is an alternative. It prescribes that we should always do what contributes most to the total happiness in the world. |
It's certainly an option, but it isn't the only one. Personally I’m a humanist, and I try to live my life according to humanist principles - but I am extremely interested in the preference utilitarianism proposed by Singer et al.
| quote: | | For some reason this seems to be a hard doctrine to live by when you are faced with the moral choices directly, so laws are put into place by government to make sure you always take the right choice. |
Most governments have certain types of utilitarian laws or concepts buried in there somewhere, but I wouldn't say that most laws dictate that you have to go along with utilitarian concepts.
| quote: | | So, no, I don't think that you can come up with any source of morals, which do not in some way relate to religion or government. |
Actully, I don't think that you can come up with a source of morals themselves that does involve either religion or government - hehe. You can certainly trace some of the idiotic ethical ideas that we're stick with today back to religion - but ultimately most religions simply reflected the moral codes around (or in some cases the bizarre moral codes of their founders) at the time. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Here is a nice article I posted earlier on the subject, and it pretty much agrees with my opinion:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...er+long+article
Humans are social animals. Before we climbed the evolutionary ladder and started using tools and speech, we were still living in small communities. To live in a community, each individual must oblige to some requirements, otherwise he's either killed or chased away from the community. This lead to people having basic moral values hardwired into their brains, because those who did not have such qualities didn't stay in the community for too long.
As humans started evolving and communities got larger, two different things happened. First, people started wondering about natural disasters and processes and, being unable to explain them, attributed them to higher beings. Such higher beings were then personifed and given human qualities, which meant some are "good" and some are "evil". Obviously, we should cherish and listen to the good ones, as evil ones will destroy us as soon as they get the chance. Another problem became obvious when populations increased, and it became more difficult to control all the elements of the society than it was at earlier times when everyone knew everyone else.
So, two things had to be done. The first one was to please higher beings, while the second one was to control the population. Of course, we should please the good higher beings, as pleasing evil ones doesn't really help us aside from postponing their evil plans. And what would please the good higher beings? Things should be done that we inherintly "know" are good, which are exactly things that were hardwired into our brains to make our survival in a community possible. Such moral guidelines are then written in a formal way (although often including personal beliefs of the writer which occasionally do differ from the general consensus of the population), and declared to be the toolkit for making gods happy. They were in reality just a formalization of beneficial natural behavioural patterns. As time went on, those guidelines were declared as factual truths and the very words of god(s). The judicial system was based upon those values, as god was not punishing individuals for their sins, but rather entire populations by plagues, floods, and other natural phenomena. The problem with such dogmatic systems is that they are inflexible and unable to adapt to new circumstances. That's why our current judicial system started to differ from the biblical dogma, although it still retains some common aspects. Overall, we could say that religion is a formalization of natural behaviour based on superstition, while the judicial system and our current ehtics are largely based on religion, but have reintroduced some aspects of natural communal interaction. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Ah, arctic. For some reason I expected Renegade to be the one who would pick at my post, but at least I was right on the nationality :)
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know, utilitarianism doesn't necessarily 'explain' morals (which form of utilitarianism are you talking about by the way? preference? act? rule?), it's simply an ethical theory. There are others.
|
I have been unclear. What I mean by utilitarianism (rule btw.) explaining morals, is that it can be derived from pure reason: If this is the behaviour of all then I stand a better chance of having a good life.
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
I suspect that you're looking for an explanation of why we have morals and how they got here.
|
That was what I was having a go at.
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
If you're looking for that, then there's one possible answer: evolution. If you want to understand the origin of morals and ethics, you simply need to understand the theory of evolution - because that's where morals evolved and developed, and where we'll ultimately 'explain' ethics IMHO.
|
By "evolution" I expect that you mean natural selection in the Darwinistic sense. If not then please skip the next bit.
I have a problem with the evolution explanation. First of all, it must assume that at some point in time, no moral code was in place in our ancestors, as otherwise it really wouldn't explain their coming in to being.
Second, if moral codes is a necessity for humans to live in flocks, then humans wasn't living in flocks at this point in time. In an environment where humans are not living in flocks, the usefulnes of a moral code is highly doubtful. E.g. should I share my food supply with that guy over there, so he can live through the winter, even though he has been lazy and hasn't tried to catch his own mammoth? I just don't see how the swap could happen, unless a sudden insurge of moral codes in several persons happened all at once.
Furthermore, evolution in general is a great theory, but there are some objections to it, which so far haven't been answered (to my knowledge):
1. The fossil evidence we have suggests that evolution proceeds in leaps and not as a continuous process.
2. If you do the maths, it seems that the period of life on Earth is far to short to allow for something even as advanced as bacteria to happen through random pertubations and natural selection.
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
It's certainly an option, but it isn't the only one. Personally I’m a humanist, and I try to live my life according to humanist principles - but I am extremely interested in the preference utilitarianism proposed by Singer et al.
|
I'm curious: What's the difference between a humanist and an existential atheist? The former label lands more dates?:p
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Actully, I don't think that you can come up with a source of morals themselves that does involve either religion or government - hehe. You can certainly trace some of the idiotic ethical ideas that we're stick with today back to religion - but ultimately most religions simply reflected the moral codes around (or in some cases the bizarre moral codes of their founders) at the time. |
We have two different uses of the word "religion". You seem to use it as a common term for "established" religions, with priesthoods and sacred texts. I think of it as an ardent faith in something supernatural - not necessarily a faith that is shared by others. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
By "evolution" I expect that you mean natural selection in the Darwinistic sense. If not then please skip the next bit.
I have a problem with the evolution explanation. First of all, it must assume that at some point in time, no moral code was in place in our ancestors, as otherwise it really wouldn't explain their coming in to being.
Second, if moral codes is a necessity for humans to live in flocks, then humans wasn't living in flocks at this point in time. In an environment where humans are not living in flocks, the usefulnes of a moral code is highly doubtful. E.g. should I share my food supply with that guy over there, so he can live through the winter, even though he has been lazy and hasn't tried to catch his own mammoth? I just don't see how the swap could happen, unless a sudden insurge of moral codes in several persons happened all at once. |
You're assuming here that humans accepted some sort of a moral code when they evolved from primates, which is incorrect. Hominid ancestors have lived in flock as well, infact almost every monkey species lives in flocks. It's hard to say when this started, but it probably goes back way further than human or even monkey origins. In other words, humans evolved from creatures that already had some sort of a basic moral code. As you go deeper into the past, that code gets more basic and rudimentary up to the point where it says "if you don't attack me I won't attack you".
| quote: | Furthermore, evolution in general is a great theory, but there are some objections to it, which so far haven't been answered (to my knowledge):
1. The fossil evidence we have suggests that evolution proceeds in leaps and not as a continuous process.
2. If you do the maths, it seems that the period of life on Earth is far to short to allow for something even as advanced as bacteria to happen through random pertubations and natural selection.
|
Phew, I'll let Mr Opus give you a detailed answer on that one. In short, yes, evolution does proceed in leaps, and while the amount of time may be too short to allow for natural perturbation to cause advanced species, it is not too short if you include a rather forceful natural selection. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Ah, arctic. For some reason I expected Renegade to be the one who would pick at my post, but at least I was right on the nationality :) |
Yeah, he beat me to it. :p
Anyway I'm not going to focus on everything in this topic, but just a couple of things:
| quote: | I don't think that philosophers have yet found a way to explain morals without involving either mysticism or utilitarianism - which in the extreme becomes religion and government.
[...]
So, no, I don't think that you can come up with any source of morals, which do not in some way relate to religion or government. |
I disagree on two counts. Firstly, if you're examining the origin of specific moral beliefs held in a society (i.e. "murder is wrong", "charity is good" etc.) then government and religion are two sources of these beliefs, but the sheer quantity of moral beliefs that we all possess that differ from any government or religion we've encountered should be enough to suggest that these are not our sole sources of moral beliefs. Secondly, if you're suggesting that government and religion are the origin of morality (that is, our "moral imperative" as a species) as a whole, then again I'll have to disagree. Morality is necessarily humanistic in nature - it was created by, and applicable only to, human beings. Our moral imperative was responsible for the creation of the systems of morality found in government and religion, not the other way round.
Or, as Arctic put it:
| quote: | I'd argue that laws are simply a reflection of a societies morals. Whatever the society or the people in power believe - that's reflected in the laws.
They don't se the standard for morality - they reflect the standard. As for religion, even the most devout religious people don't follow the moral laws set down in their holy books. How many Jews & Christians do you see who go about murdering witches or giving away all of their possessions to help the poor? |
(By "moral imperative" I don't mean imperative in the categorical / hypothetical Kanitan sense, I'm referring to the inherent compulsion we have to make moral judgements. That is, our "moral imperative" is our intractable instinct to make moral judgements about human behaviour.)
Now the origin of this moral imperative is an open question - I believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for its existence (i.e. we developed it to allow for the formation of the early tribes / societies that were necessary for our existence earlier on in our evolutionary history - I think that Tit0 has the right idea here) whereas you may wish to offer a more divine explanation for it - but the fact is that it exists, and we cannot escape the fact that we have to, as part of our nature, make moral judgements. (The exception here is where neurological damage exists, which just further advances the naturalistic case for the existence of such a moral imperative. If damage to a certain part of the brain can restrict one's ability to make moral decisions - where most other thought activities are unharmed - then surely the case can be made that moral judgements are nothing more than a neurological and behavioural pattern of thought. See the famous case of Phineas Gage for instance. Also here's a very good article that I reccomend you all read about the possible neurological and psychological origins of our moral sense.) In any case, the fact is that we are deterministically bound to making moral judgements, so the only question of importance is about whether there is any way - given the somewhat arbitrary nature of the creation of our moral beliefs - to judge whether any moral system is more "moral" or more "right" than any other.
Of course, the issue here is that weighing up the merits of differing moral systems is a moral judgement in itself. If I were to say that the morality of humanists is better (i.e. more moral?) than that of Christians, then that is a moral judgement - I'm drawing on my own moral spectrum to evaluate my own moral spectrum: caught the circular logic yet? :crazy:
Of course this leads to a situation in which judgements and evaluations of moral systems because difficult, because we're judging that moral system by another moral system, which in turn needs to be judged by another moral system to be made legitimate and so forth. This leads to a situation like the one Arbiter described:
| quote: | The truth is that there is no such thing as good morals, there are only my morals, and your morals, and his morals, and her morals. There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about any of them. We call morals we like and that are similar to ours "good" and we call ones that we don't like and aren't similar to ours "bad." But these words are opinions, not facts.
Saying there are "good" morals is like saying green is the "best" color. In reality, there are only your favorite morals and your favorite color. |
Of course this doesn't mean (as is the charge often made against humanists) that we have to accept every moral system as inherently equal or equally meritorious, but it does mean that we have to rethink the way we approach morality. Instead of thinking in terms of "ought" (morality ought to be like this - which is, as I have said, a moral judgement in itself) we need to start thinking in terms of "is" (this is way morality is). As such, we can now create an epistemological view of morality, starting from the premises that we all have a moral imperative and that we all hold certain moral beliefs as a result. This forms the "subjective" side of my moral theory, now comes the "objective" side (like Hume, I'm a compatiblist).
As I see it, there are two fundamental flaws in the most common approaches to constructing a moral system:
1) The notion that "correct" moral beliefs can be deducted via reason (that if we think long and hard enough, the "right" mode of action will be revealed to us) and that modes of action can be thus be evaluated and modified based upon these "higher", rationally formed, more "general" principles of morality (the top-down approach).
2) That morality should be considered as a logically perfect (or at least self-consistent) system and/or that any system of morality that fails this consistency test can be rendered invalid as a result. Mortality, it must be remembered, is not inherently rational or logical in nature.
On the first point, contrary to what Kant and the rationalists thought, no amount of contemplation will bring you to an inherently correct moral principle or axiom. This is because, a la the second point, morality is not inherently rational (from a neurological perspective, it originates in different parts of the brain to where we process logical decision making - more closely tied to emotion than rationale) and because it makes no sense to believe that specific actions should be dictated by general, universal axioms and principles. In Eastern philosophy, general moral principles are derived from specific actions ("murder is wrong because we shouldn't kill Billy without any good reason") rather than the other way around in western philosophy ("we shouldn't kill Billy without any good reason because murder is wrong"). As Satre pointed out, there are many circumstances in which no system of morality or general moral principle is going to assist us in our moral quandry. Here he cites the example of a young man torn between fighting for his country and staying home to care for his frail mother. In this situation, as with many others, no Golden Mean, Categorical Imperative or Hedonic Calculus is going to be of any assistance to him. Each man must create his own moral stance for himself, ex nihilo, by committing to a decision in cases like this. By making moral decisions like this, man defines his own morality (and, by extension, himself) and creates for himself a moral system by which to act (from the bottom-up). Although simply expressed here, this subjectivist method of the creation of moral principles and convictions forms the basis of Satrean and most existentialst morality.
As a side, on this point trancaholic:
| quote: | | I'm curious: What's the difference between a humanist and an existential atheist? The former label lands more dates? |
A humanist generally believes in the principles elucidated in the Humanist Manifesto:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
It's merely a system of morality that takes human beings as the basis - the beginning and end - of morality.
An existentialist is someone who concerns themselves with exploring the nature of human existence (the conclusions they end up with differ). An atheist is, obviously, someone who doesn't believe in God. Most atheists are humanists of some sort and vice versa (though it isn't always the case). Existentialists can be humanists, atheists, both or neither. Satre, for example (although he distanced himself from both existentialism and humanism later on) was, in many ways, all three.
Anyway, the problem that Satre always battled with when confronting morality this way (as a subjectivistic, humanistic conception) was - as I explored before - that it became difficult reconcile the beliefs of the individual with the beliefs of the "mit sein" (the "others"). Satre, as with many other subjectivists, proposed the notion of "inter-subjectivity" to explain how pseudo-objective standards of morality could come to exist, and how they might be enforced within society. From what I wrote somewhere else:
| quote: | | Inter-subjectivity is merely the notion explaining how differing subjective moral stances may be arbitrated through negotiation and compromise. In this sense, if there are agreed codes of conduct held by members of a society, these codes may be formalised in the form of laws and so forth. Inter-subjectivity may be confused for an objective moral imperative, in that merely because humans generally desire similar things (which is natural being from the same species with undoubtedly some natural imperative towards societal constructs) there may be some illusion of an objective moral imperative at work – that is that morality may be “objectified” as something from which concrete moral principles may be drawn. |
So the problem with the concept of inter-subjectivity is that while it preserves the sanctity of individualistic morality and allows us to create objective standards of behaviour, the objectivity here is entirely illusory. All we've done is taken our subjective beliefs and democratised them - whatever the majority of society believes, that is what is reflected in law (generally). This perpsective fuels a sort of runaway cultural relativism - that the beliefs of any given society must be moral so long as the majority of citizens in that society hold them to be moral. Inter-subjectivity means that we have no real ground upon which to criticise a society, or an individual living in that society, for an action they commit so long as the action is sanctioned by that society. So if a society believes that racial villification is wrong, for instance, then if we adhere to the principles of inter-subjectivity we have no objective way of criticising this stance. The objective morality is, in this case, the one that the society has decided upon so - as a subjectivist - we would have no way basis upon which to describe the racial vilification in this society as "immoral".
But the problem with subjectivity is that it suggests the individual is and should be the sole dictator of his own actions. That is, that in establishing his own system of morality, he has created for himself a legitimate moral system upon which to act. But this perspective mistakes the purpose of morality - it isn't a method of action it's a method of acting amongst other people. A man alone on a deserted island needs no moral code by which to act as there are no people there to be affected by his actions and any other action he commits, by definition, falls outside the scope of morality. So when we view morality this way, we (or should I say, I) end up with one simple conclusion: morality has nothing to do with the way we act, it has to do with who we act upon. The old maxim "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is dead. Why should my own personal moral standards (how I wish to be treated) be projected upon someone else, when they already have there own standards on how they wish to be treated? The new maxim is, therefore, "do unto others as they would have you do unto them".
In recognising this - by turning the traditional view of morality around - we have preserved the sanctity of individualistic morality while creating an objective basis upon which to act. In short, the very principles we have developed as part of our own morality over the years become the objective moral standards by which people treat us. We each, by necessity of our moral imperative, create these moral principles and the sum total of these subjective principles and the actions they both implore and necessitate form the objective part of morality: morality as a quantifiable system, universally applicable to all human beings.
There are flaws with this theory, of course. It isn't necessarily logical, rational or necessarily self-consistent. But note - as I said before - that morality isn't logical, rational or self-consistent in nature (how many of your own moral beliefs, for instance, can be completely justified ab initio?) and that my aim is not to devise a perfect system of morality (as most philosophers have tried to do) but rather to examine morality as it really is. And in doing this I have come to the conclusion, and I hope you'll agree, that for all the centuries and millenia of rumination upon man's moral condition, it's nature and how it might most perfectly be expressed, the entire foundation of all moral action can be summed up in one simple line:
Treat people as they wish to be treated.
Now go forth and spread the word.... ;) |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, he beat me to it. :p
|
I knew you couldn't stay silent when I wrote the word "religion". It's as efficient bait as "God".:D
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I disagree on two counts. Firstly, if you're examining the origin of specific moral beliefs held in a society |
I'm not, so I'll skip this.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
if you're suggesting that government and religion are the origin of morality (that is, our "moral imperative" as a species) as a whole, then again I'll have to disagree. Morality is necessarily humanistic in nature - it was created by, and applicable only to, human beings. Our moral imperative was responsible for the creation of the systems of morality found in government and religion, not the other way round.
|
I wish I never used those words. They seemed to link so wonderfully to tiesto14's post, though.:(
The two sources that I can in any way attribute an universal moral's existence to (if morals, rather than angst of consequences, exists) are reason and some divine will. Reason as embodied in utilitarianism and enforced by government, and divine will as subjectively elicited by religious movements.
Personally, I tilt towards the non-existence of morals, or as it being a by product of logical reasoning, but I acknowledge the divine will as an explanation as well. It seems to me that a "humanistic invention" falls into the reason or non-existence explanations as well?
Then comes one of your long essays, which I have ruthlessly summarized as:
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
We cannot construct a locical consistent moral system which all should follow. (Yes, I am evil - I know :)).
|
I agree with this, but still think that such efforts are the ultimate cause of government laws. It seems to me that you are with Arbiter on the view that there is no such thing as an universal moral, but rather a bunch of individual morals which each person has to find out for himself? If that is a correct interpretation of your post, then it seems to me that moral becomes an empty word that describes an ill-defined part of a specific personality. A personality which, according to the realistic aspect of humanism, is a direct product of the experiences of the individual?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
A humanist generally believes in the principles elucidated in the Humanist Manifesto:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
It's merely a system of morality that takes human beings as the basis - the beginning and end - of morality.
|
Hmm. Being European I preferred
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms...asp?chapter=309
as source, which seems to put somewhat more emphasis on the existential aspect. Anyway, even with this:
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
An existentialist is someone who concerns themselves with exploring the nature of human existence (the conclusions they end up with differ). An atheist is, obviously, someone who doesn't believe in God. Most atheists are humanists of some sort and vice versa (though it isn't always the case). Existentialists can be humanists, atheists, both or neither. Satre, for example (although he distanced himself from both existentialism and humanism later on) was, in many ways, all three.
|
- and the source you gave, I fail to see how you can be a humanist without being both an existentialist and an atheist?
Then comes your moral theory, ending in
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Treat people as they wish to be treated.
|
Which in some way is a reasonable conclusion when you come from a humanistic world view. I know that you tried to describe what moral *is* rather than what it should be, but I do not quite get why it I *ought* to "treat people as they wish to be treated"? I will grant you that it is a fair description of what is happening, but I would explain it as being a result of a unconscious calculation of maximum expected utility based on experience, rather than an subjective view on what is right and wrong.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Now go forth and spread the word.... ;) |
As I am repulsed by several parts of the humanist doctrine, I cannot readily accept your theory - and the moral I follow (it being universal or private) tells me not to convince others of that which I do not believe myself :D |
|
|
| emander |
| Great stuff here. What about Islamic Jihad and the morals of the terrrorists? They seem to do everything in the cause of their religious beliefs, even beheading people without a trial. They have to believe what they are doing is right though, but the logic escapes me. |
|
|
|
|
