Morals v. Religion

[Steltek]

What I like about morality derived from religion is that they mean my rights are "endowed by my creator", and not subject to the whim of my fellow human beings.

This isn't too hard for me. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If you happen to think wrong is right, then you're wrong. Likewise, if you think evil is good, then you're evil. It works, and it serves as its own paradigm to boot.

[Gengar003]

Anyone choosing to join you will have to follow your rules or leave --- or, of course, they could try to overthrow your rule, whereby they risk whatever punishment you see fit to inflict if they fail.

That is basically "might makes right."

No, it is "you joined me for the benefits you wanted, now you have to follow the rules that make those benefits possible". Might does not MAKE right, and in most cases might is not required for the right thing to be done.

Yes, yes it is. You joined because you saw that for you, given the apparent benefits, subscribing to my moral authority was "right." Now, to maintain those benefits (and I and everyone else who subscribes wants them too, don't forget), you're going to have to abide by my code of morals. Since I (and everyone else who follows 'me') believes there is something wrong and threatening about not going along, it is in our best interests to keep you in line. Since there are more of us than you, the "might" of us will make your "right" ours. This works only so long as you continue to believe that the benefits of this moral authority outweigh the drawbacks.

Most people cannot actually be forced to believe a certain way by this collective agreement, but a good deal can be coerced or convinced into going along with it.

And, because of the large amount of believers, whatever moral code we may have exists as a possible "right" choice for people looking for sources of moral authority.

My point in this case, I guess, is that moral codes gain increased credibility as more and more people subscribe to them. Since we evaluate morality on a "right <-> wrong" and " good <-> bad" scale, I'm saying that this "might" of many supporters makes it more likely for the set of morals to be percieved as "right."

Ditto for the "collective agreement" -- the agreement has weight/power because people will stand by those moral beliefs. If some community in a state of "collective agreement" about their morality, when faced with a person in their midst doing things they considered "immoral," the community could not say that they held whatever moral beliefs were being violated if they did not do anything.

Incorrect. A violation is a violation regardless of whether or not any steps are taken to correct it. And your argument lacks the specificity needed to pass a logic test. "Do anything", for example, can include passive forms of punishment just as readily as acts of force.

Hm, yes, that was not ideally worded. To refine my question, if somebody claimed that "rape was wrong," but, when witnessing a rape, did not care and did nothing to intervene, I would say that no, that person does not think rape is wrong.

Similarly, a community in "collective agreement" about a set of morals, is, as I believe and am arguing, in "agreement" about those morals because each member has decided that that particular set of morals is in their best interest. (Not always true, I know, many people, in the context of government again, do not bother to find out what these 'agreements' are, and many people who go to some religion's Church just do so because everyone else does, caring nothing for whateer morals it may preach.) As I stated before, then, they implicitly decide that it is not in their best interest for someone to go against that chosen moral code. Therefore, you have a group of people with a set of beliefs whose "best interest" is threatened by people who do not share those beliefs. It may not come down to physical violence, but at some level, that group will take actions to attempt to preserve the state of its collective agreement.

The government has laws prohibiting and outlining punishments for killing people. If someone killed someone else, but the government did nothing, is that really a law?

Yes, it is. A law's validity does not rely on whether or not you can get away with a crime, or with whether or not society chooses to pardon your crime under any given set of circumstances (such as evading capture until the law of statutes runs out).

I'm not talking about committing a crime or violating some moral and "getting away with it" somehow, I'm saying if you broke the law, and the government, who passed that law, said "Eh. Do whatever." Once there is no pressure to abide by the law, nobody will 'have' to abide by it, so it is no longer serving the purpose of a law... Let's take a (anal-retentive) peek at Dictionary.com!

Dictionary.com defines "law"

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2.
- The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
-The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.
...
8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law.

In the context of a goverment, a law that is not enforced or that carries no consequences for being disobeyed would appear to not really be considered a "law." My point, then, was that, in the context of "collective moral agreements," if there is no pressure to stay in or maintain the agreement, the 'agreement' part falls apart. Therefore, whatever forces that pursuade people to remain in that agreement are the "might" that makes the 'right' that the community's decided on 'right.'

If you base your interactions on lies and deception, you are going to have negative consequences, regardless of if you believe lying is wrong or not.

Stealing will also bring about negative consequences, as does murder, rape, and other vile practices.

No amount of voting is going to change that. The natural consequences are going to be there regardless of if it is against the governmental law or not.

And if you live in a culture where Stealing, lying, and rape are the accepted, encouraged, and glorified norm? To us, yes, vile, evil, wrong, and backwards. But to the people in that society, it is not. Who are we to decide that it is us out of all the 6+ billion people on the planet, us alone that know what is absolutely right and good for everyone? We can not.

What I like about morality derived from religion is that they mean my rights are "endowed by my creator", and not subject to the whim of my fellow human beings.

The real world is under no obligation to be a comfortable, safe place for us. Even if your rights are "endowed by your creator," your creator is not the one governing you, they are not the one in command of armies, but your fellow human beings are.

This isn't too hard for me. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If you happen to think wrong is right, then you're wrong. Likewise, if you think evil is good, then you're evil. It works, and it serves as its own paradigm to boot.

Which would be wonderful if there were only one religion. Unfortunately, there are many, many religions, with many, many different beliefs, most claiming to be the one and only source of truth and right. How do we choose? What makes the religion endemic to our part of the planet the one true one, and everyone else wrong? To the vast majority of the follower of every religion, they have discovered the truth and the one source of right, and everyone else is wrong or misguided. Yet the most that any religion has on this planet is a plurarlity (I believe it waws 33% Christian in 2000), meaning that for any given follower of any given religion, the majority of the planet is wrong or misguided. When you look at all the religions out there, every single one of us would appear to be either "wrong," "heathens," or "misguided" in some way, shape, or form. I say you're evil, and I'm good, YOu say that no, YOU are good, and I am evil. Who's right? How do we decide?

How can one reasonably claim that their code of morals is always and absolutely right, end of discussion?

[Steltek]

How can one reasonably claim that their code of morals is always and absolutely right, end of discussion?

How could you deal with a people who thought that "2+2=apricots"? Who found all of your mathematical proofs that 2+2=4 to be utterly absurd and completely irrational, as irrational as 2+2=apricots was to you? You really couldn't, ultimately.

Does this make the sum of 2 and 2 an open question, then? Are mathematics made into a relative, debateable concept by the existence of a mathematically deranged society for whom the concept of apricots constitutes a sum? I submit that it does not, nor does it in the case of a society that is morally deranged.

[Capnregex]

If you base your interactions on lies and deception, you are going to have negative consequences, regardless of if you believe lying is wrong or not.

Stealing will also bring about negative consequences, as does murder, rape, and other vile practices.

No amount of voting is going to change that. The natural consequences are going to be there regardless of if it is against the governmental law or not.

And if you live in a culture where Stealing, lying, and rape are the accepted, encouraged, and glorified norm?

If that was the case It would be time to get out of dodge...
It is not nessary for us to condem such behavior, they condem themselves and they will suffer the consequences of their actions regardless of what we think of them.

Quite simply, such a culture would destroy itself without us having to raise a finger. Thus Nature would be it's judge and executioner. I wouldn't want to be caught in the crossfire.

It's not about us deciding what is right or wrong.. right and wrong exist regardless of our opinions on it. The more in alignment we are with the truth and natural law, the better for us. As a result, it is in our self interest to make sure our understanding is accurate.

[Capnregex]

How can one reasonably claim that their code of morals is always and absolutely right, end of discussion?

So long as our code of morals is in alignment with the Natural Law, the results of following it will be positive. The evidence speaks for itself, perhaps not to the critic, or cynic, but to the honest seeker of truth the natural law becomes self evident.

Regardless, it is in our own self interest to do our best to follow our Morals, ie our understanding of the natural laws..
While it is true that we might not understand the natural law perfectly, and our understanding of the natural law might differ from our nebor, but that simply means that our understanding of the Natural Laws are more or less accurate.

[Mjolnir]

(I obviously don't know when to leave well enough alone.)

So, capnregex, what you're saying is that a Moral Code exists as part of nature and, regardless of what we think, that is absolute? And, should we go against that, there will be consiquences that will be enforced, regardless of Human intervention? Could you please explain that in more detail?

I am not one to subscribe to such a notion. The same can be said for the "I know my way is right and, if you disagree, you're wrong." It just doesn't work that way with personal beliefs. If you are talking about what is said in a Religion or a set of Laws, I'd agree, but not personal beliefs. It's not a matter of mathmatics or physics, this isn't something that you can say "There, look at that" and change people's minds.

If I believe that murder is wrong, then that's what I believe, even if you don't agree with it. Obviously, there are those that believe the opposite of this. To me, they're wrong but not in their own minds and they can point to evidence that backs them up. Regardless of what I believe, or what I say or write down and show them, that's what they'll believe.

So, no, I don't believe (there's that word again ) that there is one, over-riding set of morals that everyone HAS to believe in or they're be struck down. If that were the case, we wouldn't have people trying to kill people because they don't believe exacting the same thing. However, I do respect your opinion on the matter and I would like to hear more about it.

- Mjolnir

[Maxgoof]

Well, hang on...

Stealing, lying, and rape are a part of a natural moral code?

So, when a pack of hyenas steals a lioness's kill there will be a price to pay?

When a Viceroy Butterfly lies about it's species by looking exactly like a Monarch Butterfly that most insectivores fine distasteful, it is actually doing itself a disfavor?

And don't get me started on rape in the natural world...

[JakeWasHere]

Hm, yes, that was not ideally worded. To refine my question, if somebody claimed that "rape was wrong," but, when witnessing a rape, did not care and did nothing to intervene, I would say that no, that person does not think rape is wrong.

It doesn't mean that he is a liar or a hypocrite. It could merely mean that he is a coward, which is shameful for entirely different reasons.

[EdBecerra]

In practice, that's exactly right. The morality of a culture depends on its collective agreement to behave in conformity with a set of rules.

The -origin- of those rules may be legislative, religion-based, philosophy-based, or simply pragmatism that has grown up over the years as to what works. The US and the Roman Empire are a combination of the first two; Islamic culture is the 2nd; ancient China was the third; many tribal cultures are the last.

So if a society says it is OK to kill children who do not measure up to the societies standards (e.g. they are crippled in some fashion menatally or physically, or maybe they have red hair) then that is a valid moral position since a majority of the society agrees to it?

Actually, some ancient societies did exactly that, and it was considered moral and acceptable.

While the Spartans didn't go that far, their "win or die" ethos comes very close and that was only a few thousand years ago.

Remember, most of the laws we're talking about are TENS of thousands of years old, gradually taking form as mankind discovered agriculture and began to abandon the migratory hunter/gatherer way of life.

I know it might be hard, but try to think of it this way... most laws work - because they work.

Yeah, I know, sounds circular. So, tell me... 2 + 2 = 4. WHY does it equal 4? Because it does.

Laws are much the same. Got a problem. Try a solution. Did it work? No? Then throw it out, and try another. The next one solved the problem? Hurrah! Keep it, and call it a law.

Then, after a few thousand years, it grandually becomes something we don't even think about. Something that's as natural as breathing. Because we no longer remember a time when it WASN'T a law.

[EdBecerra]

Well, hang on...

Stealing, lying, and rape are a part of a natural moral code?

So, when a pack of hyenas steals a lioness's kill there will be a price to pay?

When a Viceroy Butterfly lies about it's species by looking exactly like a Monarch Butterfly that most insectivores fine distasteful, it is actually doing itself a disfavor?

And don't get me started on rape in the natural world...

Uhh... actually, that does balance.

TOO many hyenas steal too many kills, and the lions retaliate. There's your "price to pay".

Too many Viceroys breed, and the effect that the Monarch has will be diluted, and insectivores will again eat (or TRY to eat) Monarchs.

Natural law is based on "How much can I (personally speaking) get away with before I incur an amount of retaliation I'm not willing to accept?"

They do, after all, call it the *balance* of Nature.

[Emile_Khadaji]

This has been on my mind for quite a while now: Are morals and religion inseperable, or are they perfectly capable of existing independantly of one another?

It is my opinion that the two are completely different, and are found apart just as often as they are together.

[****delurking***]

Hi, I quickly read through this thread and didn't see a good concise answer given to your original question. Maybe mine will aid you.

Morals are absolute rules of behavior and handed down by a deity to the faithful believers/followers. The only changes in these rules are also handed down by that same deity. Generally concidered objective in nature since your community hands them down to you (unless your Deity talks to you directly ).

Religion is the human organization that teaches you these morals (ie rules) and the ways and means to worship that deity. This is also the pipeline for any and all changes to those morals that the deity handed down.

Ethics are ephemeral rules that are self imposed. The rules you (or a group you join) apply to yourself. These rules change by joining or leaving the group or revisions to the rules when ever you or your group decide to change them. Generally subjective in nature, since you voluntarily choose which ethics you will impose on yourself by carreer choices and groups you identify with.

Laws are the codified secular expression of morals and the least common denominator expression of ethics that apply to all who live in the jurisdiction of the government that made the laws. These are the standards that will be enforced or ignored according to the whims of that 'governments' law enforcement arm. Don't expect common sense to rule here

Many talk about moral authority but often forget where that expression came from. ie ( Diety ---> Priest ----> human community )

Many past governments had the king in that chain of authority (examples: the Emperor of Japan (Deity ---> Emperor ---> Nobles ---> People )
Pharaoh of Egypt (Deity ---> Pharaoh ---> Priest ---> People )

In the USA and other Democratic Republics the "authority" scheme changed. ( Deity ---> People ---> Government )

So to answer your question are Morals and Religion inseperable? I would answer yes that they are inseperable.

Can your personal ethics be chosen from a wide selection of morals from multiple religions? yes they can. (you just can't claim membership in any group unless you meet their least common denominators of morals )

Can you chose to ignore those morals that a specific religious community have chosen as the least common denominator defining their community? yes you can but then you can not claim to be a member of that community because you elected not to adhere to their least common moral standards.

Can you chose to ignore immoral laws? Only if you are willing to suffer the consequences if you are caught ignoring those laws that the community chooses to enforce. (ie converting from Islam to Christianity in a Muslim ruled country can be viewed by that community as legal grounds to have the state execute you. )

I'm an agnostic, mainly because I'm fed up with organized religion (Islam and Catholicism being the two worst examples), and I still consider myself to be a somewhat moral person, and I know that religious matters have caused a great deal of hurt in history, but I also know that a lot of religious people really do have kind hearts.

Any thoughts?

Hmm I would classify you as a 'cafeteria' Christian; where you pick and choose your rules you apply to yourself. The Constitution's Amendment of Freedom of Religion grants you this option.

Regarding the Religion has caused great deal of hurt in history ... that is going to require more reading on your part to understand why that isn't exactly the whole truth. In short during the medieval period: The King chooses the religion all his subjects would follow. Failure to adhere to the King's religion was challenging his authority and placing yourself in rebellion to his government. Rebels were killed by the government.

FYI: if you think being aethist was safer you might want to research the death tolls caused by the 20th centuries atheist governments sometime. It might shock you to learn that a lack of "moral authority" that imposing limits on people and governments can be deadlier then state sponsered religions.

I hope this helped clairify the debate more then confusing it.
[****relurking***]

[Mjolnir]

Morals are absolute rules of behavior and handed down by a deity to the faithful believers/followers. The only changes in these rules are also handed down by that same deity. Generally concidered objective in nature since your community hands them down to you (unless your Deity talks to you directly ).

Religion is the human organization that teaches you these morals (ie rules) and the ways and means to worship that deity. This is also the pipeline for any and all changes to those morals that the deity handed down.

Ethics are ephemeral rules that are self imposed. The rules you (or a group you join) apply to yourself. These rules change by joining or leaving the group or revisions to the rules when ever you or your group decide to change them. Generally subjective in nature, since you voluntarily choose which ethics you will impose on yourself by carreer choices and groups you identify with.

Laws are the codified secular expression of morals and the least common denominator expression of ethics that apply to all who live in the jurisdiction of the government that made the laws. These are the standards that will be enforced or ignored according to the whims of that 'governments' law enforcement arm. Don't expect common sense to rule here

...

So to answer your question are Morals and Religion inseperable? I would answer yes that they are inseperable.

Defining it like that then I agree that they are inseperable. Your personal ethics, OTOH, are all your and up to the individual.

Also please note that, by these definitions, there are as many sets of morals as there are religions and, therefore, no Absolute Moral Code for everyone.

- Mjolnir

[Emile_Khadaji]

Also please note that, by these definitions, there are as many sets of morals as there are religions and, therefore, no Absolute Moral Code for everyone.

- Mjolnir

[***delurking***]

Emile: "Ah that old saw ... moral relativism where you don't actively discern the differences between contending religions." *big dragon grin* "You argue that because there are many religions vying for absolute authority that there can be no absolute authority. I contend that a living loving God will let you know true from false if you ask him to help you select the true from the false." *winks* “Or as a favorite Author once said:”

Is one religion as good as another? Is one horse in the Derby as good as another?
- GK Chesterton.

Emile: "You choose which you are going to follow and then find out after death if you were right." *wink*

[***relurking***]

[Capnregex]

So, capnregex, what you're saying is that a Moral Code exists as part of nature and, regardless of what we think, that is absolute? And, should we go against that, there will be consiquences that will be enforced, regardless of Human intervention? Could you please explain that in more detail?
...
- Mjolnir

Ok, let's see if I can explain this in more detail.
For the sake of this discussion, let me define Natural Law as the set of rules which govern cause and effect.
These rules are easily visible in mathematics and physics.

Now let's talk about beliefs..
There have been times people believed the world was flat.
Let's look at this from their perspective..
In a relatively small geographical area, the difference in the measurements between a flat world and a round world are not discernable within the limits of the measuring equipment. I mean, the world *looks* flat after all, when you are standing on the surface. ( we need not get into mountains and other features of the terrain. )
This view was useful to the people of the time.. after all, it allows them to make maps.

Now, when the geographical area in question becomes larger, it becomes more difficult to represent a curved surface on a flat map, so a more accurate model of reality is needed. Therefore, the belief that the world is round, is more accurate than the belief that the world is flat, and becomes usefull when you want to make a *map* of the entire planet.

Is this entirely accurate however?
The answer is no.. The world is not perfectly round either. It's rotation, the pull of the moon, Oceans, Continents ect cause deviation from a perfectly round surface. So, a more accurate description would be that it is a slightly squashed spheroid, with a rough surface.

Notice that I am not talking about absolutely accurate descriptions, but more or less accurate descriptions..

The same thing applies to Gravity..
If we are near the earth's surface, we can approximate the pull of earth's gravity by saying G = 9.8 meters per second squared.
This approximation is accurate enough for most purposes near the earth's surface. It does not however allow us to accurately calculate the motion of the moon, or other satalites. To calculate orbits, you need a better approximation.

I think we now have sufficently established the concept of Natural Law, and our beliefs being more or less accurate according to those Natural Laws..

The next premise is that the Natural Laws or the laws of Cause and Effect are applicable to human interaction as well.

Let's look at this premise, and see if it holds..
Let's use the concept of Honesty as an example.

Will my life be better or worse, if I have a habbit of being consistantly honest with my dealings with my fellow man..
To me the obvious answer is better.

Now let's look at the opposite..

Will my life be better or worse, if I am a Habitual Liar?
To me the obvious answer is worse..

So, is there a Natural Law of honesty?
From the evidence that I can see, the answer is yes.

Do I have to lift a finger to enforce that law?
No, the consequences of honesty or it's lack are automatic.

Now let's look at another example...
Thou shalt not kill..

Would a socioty where Murder was unacceptable be safer than one where murder is encouraged?
What about the life expectancies of the two groups?

This is what I am refering to as the Natural Laws of Morality.

For the most part, most religions have a fairly useful approximation of these laws in their teachings.
Does that mean that I should go fight with someone who's approximation of the natural moral laws differs some from my own?
No, because that would violate my understanding of the natural moral laws and thus not be in my self interest. Besides, in communicating about our beliefs, we have the potential to gain a more accurate understanding of the natural laws.

At what point does it become in my self interest to impose my understanding on others? For the answer to that question, I defer to the American Declaration of Independance, Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

I don't particulary care if your beliefs require you to pray to your diety 5 times a day while laying prostrate facing a particular geographical location.
You might find my methods of religious observance just as odd as I find yours.

If your belief requires you to steal, murder or rape, and you act on those beliefs, then we would be in conflict.
Why?
Because I know the consequences of permitting that behavior, and I don't want to be caught in the crossfire.

[Mjolnir]

@ Emile: So, if it's the Old Testiment, vengeful God, we're all screwed. I understand your contention that one of the possibilities is 100% right. I'll I'm saying is that the perception while we're on this little mudball is that each person believes that their religion has THE morals for everyone, therefore we cannot agree on one set as being that which is actually divine in origin.

@ capnregex: Very interesting way of looking at it. I'll have to think on that more.

- Mjolnir

[Gengar003]

FYI: if you think being aethist was safer you might want to research the death tolls caused by the 20th centuries atheist governments sometime. It might shock you to learn that a lack of "moral authority" that imposing limits on people and governments can be deadlier then state sponsered religions.

I submit that the goverments in question did not mass-murder because they were run by immoral atheists, but because their leaders were your basic despots. They were "atheist" because religious teachings threatened their power. For clarity: Which governments?

Also: I vote we use the definitions supplied by Emile in further discussion, for clarity's sake.

Will my life be better or worse, if I have a habbit of being consistantly honest with my dealings with my fellow man..
To me the obvious answer is better.

Now let's look at the opposite..

Will my life be better or worse, if I am a Habitual Liar?
To me the obvious answer is worse..

So, is there a Natural Law of honesty?
From the evidence that I can see, the answer is yes.

And for somebody who, based on their experiences, sees that the way to get ahead and go places in their life is to lie their way to the top, and that works for them, what then? Sure, they might get caught a few times along the way, but your honesty might offend some people along your way. Not everybody views the world the same way, and as such, there is not one set of "natural laws" that will work best for everyone.

Now let's look at another example...
Thou shalt not kill..

Would a socioty where Murder was unacceptable be safer than one where murder is encouraged?
What about the life expectancies of the two groups?

I'll grant you that the society would probably not be as "safe," and that life expectancy would be shorter in a society where murder was the norm.

Who says a "safe" society is a good thing? Who says long life expectancy is a good thing? I do, for one. It seems like you do. Probably many people do. But in a society where muder is perfectly acceptable, that's obviously not the case, or they wouldn't accept murder as such. All we can do is look "in" on their society from our non-murdering, safe society and say "Man, that's messed up."

Meanwhile they are looking at us, wondering why we're so damn determined not to die.

We see murder as a bad thing. They do not. To us, we're obviously right. I don't want to be murdered. Sounds like you don't. Most people nowadays wouldn't want to be murdered. To our hypothetical society, we are the nutters - so afraid of death that we go great lengths to stave it off, find ways to keep ourselves alive even when our bodies are crumbling around us. Silly people -- what are they so damn afraid of?

All we can say is "Everything I've seen has led me to believe that they are wrong." They can say the same. What can make one groups observations more valid than the others'?

[Capnregex]

And for somebody who, based on their experiences, sees that the way to get ahead and go places in their life is to lie their way to the top, and that works for them, what then?

It will eventually catch up with them, it alwase does..
Call it Carma, or Natural Consequences.
...
Gengar003,
It sounds to me as if you are blaming others because they disagree with your actions / beliefs.
From your perspective, it would certainly be easier to believe that that morals have no absolute basis, because that would then allow you to justify your actions. The problem with this is that you don't completely believe it yourself.
Part of you knows it was wrong, and will not be silenced. This puts your mind in conflict with itself, which causes feelings of anger and angst. You are then placing the blame for those feelings on others who have publically supported the idea of absolute mores.

For your own emotional health, it is far better to recognise that your actions are/were wrong, and work to change the behavior and make amends as best you can. This brings peace to your mind, and rest to your soul. You can only lie to yourself so long.

[Gengar003]

And for somebody who, based on their experiences, sees that the way to get ahead and go places in their life is to lie their way to the top, and that works for them, what then?

It will eventually catch up with them, it alwase does..

And if they accept that and believe it is a good thing? I'm saying even if we do search out "natural laws" of morality, other people will, and invariably do arrive at different conclusions. I do not belive that just because I like to believe something, and it seems to work for me, that that in and of itself makes it universally right for everyone.

Gengar003,
It sounds to me as if you are blaming others because they disagree with your actions / beliefs.
From your perspective, it would certainly be easier to believe that that morals have no absolute basis, because that would then allow you to justify your actions. The problem with this is that you don't completely believe it yourself.
Part of you knows it was wrong, and will not be silenced. This puts your mind in conflict with itself, which causes feelings of anger and angst. You are then placing the blame for those feelings on others who have publically supported the idea of absolute mores.

For your own emotional health, it is far better to recognise that your actions are/were wrong, and work to change the behavior and make amends as best you can. This brings peace to your mind, and rest to your soul. You can only lie to yourself so long.

Not quite sure how to respond to that. I sense well-meaning, but you've got me all wrong.

It is easier for me to believe that morals have no absolute basis, true, but not because I need to justify my some actions! I see/imagine other people seeking 'absolute morals' and coming to different results than I, the world over. I am not so bold as to submit that I've got it right and they're all wrong -- they've all picked what works best for them, and who better qualified to choose your set of morals/ethics than yourself? Rather, I'll hold my ethical and moral viewpoint, and let them hold theirs, even if they differ substantially. I cannot believe that if I believe there is one correct set of morals.

I am in fact supremely (over-?) confident in myself and my ethical/moral judgements, and that "part of me that knows 'it' (whatever 'it' may be) is 'wrong'" was silenced long ago when it came into agreement with all the other parts of me. I am not in any form of inner conflict, and I'm so not angsty that my real-life acquantainces get quite worried when I show a hint of it.

I do not recall blaming anyone for anything, but if I did, I assure you I did not mean to, and am certainly not blaming "those who support absolute mores" for anything. But what would you have me do, when encountering someone who disagrees, especially in, like, a discussion of the topic? Shut up, roll over, and accept their viewpoint? No, dangit, I'mma discuss! That's what I've been doing - not attacking you or anyone else personally, and certainly not giving a voice to my conflicted conscience.

[Bengaley]

Of course, killing someone isn't good. But what if someone had a gun to a kid, and the only way you can stop him from shooting was to kill him? That's why I don't subscribe to a single moral or ethical code aside from Situational Ethics.

But aside from that, I do not believe that there is a 'natural vengance' for 'crimes'. That just sounds too 'good' for me, to believe that there is a natural checklist of evil deeds.

Sure, if someone shoplifts something from a store on a regular basis, he's eventually going to get caught. That's just simple law of probability that eventually he's going to get caught. Is it a case of just desserts? Nope.

Also, I don't see many lions commiting genocide on hyenas.

[Emile_Khadaji]

[***delurking***]

FYI: if you think being aethist was safer you might want to research the death tolls caused by the 20th centuries atheist governments sometime. It might shock you to learn that a lack of "moral authority" that imposing limits on people and governments can be deadlier then state sponsered religions.

I submit that the goverments in question did not mass-murder because they were run by immoral atheists, but because their leaders were your basic despots. They were "atheist" because religious teachings threatened their power. For clarity: Which governments?

I am providing a link to some graphs that show who did what during the 20th century. It wasn't the original graph I saw about a month back but this website lists the same data in multiple formats with all the info about how the numbers were generated.

Atlas -Wars, Massacres and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century

You can draw your own conclusions about the nature of the governments in question but most of the worst offenders often defined themselves as Athiest.

30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century

Emile: "The comments over at FreeRepublic below the linked info above are rather enlightening." *snorts a bit of flame* "Sometimes you can learn more from what people fight over then just from the raw info." *wink*

[***relurking***]