TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The source of morality

Many times religious people claim that atheist people are immoral, because they have no reason to be good. Claim is false, ungrounded and impudent but it has a point. Atheist people have no base for their morality. When there is no divine ruler; nothing is sacred, everything is permitted. But it is not! Why? Because not! I dumped old beliefs that prohibits samegender sex, or intercourse before wedding or eating pig meat etc. Still my morales very similar with what religion gave us, and when they can say "God forbid it" I can't say anything. I need those explanations. I need proofs that shows incest, bestiality, necrophilia is obnoxious and bad. I need proofs that shows wars ar ugly and bad.

Otherwise someone will just say, the siblings loved each other what is wrong with that? War is best way to develop technology is totally legit and necessary. Torchere is necessary, it can not be removed. No it is mean and ugly! Would you like to be torchered? Why am I a criminal?

I tried to build my own reason. I changed "the good" and "the bad" to "the flawed" and "unflawed" act. Now I can give reasons by revealing flaws of the act I do not approve. It made sense to me. But it is very subjective.

So what do you think about it. If you're not religious, what is your morales based on? Or what community should base their morale on it?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 30 2013: The source of morality - nature, nurture and hopefully some personal thought on how best to treat other people, what reduces suffering, improves the human condition, and constitutes a good life.

    In regards to gods and goddesses being a source of morality - well I suggest we don't know if any of these actually exist. The various spiritual revelations of what is moral conflict. In many cases our morality is more enlightened than that in old scriptures that endorse slavery, murdering homosexuals, adulterers, infidels, unruly children and people who break the sabbath.

    Blindly accepting this or that supposed morality from this or that prophet or preacher is a sad waste of our intellect and the best of our humanity.

    If there is a creator god, then it is not reasonable to automatically assume whatever it orders is moral. This is simply divine command. If a god says its okay to keep and beat slaves, it does not make it moral. A gods morality is just as subjective as a humans and subject to the same analysis.

    The challenge is perhaps agreeing on basis for assessing morality. Personally I look at what reduces suffering and enriches conscious life. I tend to think enlightenment values, humanism and human rights are a good foundation.

    Another useful test say of a policy, is would you support it if you might be randomly placed in the shoes of anyone anywhere in your community, country or planet earth for that instance.

    Unfortunately folks who believe in the conflicting commands supposedly revealed by mutually exclusive god and goddess concepts generally think these commands supersede what we would normally consider moral or immoral if it was not under the banner of divine command.

    Eternal punishment of created beings by their creator must be the most immoral concept I have ever heard of.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        May 30 2013: Perhaps there is no ultimate source of morality and humans will just continue to muddle their way through life as we do.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        May 30 2013: Hi Don, there is also energy and the natural forces gravity etc.

        Also scientists talk about dark matter and energy.

        The natural universe is quite amazing, large and complex.

        Why is there anything? Why are things this way?

        I don't know. But I don't find saying a god did it and this is the way god wanted things a satisfactory explanation. It doesn't explain anything really. You just have more questions.
    • thumb
      May 30 2013: @ Obey You make good points. If we must realise many scripture is subjective, its revealed to that Time period and objectives by the Clan or Community it came to. So yes you are correct on human morals

      But lets look at the humanities legislation is respect thereof. What we accept as Morals and ethics. If there was no divine scripture or divine rules. What would society look like.

      Since Incest is but a word in the Scriptures it bears no meaning to our current Generations that belief that there infatuation supersede divine law. Science has determined that same genetic, weakens the DNA strain and Leads to lots of Abnormalities. So how did past communities know this remember, that period of time is very close to Darwin's prediction of Evolutions. So do we carry this divine ruling from primate customs. If so how low have we fallen, we disregard the rule of nature, that is elevated only by our inferior species.

      We have to look at the matter more holistically not just at scripture. lets discuss the Morality found in beast. Do they perform any of the acts we feel is our Human rights? if not what station do we hold?. If so are we equal to the Swine because he grovels and eat his own excrements. When we intoxicated we act low than that. So do we blame scriptures for everything when its a manual and a rulebook or the itinerary of past prophets.

      We are now more intellectual than our primitive forefathers that regarded the world as Flat. They were 'ignorant and dumb'. Our intelligence is measure in IQ. But does that benefit society? does our intellectuals show a better class than our forefathers. do the intellectuals morals increase our level of ascension. Is there proof where the soul resides since scriptures are so backdated. If there is any evidence to the contrary that is better? Why break the mould. Break the mould of the immorality and inequality as it does not serve humanity.
      if we do not have empathy we have no compassion, humanity dies due to that ignorance.
      • thumb
        May 30 2013: Hi yusuf, I suggest men invented religion and gods, so it is natural the associated morale tennants reflect the time and place of their origin.

        We can have morals without religion. Religion did not invent Moral laws or tenants. They just ascribed them to this or that god.

        I can think of good reasons for laws or taboos against incest, murder etc.

        I'm not sure if we are more intelligent than humans some thousands of years ago. We just have the benefit of a greater knowledge base.

        I'm not sure we have a soul in the religious sense, but I suggest humanist morals or those based on reducing suffering and improving the human condition are far superior to most old religious beliefs. You can teach and model morals without religion. We don't need fear of hell or divine ccommandd beliefs. The least religious countries such as Sweden don't seem too bad. All the atheists are not running around committing incest.

        Most convicted murders, rapists, child molesters believe in gods I guess.

        Most of us do have empathy. Religion did not invent empathy, or murder, it just wove this or that god or goddesses into stories.
      • thumb
        May 30 2013: I personally believe we are better off basing laws and ethical systems on what we reasonably know to be true, not cultural god beliefs.
    • thumb
      May 30 2013: Good points Obey, as Yusuf says:>)

      Yusuf,
      You ask..."If there was no divine scripture or divine rules. What would society look like."

      I believe our world might look and feel more safe without some divine scripture or divine rules.

      You say "Since Incest is but a word in the Scriptures it bears no meaning to our current Generations that belief that there infatuation supersede divine law."

      That has not been my experience as I volunteered in a women's shelter, where we had several very young girls pregnant by their father, brother or uncle....sometimes multiple times.

      That is bad enough. The next part is sickening....the famlies were such good christian families, they didn't agree with birth control or abortion, so the very young girl (sometimes 10-12) was forced by her "good christian family" to carry the child that she was carrying (because of incest) to term. They believed, because they were told by their church leaders that abortion and birth control are morally wrong. Raping a young member of their family was apparently ok.

      For you to say "Incest is but a word in the Scriptures it bears no meaning to our current Generations that belief that there infatuation supersede divine law", tells me that you have no idea how the words in the scriptures are impacting many people in our world.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.