h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Following on from discussions with Justin the preacher...

Where does morality come from if one rejects the concept of a judgemental deity?

Why should society (made up of individuals no better than me) impose any moral code?

How does an athiest obtain his sense of right and wrong?

I suppose it's something to do with nature & nurture, but I'm open for comments...


Geoff
03/12/2002

*can't be a*sed really*

1) Morals existed before religion.

2) No one has the right to, but they have the guns.

3) See 1.

Continuing from my comments! I have studied many things...psychology, critical thinking, koi carp, Jesus, Satan, Modern History, utopian-style books, writing, pro-wrestling, American Sit-Coms...doesn't necessarily have to be through books, or independant thinking. I scarily, know a lot for my age. Hence the meandering exapnse of posts on this site. My brain works to the speed of a cheetah...

Hello Geoff
I think we inherit morality from our parents, like a tradition that is passed down, from generation to generation. With minor changes to suit an ever changing society. What I think is missing from this is, tolerance!
As an athiset, I don't have morals. I have, what I would call, 'Codes of conduct' instead. Which is basically the same, but with more tolerance than morals, which I believe to be based around religion and often lack tolerance.

Foxy

Surely morals and society is based on the established religion or faith of the time ( or place ).
These codes of conduct are used to control the masses by the elite and are there to explain the complicated or contrevesial to the great unwashed.
Marx was right about the opiate of the masses, but now it is replaced by drink, drugs or a hundred other forms of escapism.
However there are still a few, like Justin, who seek to control via religion for their own ends.

I'm back again, I didn't notice this question before:-
How does an athiest obtain his sense of right and wrong?
From our parents, same as anyone else

But as we grow up & form our own opinions of right & wrong, which comes down to perception and tolerance. For instance, I see nothing wrong at all with homosexuals, other poeple would disagree and find them discusting, so who says whioch one of us it right & which is wrong. I would say there is no right or wrong, just different opinions.

Another thing that I find as an athiest, though unllike a 'uniformed' religion each athiest is an individual and may not feel the same as I do. I think it is very easy to commit a sin, then ask your God to forgive you, then your free to commit more sins. As an athiest, if I do something, which I later regret, I find the hardest person to obtain forgiveness from, is myself.

Foxy

>from our parents<

No. From our role-models. I certainly would use the stinking pit that is my father as a moral guide.

Society functions with the consent of the people.
Even dictatorships have to have consent, otherwise there is anarchy.
The rules for this consent comes from a set of shared beliefs and is generally accepted by the majority.

Anarchy is all very well, a set of individuals with their own aims, but who will clean the drains?

Just as our notion of religion or whatever is in favour constantly changes , so will the accepted morals of the time.

So these morals come from all influences, parents, heroes, villians and so on.
So you are all right, but some people can distort those accepted rules to press their own view point and so fundamentalism is born.
Step forward Justin and others and take a bow!!!!

This does not mean they are right or wrong, just their interpretation is different from the majority. It is the controlling aspect of these extreme view that is dangerous and should be resisted.

>society functions with the consent of the people<

Actually...I'd disagree there too. Society functions with the consent of the ARMY. When you have the army behind you, you pretty much have all the power. Lets just hope the army don't realise that.

The Army (or police etc ) are a cross section of any sovciety and are therefore a reflection of the group from which they are drawn.
An intolerant society will produce forces that reflect that ( such as in 1930's Germany )
The conditions that exsist ( employment, wealth etc ) in any group will determine its outlook, and also inflence its belief system.

Society should, in my opinion, impose a semi-moral code in the form of laws that the majority agrees to because, without them, there will be anarchy which is bad for evyone. If you don't like their moral code, you should either convince the majority to change it, or make your own society.

Well, I can't speak for all atheists, but I obtain a sence of right and wrong as follows:

Assumptions:
1.) I evolved in order to ensure the survival of H. sapiens as a species.

2.) A stable, expanding, fair, technological society is the best course to ensure the survival of H. Sapiens

(Feel free to debate these with me, I think I can defend them.)

Corrolaries:
1.) It is my duty to act to form and protect a stable, expanding, fair, technological society.

2.) I should take those actions that will form and protect such a society and avoid those that would be detrimental to one.


Does that make sence?

Yes