A couple of you are pushing for the attitude that we should just be good for goodness sake. But if you really look at this, it doesn't make much sense. Because I would ask you "why should I be good?" it's a fair question. If I'm not required to be good by authority (a human authority's no good), then I might as well be bad then there is no point in being good to be sure it's a whole lot easier to be a bad little rascal.
So to all of you who are pushing for this attitude answer me, why should I be good? And also answer what being good is and what being bad is if we don't have a measuring rod so to speak with which to determine if a particular behavior is good or bad. If a practice is acceptable in my eyes then why shouldn't I pursue. If there is no absolute moral canvas against which to compare our daily behavior than morality becomes relative than I may well decide for myself what good is? Why don't we all decide for ourselves what good is.
Cedre, we
do all decide for ourselves what "good" is. "Good" and "bad" are
subjective. That's why some cultures find human sacrifice or cannibalism to be "good," while we find such things to be reprehensible.
I can use an example more close to home for you with Christianity, as well.
Christians "pick and choose" for themselves just as everyone else does. Various Christian sects
choose different texts to include in their canon. While the majority of Christians view the Jewish dietary rules and other parts of the Old Testament Law to not apply to gentiles,
other Christians
do still follow the dietary laws. Both Christians and Jews nowadays ignore the Law's requirements to
execute disobedient children or homosexuals or cheaters or other sinners (and obviously the Christian "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story doesn't apply to Jews - and isn't an authentic part of the Bible, either).
The fact is, morality is determined by the individual and (usually to a much greater degree) the society the individual belongs to. There are many ethical systems for determining whether a given act is "good" or "bad," ranging from authoritarian "because I said so" examples like you're using (and an argument that societies laws define "good" and "bad" is similar) to utilitarian systems that judge based on total harm to society, to "human rights" based systems that judge morality based on a basic set of "human rights" (which are of necessity defined by human beings in the first place), to simple empathy-based "would I want you to treat me this way" systems, and still more.
Not everyone agrees on morality and ethics on all points. In your case, the Bible doesn't even cover
half of the possible ethical concerns faced by modern society, because it was a system of ethics devised by a
stone/bronze-age society. There are no Biblical rules regarding possession of weapons. There are no Biblical rules concerning conflicts of interest. There are no Biblical laws concerning copyrights.
Morality
is not and never was universally dictated by some supernatural entity. Morality is a
human invention, driven by the formation of civilization - because civilization cannot function without some ethical system.
But the question still remains why should I try to keep the peace, why should anyone be punished if there are no absolutes.
Because society cannot function otherwise, and you want to be a part of society. Civilizations fall apart when people are allowed to go on murderous rampages. Economies cease to function without some sort of property rights, and society doesn't fare well without trade. "Punishment" is not worthwhile as a form of vengeance, but
is effective as a
deterrent and for
rehabilitation, if the punishment is moderated to fit the crime.
If I wont allow an individual to shove his philosophies why should I give that same privilege to a group of people. Who gives them the right to tell me that I may not act according to what I think is right, since neither of us have a list pointing this out, and sent me to rot in jail if I simply wish to live up to my set values, values that suit my life.
Because
you choose to be a part of society, Cedre. If you want to live apart from the rules of society, feel free to build yourself a cabin somewhere in the Australian Outback, or somewhere else far away. You could feel free to follow whatever rules you make for yourself - but you also forfeit all of the
benefits society gives you. Benefits like healthcare, fire protection, property rights (beyond what you have the strength to personally enforce), defense against trespassers, or even protection against people who want to force you to comply with their rules. In the absence of social morality, the only real system of ethics is "whoever is more able to
force compliance is the one who is right."
Because you want to take advantage of the benefits of civilization, Cedre, you have implicitly agreed to obey the laws of that civilization. Now, you can usually still behave in ways most people will consider "immoral," as I'm not aware of any society with a law against being an asshole. You have some significant leeway to determine your own ethical system (you can choose whether eating shellfish is "good" or "bad," for example) so long as you comply with the rules of society, and with the understanding that some people will choose not to associate with you based on some of your possible moral choices.
If not killing or stealing suits them, its fine but they shouldn't sent me to hell if I disagree with them. So jails shouldn't exist neither should moral codes. If I wanna kill somebody I should be allowed because this is right for me, if that person doesn't want to die and believe that murder is wrong tough luck to that individual. Its survival of the fittest baby.
That would in fact be the extent of morality in the absence of society. Ethical systems would be limited by the individual's ability to enforce their own arbitrarily decided rules. But it doesn't allow any of the benefits gained by forming a civilization.
Each and every day you
do decide to follow the rules of society so that you can remain a part of it. Why don't you steal from a bank? Because you'll be kicked out of society and put in prison if you do. Why don't you kill people who annoy you? Because you could be executed or permanently removed from society and all of its benefits if you do. Why don't you move out into the wilderness far away from any law enforcement, where you can make your own rules? Because you would lose all of the benefits of society. Why don't you act like an asshole in your general life? Because you want people to like you, at least to the point of being willing to associate with you, or because you empathize with others and wouldn't wish them to treat you poorly either. Why don't you cheat on your wife? Because you don't want her to cheat on you, and because you don't want her to leave you.
It's a social contract, Cedre. We all need to agree on some basic rules to be able to form a civilization and reap the benefits of shared efforts, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Morality isn't universal. There are simply some rules that are similar across most societies because no society functions well without them. Morality is decided by your culture, and all values of "good" and "evil" are
subjective. Concepts of universal moral law and objective "good" and "evil" are
fantasy. Useful for sociopaths who are unable to behave in a socially acceptable manner by themselves, but otherwise unnecessary and untrue.
™ Version 4.2