Secular morality

[Moontanman]

[randomc]

If secular morality is to really serve people i think maybe it would be necessary to make an institution of it.

 

For e.g., how does secular morality provide counsel for people? Trying to balance individual autonomy and societal well-being during some moral crisis can be difficult, and secular morality provides very little in the way of support networks, counseling, that sort of stuff. Needs to be an institution, a place people can go to, a banner to gather around (for community cohesion, and that sort of thing). Something more than just vids on youtube trolling existing institutions.

[mooeypoo]

I actually wrote a paper about the topic (got an award, too!) about Hobbes' Leviathan, and how he seems to construct a purely "logical" / "rational" set of moral behaviors for humans outside the biblical influence, and independent from any "institution" (guess which institution he meant)

 

I can try and find it, I probably have it in PDF format somewhere.

[randomc]

...and independent from any "institution"

 

Did you find that this was attainable without any kind of institution? Groups of people seem to create mini-institutions around morality/codes of conduct whatever the circumstances, so i think institutions governing moral behaviours are not so much necessary as inevitable.

[mooeypoo]

Did you find that this was attainable without any kind of institution? Groups of people seem to create mini-institutions around morality/codes of conduct whatever the circumstances, so i think institutions governing moral behaviours are not so much necessary as inevitable.

 

He was refering to a very particular institution; he was dancing around the subject, though, remember it was the time of Galileo and the church wasn't all that happy about any of this.

 

Institutions might be inevitable, but that doesn't mean that religion is the institution that sets up morality, I think that's ultimately what the point was.

 

That said, I liked how he made ethics sound like it can stem out of an actually selfish person, individually. It's hard to explain in 2 sentences the entire paper, I try to prove it there. I'll do my best to find it and post it - maybe I can get some views on it

 

~mooey

[imatfaal]

But Mooey - does acting in a certain manner to avoid the attention of the all powerful sovereign actually constitute a moral system or ethos. the social contract at its barest sense removes any decision other than naked self-interest from the calculus - the beauty of the idea in leviathan was the construction of a society on something other than a shared ideal, ethos, morality.

 

 

Hobbes was less afraid of the action of the church than to avoid the issue of the power of the state over the church (in England this was not the problem it was in Italy ; the Monarch had been head of the CofE for about 100 years). I be cannot sure but I thought he was pretty explicit about the right of the sovereign over religion (which not only could but must be executed) - which is why he had to return to the frying pan of London from the fire of Paris. He had left London as some of his polemics against either the short or long parliament (?) were strong enough to cause him to start fearing for his safety - but in Paris the French Catholics did not approve of Leviathan and he decided London was the best bet.

Edited July 26, 2012 by imatfaal
impenetrable prose - still not much better

[Athena]

If secular morality is to really serve people i think maybe it would be necessary to make an institution of it.

 

For e.g., how does secular morality provide counsel for people? Trying to balance individual autonomy and societal well-being during some moral crisis can be difficult, and secular morality provides very little in the way of support networks, counseling, that sort of stuff. Needs to be an institution, a place people can go to, a banner to gather around (for community cohesion, and that sort of thing). Something more than just vids on youtube trolling existing institutions.

 

 

I am editing to connect what said here with what others are saying about institutions. Government is about governing, and it is an institution. There are different forums of government. Most governments are some combination of democracy and autocracy.

 

Democracy begins with two questions. First a question about the gods. "How do the gods who quarrel among each other resolved their differences?" The answer is, they argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.

 

The second question is," To whom does give His authority"? The answer is, He gives it to everyone. None of us have more authority than another, however, we all have different abilities and different natures, and this answer goes with the first question about how the gods resolve their differences. When we all come together with our different points of view and different abilities, and argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, we are imitating the gods, and this is called politics. It is rule by reason, as opposed to rule by brute force, or I suppose rule by fear and superstition. It is in our nature to be political creatures and to live by rule by reason.

 

We can also turn to science and see it is in our nature to be moral. Instinctively we have a conscience, and we have mirror neurons that inform us about others, and help us make moral decisions. When we know, dumping in the river is bad for the river and the life in the river and bad for the people down stream who drink from the river, we can not dump in it without feeling guilty of wrong doing, and we become aware of wanting to be sure someone else does not comment this wrong, against us, so we form governments for our protection. Knowledge, and conscience, effect our moral decision making. I think our best approach to understanding our morality and the breakdown in morality, is science and reason. We should come to the table with the best science of our nature, and nature in general, that is available to us.

 

However, as some of you may have noticed, democracy is also about understanding the gods. Oh I know this is not "technologically correct", because these gods are not real beings, but the stories come with great wisdom and serve as an excellent foundation for discussion.

http://ancienthistor...heuspandora.htm

 

Being a secular society does not have to mean a society with no wisdom, and this is what we tend to be lacking today. Being technologically correct, is too separated from wisdom, and this is the problem we need to resolve, because just being smart is not good enough. We also need wisdom, and unlike all those before us, we can easily access all the wisdom of the world, and use it. The problem I see here is, an unwillingness to do that. Education has lead us to believe all we need is technological correctness, and this education has not prepared us for wisdom, or to even value wisdom.

 

 

I just watched the whole video and you should get an award for finding this for us. It is the most comprehensive explanation of morality I have ever come across. Thank you.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Athena

[randomc]

I am editing to connect what said here with what others are saying about institutions. Government is about governing, and it is an institution. There are different forums of government. Most governments are some combination of democracy and autocracy.

 

Democracy begins with two questions. First a question about the gods. "How do the gods who quarrel among each other resolved their differences?" The answer is, they argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.

 

The second question is," To whom does give His authority"? The answer is, He gives it to everyone. None of us have more authority than another, however, we all have different abilities and different natures, and this answer goes with the first question about how the gods resolve their differences. When we all come together with our different points of view and different abilities, and argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, we are imitating the gods, and this is called politics. It is rule by reason, as opposed to rule by brute force, or I suppose rule by fear and superstition. It is in our nature to be political creatures and to live by rule by reason.

 

We can also turn to science and see it is in our nature to be moral. Instinctively we have a conscience, and we have mirror neurons that inform us about others, and help us make moral decisions. When we know, dumping in the river is bad for the river and the life in the river and bad for the people down stream who drink from the river, we can not dump in it without feeling guilty of wrong doing, and we become aware of wanting to be sure someone else does not comment this wrong, against us, so we form governments for our protection. Knowledge, and conscience, effect our moral decision making. I think our best approach to understanding our morality and the breakdown in morality, is science and reason. We should come to the table with the best science of our nature, and nature in general, that is available to us.

 

However, as some of you may have noticed, democracy is also about understanding the gods. Oh I know this is not "technologically correct", because these gods are not real beings, but the stories come with great wisdom and serve as an excellent foundation for discussion.

http://ancienthistor...heuspandora.htm

 

Being a secular society does not have to mean a society with no wisdom, and this is what we tend to be lacking today. Being technologically correct, is too separated from wisdom, and this is the problem we need to resolve, because just being smart is not good enough. We also need wisdom, and unlike all those before us, we can easily access all the wisdom of the world, and use it. The problem I see here is, an unwillingness to do that. Education has lead us to believe all we need is technological correctness, and this education has not prepared us for wisdom, or to even value wisdom.

 

 

You can certainly educate to provide tools for moral reasoning and decision making, but how do you motivate people to actually use these tools? A powerful and lasting appeal to emotion, conscience, would be needed, and i doubt any educational system can provide that.

 

That's the cultural innovation that i would want to see retained from religion, an institution that appeals to emotion thus motivating people to listen to conscience.

[Athena]

You can certainly educate to provide tools for moral reasoning and decision making, but how do you motivate people to actually use these tools? A powerful and lasting appeal to emotion, conscience, would be needed, and i doubt any educational system can provide that.

 

That's the cultural innovation that i would want to see retained from religion, an institution that appeals to emotion thus motivating people to listen to conscience.

 

Thank you for your beautiful question. I would love to give you an answer, but perhaps I should ask the moderators' for permission. I have been repeatedly told to not say what needs to be said to answer your question. Your answer is tied to past education, but this information is not mainstream knowledge, and I have told to stop talking about.

[EquisDeXD]

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? You don't mean anything to the universe, you can't because the universe isn't a living thing and therefore lacks the capacity to assign meaning, and your going to die anyway, what does it matter if your selfish anyway? I think because of that you can have secular morality, or really any morality you want.

Edited October 3, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Athena]

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? You don't mean anything to the universe, you can't because the universe isn't a living thing and therefore lacks the capacity to assign meaning, and your going to die anyway, what does it matter if your selfish anyway? I think because of that you can have secular morality, or really any morality you want.

 

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? Okay, what morality would you have us have?

[STeve555]

Moral is a something like gravity. Did it exist before homo sapiens came to be? Robert M. Pirsig says it's a ghost in his most famous book.

Some people watch movies where a hungry Cheetah is skin over bones and they sigh with relieve when it finally gets a meal.

Some people watch movies where a limp impala is struggling to luck out of it's delayed destiny of being a diner to a predator.

 

The truth is that morals do not exist but in human minds.

 

I do not see why you distinguish "secular moral" from "religious moral"

 

Moral, the word and its explanation itself is discriminate and full of bias. In political denomination it would be called "left wing".

Morality favors the weak and outcasts and it rather sides that part of life that struggles.

Empathy is moral, that is why psychopaths lack moral.

But all in all "moral" is a human invention and therefor not the truth per se.

You can deem "moral", when looking objectively from an extraterrestrial mind's eye on earth, just a character trait of the mammal homo sapiens sapiens.

People who hate to see cattle slaughtered for hamburgers sometimes do not mind cattleslaughters to die by the knife themselves.

 

Some philosophers, like Christopher Hitchens, knowing and realizing that evolution through natural selection is rather cold and impersonal, we should regardless all that be nice to each other.

Some jews say: if you kill one person you kill the entire world.

 

Both are right in the realm of morality.

 

The execution - the following up to, rather than the demise of - moral is an utopian one, walking on a conjecture gold lanes of pre-paved idealism.

 

The truth is not a mixture of the classical and romantic truth. No, the truth is still the truth when no humanoid ever got into existence period: a dystopia of a cheetah that needs to feed, and an impala that in peace needs to breed.

 

Moral, and thus empathy, is merely a human surplus that is granted to lesser beasts because we are in the position to play god over all other mammals and co.

 

The annual pardon of the turkey in the usa is a prime example of this. I personally do not give a shid. As goes for the holocaust.

 

6 million "jewish" homo sapiens sapies died along with homosexuals and "gypsies". That is what THEY say.

Multiply 6 million by 10 and you get the total death rate of that stupid war based on sheer bigotry nationalism.

I do not like religions, nationalism and culture. But those are the 3 prime suspect warmongers that get rewarded by tax money the most worldwide.

 

Stop being proud of your place of birth (of which you had no vote anyway), and stop believing that one human race is superior over another. Let alone religions, because you all should realize that religion is stupid like you think your kids are stupid when they keep believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

 

 

Somehow modern philosophers forsake philosophie by stating that even though Darwin has deprived us from a omni- scient, present and potent God, that we yet got to remind ourselves that we are humans and should keep in high regard the so called " Anthropic principle".

 

I wonder why. Why is this world or universe, after the demise of God, having a big brother in order to judge your karma?

 

There is no moral other than the one that is protecting people at best, it is called democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EquisDeXD]

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? Okay, what morality would you have us have?

 

Let's start with the government, don't kill people. In the US at least, there is a clear line between the separation of "Church" and "State", yet all state laws say it's illegal to kill someone because it's written in the constitution. To me it makes sense, we wouldn't have a function society, most people would be miserable or fearful, it would essentially just be brute nature, I don't need religion for that.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Moontanman]

Moral is a something like gravity. Did it exist before homo sapiens came to be? Robert M. Pirsig says it's a ghost in his most famous book.

Some people watch movies where a hungry Cheetah is skin over bones and they sigh with relieve when it finally gets a meal.

Some people watch movies where a limp impala is struggling to luck out of it's delayed destiny of being a diner to a predator.

 

The truth is that morals do not exist but in human minds.

 

I do not see why you distinguish "secular moral" from "religious moral"

 

Moral, the word and its explanation itself is discriminate and full of bias. In political denomination it would be called "left wing".

Morality favors the weak and outcasts and it rather sides that part of life that struggles.

Empathy is moral, that is why psychopaths lack moral.

But all in all "moral" is a human invention and therefor not the truth per se.

You can deem "moral", when looking objectively from an extraterrestrial mind's eye on earth, just a character trait of the mammal homo sapiens sapiens.

People who hate to see cattle slaughtered for hamburgers sometimes do not mind cattleslaughters to die by the knife themselves.

 

Some philosophers, like Christopher Hitchens, knowing and realizing that evolution through natural selection is rather cold and impersonal, we should regardless all that be nice to each other.

Some jews say: if you kill one person you kill the entire world.

 

Both are right in the realm of morality.

 

The execution - the following up to, rather than the demise of - moral is an utopian one, walking on a conjecture gold lanes of pre-paved idealism.

 

The truth is not a mixture of the classical and romantic truth. No, the truth is still the truth when no humanoid ever got into existence period: a dystopia of a cheetah that needs to feed, and an impala that in peace needs to breed.

 

Moral, and thus empathy, is merely a human surplus that is granted to lesser beasts because we are in the position to play god over all other mammals and co.

 

The annual pardon of the turkey in the usa is a prime example of this. I personally do not give a shid. As goes for the holocaust.

 

6 million "jewish" homo sapiens sapies died along with homosexuals and "gypsies". That is what THEY say.

Multiply 6 million by 10 and you get the total death rate of that stupid war based on sheer bigotry nationalism.

I do not like religions, nationalism and culture. But those are the 3 prime suspect warmongers that get rewarded by tax money the most worldwide.

 

Stop being proud of your place of birth (of which you had no vote anyway), and stop believing that one human race is superior over another. Let alone religions, because you all should realize that religion is stupid like you think your kids are stupid when they keep believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

 

 

Somehow modern philosophers forsake philosophie by stating that even though Darwin has deprived us from a omni- scient, present and potent God, that we yet got to remind ourselves that we are humans and should keep in high regard the so called " Anthropic principle".

 

I wonder why. Why is this world or universe, after the demise of God, having a big brother in order to judge your karma?

 

There is no moral other than the one that is protecting people at best, it is called democracy.

 

 

The main difference is that religious morals are based on a book written 2500 years ago and suggest some pretty mean things like killing homosexuals and adulterers, genocide, and slavery are moral

 

 

Secular morals assert that harming others is bad and is based on our social behavior as social animals.

 

other social animals have morals, they are not the morals we have but they are morals but morals based on the different needs of that species.

 

Let's start with the government, don't kill people. In the US at least, there is a clear line between the separation of "Church" and "State", yet all state laws say it's illegal to kill someone because it's written in the constitution. To me it makes sense, we wouldn't have a function society, most people would be miserable or fearful, it would essentially just be brute nature, I don't need religion for that.

 

 

I disagree with the bolded line above. all across the US Religious views are being used to take rights away from those who do not believe the same way.

[EquisDeXD]

I disagree with the bolded line above. all across the US Religious views are being used to take rights away from those who do not believe the same way.

 

Well conventionally, according to the laws of the US, there is.

[Athena]

Whoooo no ____ there is a blurring of religious groups and secular authority, and this is really getting nasty, with these groups on the verge of corrupting the supreme court with money used for power. In some states religious groups have gotten judges out of office for declaring homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. The Texas Republican agenda is to prevent education from teaching the higher order thinking skills, that are essential to independent thinking, and these folks have pressured for science text books that teach creationism as equal to science. Because Texas is such a large state and buys so many text books, the decisions made in Texas determine what goes into text books.

 

When we had liberal education, we had education for good moral judgment without religion, but we have not had this since 1958, and that brings us to what some have referred to as the modern crisis. Only highly moral people can have liberty. When the young do not learn principles and good moral judgment, that leaves only the written policy and law, to maintain order. This is devastating to our liberty.

 

Religion in all nations stands against social change. This might not be all bad. I am unaware of any civilization that was not organized by family order. I do not think it is a good idea to be organized by the military, industrial order, because this order does not meet fundamental human needs. However, we are a civilization in transition after 54 years of education for a technological society with unknown values. We are now scrambling to determine what our new morals should be. I hope freedom of speech comes up as one the principles we decide we want to keep. I am at a total loss when it comes to family order. I am very concerned that our children are getting a bad deal, resulting from a weakening of family values, and excessively self centered motives, made by people who never learned about virtues and principles, nor what logos has to do with moral judgment.

 

How are we to determine secular morality when we have not been prepared to do that for 54 years?

 

Moral is a something like gravity. Did it exist before homo sapiens came to be? Robert M. Pirsig says it's a ghost in his most famous book.

Some people watch movies where a hungry Cheetah is skin over bones and they sigh with relieve when it finally gets a meal.

Some people watch movies where a limp impala is struggling to luck out of it's delayed destiny of being a diner to a predator.

 

The truth is that morals do not exist but in human minds.

 

I do not see why you distinguish "secular moral" from "religious moral"

 

Moral, the word and its explanation itself is discriminate and full of bias. In political denomination it would be called "left wing".

Morality favors the weak and outcasts and it rather sides that part of life that struggles.

Empathy is moral, that is why psychopaths lack moral.

But all in all "moral" is a human invention and therefor not the truth per se.

You can deem "moral", when looking objectively from an extraterrestrial mind's eye on earth, just a character trait of the mammal homo sapiens sapiens.

People who hate to see cattle slaughtered for hamburgers sometimes do not mind cattleslaughters to die by the knife themselves.

 

Some philosophers, like Christopher Hitchens, knowing and realizing that evolution through natural selection is rather cold and impersonal, we should regardless all that be nice to each other.

Some jews say: if you kill one person you kill the entire world.

 

Both are right in the realm of morality.

 

The execution - the following up to, rather than the demise of - moral is an utopian one, walking on a conjecture gold lanes of pre-paved idealism.

 

The truth is not a mixture of the classical and romantic truth. No, the truth is still the truth when no humanoid ever got into existence period: a dystopia of a cheetah that needs to feed, and an impala that in peace needs to breed.

 

Moral, and thus empathy, is merely a human surplus that is granted to lesser beasts because we are in the position to play god over all other mammals and co.

 

The annual pardon of the turkey in the usa is a prime example of this. I personally do not give a shid. As goes for the holocaust.

 

6 million "jewish" homo sapiens sapies died along with homosexuals and "gypsies". That is what THEY say.

Multiply 6 million by 10 and you get the total death rate of that stupid war based on sheer bigotry nationalism.

I do not like religions, nationalism and culture. But those are the 3 prime suspect warmongers that get rewarded by tax money the most worldwide.

 

Stop being proud of your place of birth (of which you had no vote anyway), and stop believing that one human race is superior over another. Let alone religions, because you all should realize that religion is stupid like you think your kids are stupid when they keep believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

 

 

Somehow modern philosophers forsake philosophie by stating that even though Darwin has deprived us from a omni- scient, present and potent God, that we yet got to remind ourselves that we are humans and should keep in high regard the so called " Anthropic principle".

 

I wonder why. Why is this world or universe, after the demise of God, having a big brother in order to judge your karma?

 

There is no moral other than the one that is protecting people at best, it is called democracy.

 

 

 

A moral is a matter of cause and effect, and they have existed since the beginning of time, only our awareness of them has not. Moral is to know the law and good manners. To know the law is to know universal law. That is science. Conscience is what comes out of knowledge. If we do not know molesting a child is harmful to a child, we have no conscience of the wrong. Socrates was most concerned with our conscience, because when we know right from wrong, we are compelled to chose right. Except perhaps in a case like molesting children, where something has gone wrong in the human psychi resulting in abnormal compulsive behavior. Mental dis-ease is a social problem we must deal with, but in general, as we gain awareness, our moral judgment improves.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Athena

[Moontanman]

A moral is a matter of cause and effect, and they have existed since the beginning of time, only our awareness of them has not. Moral is to know the law and good manners. To know the law is to know universal law. That is science. Conscience is what comes out of knowledge. If we do not know molesting a child is harmful to a child, we have no conscience of the wrong. Socrates was most concerned with our conscience, because when we know right from wrong, we are compelled to chose right. Except perhaps in a case like molesting children, where something has gone wrong in the human psychi resulting in abnormal compulsive behavior. Mental dis-ease is a social problem we must deal with, but in general, as we gain awareness, our moral judgment improves.

 

 

You are aware that the Ancient Greeks thought love between a man and a young boy was the norm? Women couldn't vote and were denigrated to property?

[EquisDeXD]

A moral is a matter of cause and effect, and they have existed since the beginning of time, only our awareness of them has not. Moral is to know the law and good manners. To know the law is to know universal law. That is science. Conscience is what comes out of knowledge. If we do not know molesting a child is harmful to a child, we have no conscience of the wrong. Socrates was most concerned with our conscience, because when we know right from wrong, we are compelled to chose right. Except perhaps in a case like molesting children, where something has gone wrong in the human psychi resulting in abnormal compulsive behavior. Mental dis-ease is a social problem we must deal with, but in general, as we gain awareness, our moral judgment improves.

 

It doesn't say anything about morals being cause and effect and having anything to do with the universe in the English dictionary, I guess for some other language that's what it could mean though, but given that, it also doesn't say morals directly pertain to religion either.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[ydoaPs]

I disagree with the bolded line above. all across the US Religious views are being used to take rights away from those who do not believe the same way.

 

[citation needed]

[Moontanman]

[citation needed]

 

 

All across the US laws forbidding Gay marriage in one or another have been passed. In my state the state constitution was actually changed to restrict marriage to not only a man and a woman but opposite sex relationships which are not officially married are no longer valid as well.

 

 

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012)

 

The measure defines marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and bans any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.[1][2]

 

This means that domestic partnerships or a civil union between a man and a woman are also illegal...

[EquisDeXD]

All across the US laws forbidding Gay marriage in one or another have been passed. In my state the state constitution was actually changed to restrict marriage to not only a man and a woman but opposite sex relationships which are not officially married are no longer valid as well.

Even if today it's not occurring as much, it was still the intention of the creators of the constitution of the United States that there should be freedom of religion. But, this argument is besides the point anyway, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of secular morality given that there is other evidence.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Athena]

It doesn't say anything about morals being cause and effect and having anything to do with the universe in the English dictionary, I guess for some other language that's what it could mean though, but given that, it also doesn't say morals directly pertain to religion either.

 

 

Not that long ago it was common to read secular moral stories to our children, and at the end of the story we would ask, "what is the moral of that story". The answer is always one of cause effect. While this is less common today, I did buy a new book of moral stories. The book not only gives the story, but also explains the moral of the story. It includes stories such as "The Little Red Hen" and "The King With No Clothes". The little red hen asked all her friends to help with the process of making bread, and none of them would, so when the bread was baked, she did not share it. The moral is, if we want to share in the benefits of labor, then we need to share in that labor.

 

Knowing these stories is what we call cultural literacy. I have a book about what kindergarten children should know, and I was surprised by the number of very old stories the book said children should know. Unfortunately, this was not associated with the moral lessons of the stories.

 

For adults, this information would be literacy in Greek and Roman classics. This is the foundation of our democracy and the reasoning for liberty. Cicero, a Roman Statesman is perhaps the most important when understanding the law and moral conduct. Another source of moral lessons is the native Americans of the US. The Haude No Sau Nee would say to be moral, is to "deeply understand the relationships of all living things". They speak of the Peacemaker who came to them with a message that human beings should stop abusing one another. He stated that "humans are capable of reason, that through the power of reason all men desire peace, and that it is necessary that the people organize to ensure that peace will be possible among the people who walk about the earth". From "A Basic Call to Consciousness" the Haude No Sau Nee address to the western world. I mention the Haude No Sau Nee, because of their explanation of reason and our capability to reason, is identical to morality coming from the ancient Greeks. What separates us from animals is the ability to discover the reason of things and the capability to reason. This is what brings us to good moral judgment. Science is "knowledge" and "con" when used as a prefix makes the word "conscience" mean, coming out of knowledge.

[EquisDeXD]

Not that long ago it was common to read secular moral stories to our children, and at the end of the story we would ask, "what is the moral of that story". The answer is always one of cause effect. While this is less common today, I did buy a new book of moral stories. The book not only gives the story, but also explains the moral of the story. It includes stories such as "The Little Red Hen" and "The King With No Clothes". The little red hen asked all her friends to help with the process of making bread, and none of them would, so when the bread was baked, she did not share it. The moral is, if we want to share in the benefits of labor, then we need to share in that labor.

 

Knowing these stories is what we call cultural literacy. I have a book about what kindergarten children should know, and I was surprised by the number of very old stories the book said children should know. Unfortunately, this was not associated with the moral lessons of the stories.

 

For adults, this information would be literacy in Greek and Roman classics. This is the foundation of our democracy and the reasoning for liberty. Cicero, a Roman Statesman is perhaps the most important when understanding the law and moral conduct. Another source of moral lessons is the native Americans of the US. The Haude No Sau Nee would say to be moral, is to "deeply understand the relationships of all living things". They speak of the Peacemaker who came to them with a message that human beings should stop abusing one another. He stated that "humans are capable of reason, that through the power of reason all men desire peace, and that it is necessary that the people organize to ensure that peace will be possible among the people who walk about the earth". From "A Basic Call to Consciousness" the Haude No Sau Nee address to the western world. I mention the Haude No Sau Nee, because of their explanation of reason and our capability to reason, is identical to morality coming from the ancient Greeks. What separates us from animals is the ability to discover the reason of things and the capability to reason. This is what brings us to good moral judgment. Science is "knowledge" and "con" when used as a prefix makes the word "conscience" mean, coming out of knowledge.

Well, a formal definition of morals would be a "distinction between good and evil in an ethical manner", which ties into the native american interpretation because they would understand what living things actually deem good and evil, but consciousness itself I would say isn't directly related to morals, it's more of how something is taught, which is why morals around the world vary widely, you could have a fully conscious being but have them view murdering someone as a good thing in some respect, which is actually true for ancient Aztec and Mayan culture, as well as others.

Edited October 16, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Athena]

<br>Well, a formal definition of morals would be a "distinction between good and evil in an ethical manner", which ties into the native american interpretation because they would understand what living things actually deem good and evil, but consciousness itself I would say isn't directly related to morals, it's more of how something is taught, which is why morals around the world vary widely, you could have a fully conscious being but have them view murdering someone as a good thing in some respect, which is actually true for ancient Aztec and Mayan culture, as well as others.<br>

 

 

 

"http://natureofthings.blogspot.com/2005/12/morality-and-cicero.html">http://natureofthing...and-cicero.html

 

Cicero qualifies this by saying that the ability to be perfectly moral

is therefore dependent on having a perfect knowledge. If you can't

perfectly understand the consequences of your actions, then you can't

determine whether they are truly advantageous or not, and thus cannot

determine whether they are truly moral.

 

Each culture has a different consciousness and relegates different things into the subconscious by declaring them taboo. How people are educated will make a difference in how they perceive the world. We do not rely on nature as native Americans did and have a very different relationship with it. We can clear cut a forest for the jobs and revenue and have been blind to the consequences of this until recently. However, morality remains consistent, because the consequences are the same, regardless of our intentions or our awareness of them. The morality is not different, but the awareness of it differs. Aztecs had ritualized cannibalism We make cannibalism taboo We are not to even think about it. Ritualizing something that is taboo gives society control over the individual doing. We can not kill, unless drafted into the army and then we are to kill on order. A problem with this is, someone who has been conditioned to kill, may need to be conditioned to not kill when put back into society We have the science to know this, but we are ignoring it. The explanation of what happened in Germany was that people were conditioned to discredit their emotions and follow orders without question. This is presented as having superior logic and reason, and unthinkable things were done, by those "Just following orders". It was culturally expected to behave in this way, with much social pressure to do so. Human beings without the same reasoning, have judged what happened as immoral As we judge cannibalism immoral. Can we use logic to determine morality? What were the consequences of Aztec cannibalism and what happened in Germany? Everyone around these people returned on them. As Socrates said, it may take 3 generations before we realize the problem caused by our bad choices, but sooner or later the consequences will be noticeable. Like that is what makes one thing moral and another immoral, the consequences. Things are not right or wrong, because someone says so, or a holy book says so. It is the consequences of the act that makes something right or wrong.

 

Edited October 16, 2012 by Athena

[EquisDeXD]

However, morality remains consistent, because the consequences are the same, regardless of our intentions or our awareness of them.

Ok, there's two very bad problems with this statement. One is that you said yourself that different cultures have different morals, therefore we should expect different consequences, and second morals aren't some mystical force, they have no existence whatsoever without our awareness of them, literally, if someone doesn't think killing is wrong, then that moral for them doesn't exist, and the moral for fearing death mostly isn't a moral at all, it's a chemical process anyway. Morals are essentially just statements on what should and should not happen. If people aren't aware of those statements, then those morals don't exist in those people.

 

Can we use logic to determine morality?

That's a tricky question. In a way you can have logic in morality to work out situations, but you must have axioms, and axioms are essentially just assumptions.

 

Things are not right or wrong, because someone says so, or a holy book says so. It is the consequences of the act that makes something right or wrong.

 

No it's not consequences exactly, it's whether anything actually considers something has harm or benefit. In most cases, a lot of animals don't really like getting harmed, and plants, even though it isn't proven that they consciously do or don't have perception of some sort, still have responses to being harmed and generally grow in a manner as to try and extend their existence.

Edited October 16, 2012 by EquisDeXD