Morality without god

You have said that morality is relative. I agree, but you were trying to argue for an absolute morality I think? Certainly that is the challenge that has so far not been taken up by anyone arguing for it here.

How is that any different than religiously based morality systems? Happiness should not come at the cost of taking away another person's happiness. We should be able to do what we want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms. Therefore, who you marry does not affect anyone else (within age limits), so you should be free to marry whom you want. You can not define your happiness so that you are happy when you are taking away freedoms from other people.

I said that all real morality centers around the one idea that behavior will not hurt others or even one's self.This is extended into the understanding that, by good moral men doing nothing, they are immoral in allowing evils to prevail.That is follows naturally by the common sense and logic that the golden rule infers what goes around will come around, sooner or later, to the immoral people once the tables are turned.Hence, since men do not want evil to visit them, morality requires athat no behavior be permitted that hurts others.

I am just saying that there is a formula to determine what the moral course of action would be in all circumstances. This formula can be applied universally and so in that way it is like an absolute. Like the relation of Pi to a circle.

EXACTLY RIGHT.What comes around, will probably go around, until it visits the people who first started it.
That is the Reality and Fact of Life.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

It was called the Golden Rule until 32ADm when Jesus corrected the idea to a more pro-active "render Love and/or charity to your enemies."

Well no, that's at at all correct. Pi's value is unchangeable at 3.142etc. Morality changes over time. Slavery ok once, now not. Genocide of neighbouring tribes ok once, not now. Homosexuality a crime once, no so now. Cruely to animals ok once, not now. Bigamy ok in some societies, not others, abortion.... Cannibalise etc etc etc.And we most certainly do not know what is the correct moral action in all circumstances; that's why we have ethics committees in hospitals and scientific institutes.If you doubt this I suggest you have a play with a set of moral puzzles called The Trolley Problems.Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Our behaviour changes over time and is different between cultures but the standard need not change.Slavery may have been considered morally acceptable at some time but the standard was not being applied and can, in hindsight, be determined to be immoral.However, if the slave owners were happy to be slaves themselves then the keeping of slaves would be moral behaviour.The standard is following one's conscience truthfully. This is a formula that is available to any conscious being at any place or time or event that requires action. This is the formula that allows you to say that slavery is wrong and torture is bad.There is no absolute moral behaviour but there is an absolute moral formula. Complicated dilemmas are complicated.

So it changes over time and is different between cultures yet the standard doesn't change?I think you must know that that makes no sense at all. Oh dear. It was accepted as morally ok at the time, therefore by that standard it was moral - there is no other standard to judge it by. In hindsight our new society considers it morally wrong so it is NOW morally wrong.It maybe that in 1,000 years time - if we haven't blown ourselves up - we'll look back on eating animals and declare it a moral wrong. But today we live with it as what we have. If it is only in my mind, then it's truly subjective. Pol Pot's morality was rather different to mine wasn't it, but we can assume that he was following his conscience - the conscience of a psychopath But if this formulae that is in your head is different to the formulae that is in mine - and I can guarantee, that it is - then it's not absolute is it? It's totally relative and subjective. But you have an absolute formulae in your head that you can follow so it won't be any trouble for you at all. The puzzles are very simple - it's how you deal with them that you'll find difficult/impossible.

He's making sense as far as he goes with the thought.The standard is to behave in such a way that no one gets hurt by your actions or inaction.The changing social environments can become so complex, such that what had once seemed to hurt no one, is hurtful.Driving drunk in 1910 when no one else had a car on the raod did not seem to be hurting others.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

That's a bit different than what God ordered in previous generations:

quote:

---

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

---

So which is the moral action? Genocide or kindness?

It is still basically a function of the same moral rule, i.e. "make certain that one's actions or inaction does not harm to others."1) It is a bit different in the Old Testament, where the Father is describing how the man he created thinks, as God so made him to think.God apparently is encouraging these Hebrew patriarchs to wipe out the societies that promote sexual immorality as if the very existence of the species will depend upon moral sexual behavior.The Gentiles worship Baal, the Phallus.
God tells these Hebrews to treat them like a plague. They are acting so harm will not come to the innocent children of future generations nor abortions in their own generation.
They are repressing Sexual Promiscuity, the promotion and/or advertisement and enticement of it by anyone or peoples neighboring them.But they disobey, and stop short of eliminating the gentiles, even become seduced and Gentile in their behavior overtime.Now they will need a savior in order to avoid the coming extinction of the whole species as wars and destruction and decay threatens survival.2) The messiah arrives in 32AD, and says that Truth can set us free, if we will accept the Truth when we recognize it, as bad a bullet to bite as the Truth always is.
He demonstrates how authorities will kill the Truth, and how it will rise again, and again, trying to save us from ourselves.He tells us that there is a middle path between the decadent sexually promiscuous behavior of gentile societies like in the West today, the stern authoritative abusive hard hearted patriarchies like Islam now.There is Christian humanitarianism, and sexual equality where sexual morality can be practiced because mother and fathers see the abuse to the children in sexual immorality.The Truth can set us free from consequences of patriarchies and feminized sexually exploitative Gentile matriarchies.The alternative is to willing and knowingly be sexually prudent and love one another especially the children of the next generation to come. Here, the people will repress sexual behaviors that destroy families, weaken nations, and abuse the fatherless bastards that grow into Barbarians within the gates of their nations.

Fixed it for you. The behaviour changes but the standard by which we may measure the behaviour remains the same. The behaviour and the standard are two different things. No, it was always morally wrong because the people who were doing it at the time were not employing the standard. The slave owners were not treating the slaves as they would be treated themselves, I presume. If the slave owners were honestly willing to be slaves themselves, were the tables turned, then I would say that their behaviour was moral. The radii of different circles is different but the relationship of the radius to the area of it's circle is absolute. My point is simply that the application of an absolute in an equation that has other variables does not always yield the same result.I do not disagree that half of the equation is subjective. I do not disagree that there will be different answers to the same question. I am just saying that there is a constant in the moral equation.In response to the question of a moral dilemma. From your link,

quote:

---

The general form of the problem is this: Person A can take an action which would benefit many people, but in doing so, person B would be unfairly harmed. Under what circumstances would it be morally just for Person A to violate Person B's rights in order to benefit the group?

---

I don't really see the dilemma here beyond the fact that both choices are less than desirable. Person A is forced into a situation where they must cause some harm. The choice that causes the least harm would be the moral choice because person A does not want to be harmed themselves. If person B were a moral person then they would agree with the decision. Conversely, if person A were in person B's position they would still agree with the decision. This is nothing more than running the equation many times and taking the majority opinion. The same standard is being applied by all members of the committee even though their answers may be different.

Yes, well, what can I say really. This is a mess Firstly, at any point in time, according to you, we can not know how to behave because we do not know what this constant is, we only have the morality of our age. We only know in hindsight what is wrong and what is right.Secondly, you can not tell me now what this constant is going to be in 100 years time so I can't guide the next generation towards it.Thirdly, so far no-one has been able to answer the simple question "if there is an absolute morality, what is it and show me a practical example."So i put it to you that this constant either doesn't exist or it's useless to us because we can never know it at the time we need it.

The constant is to 'Treat others in the way that you would be treated.' All the time and every time. The constant in 100 yrs will be to 'Treat others in the way that you would be treated.' There is an absolute and constant element that is used when determining the morality of any action. Any action may be considered moral if the actor acted in the same way that they would expect someone else to act toward them. Treat others the way that you expect to be treated. That is all there is to it.