Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy

Au contraire, ma souer, I have handwaved nothing and have debated every suggestion from every party. I am sorry that either my eloquence or your comprehension is faulty. Perhaps we have not the complexity for this interaction.

Let's not forget, religion is a big source of influence. Because 'better' becomes subjective and relative. Not real. Because this is not an interrogation session. I never said morality was not 'natural'...we have a conscience, remember?What I have said is that making moral choices is not natural. We have a choice whether we want to act morally or not. We do not naturally do 'good'.I have no idea what is vain about saying that God gave us a conscience. I am quite sure that we have one, whether we put it in scientific terms or not. In fact, there is no need for science for you to tell me why you believe that something is right.I believe that there is a right way to do things. I believe that we have skills and emotions which make up a 'conscience' and which help us to figure out what the right things for us are. We learn from our experiences and those of others. Sometimes we just have to wing it.I believe that our conscience goes far beyond mere survival of the species. If it does not, it can most certainly be used for more.You are welcome to tell me what you believe.

I am not looking for 'evidence'. I am looking for people like you to tell me simply why you choose to do good actions over bad actions. I am looking for your motivation. I don't care what you have learned is good, I only care why you choose to do that good thing, especially when it would be more convenient or worth your while to do bad. I don't need a scientific answer; I have confidence in your ability to tell me this from your own experience.

We learn that bad things are not good for us and we constantly repeat them. We need a lot of motivation to keep us from repeating mistakes. I am looking for sources of motivation which those who do not believe in God may have when they choose to do moral actions. What if the future will be better for you or someone else if you do a bad action? I understand, and I think that everyone else would be satisfied if they would not assume that I have some idea that people can not be moral without belief in God. The opposite is true, and I am sure that people can be moral without belief or even knowledge of God. I was looking more for motivations to do 'good' besides of course, survival, because I don't think one of us consciously thinks about survival when we act. On the other hand, I do consciously think about God when I act, and even if something seems 'good' for me or my family, I know that it might not be truly good.I would say that for me to be a hero or a saint, I would have to do the right thing much more often and even when it is bad for me or my family. My question is not about how we learn to do right, or how we figure out what is right (intellect) etc, but mostly of motivations for doing. Curiousity if you will.

I hope you don't mind if I answer that question eventhough it was not directed at me.The reason I do good deeds is because I feel good when I do them.I so happen to believe that this feeling comes from my own nature and has nothing to do with god having given me that feeling.

You know, this is where the problem rests. When you ask some of us on this board a question we try to answer it as objectively as we can; wicked scientists that some of us are The fact of the matter is that we do good because it is so very rarely convenient to do bad.Here are some reasons why:1-One risks hurting people who will one day be in a position to pay you back in kind.2-Hurting someone else causes you to experience some of their discomfort due to our evolved ability to recognise other people as sentient beings like oursleves. This is Theory of Mind.3-Whether you like it or not we do learn that acting one way helps us in the long run and one way does not.I'm out of time (and will get back to you on this) but asking for a non-science answer is asking for an opinion.I could tell you that I do right because I feel a spiritual tug when I contemplate doing something antisocial or because humans are hardwired by evolution to respond in certain ways to each other.The scientist in me will always look to where the evidence is.Take it easy.

Of course not. Agreed, in a way. Doing bad feels good for awhile. It is something similar to a job-well-done, it gives satisfaction. We don't really need God to feel satsifaction, but its odd; Most of our satisfaction comes from results, and successes. In the world of morality, the results are not always visible. There are private battles where we tally up an invisible 'score' which feels good in the same way passing a test does. But the only test is our own Mr Hyde. We are satisfied with ourselves for beating him. In religion, almost all religion, there is a 'better-half' which must beat the other half into submission. I know everyone goes through this, but perhaps it is confusing to me what they would think it means.

Agreed. I don't see how any of this shows that God is required though. Okay, explicitly, then:My motivation to choose moral actions is that I want to be a moral person.If you want the expanded answer, it's all there in that Summary post. Actually, even this condensed answer was already included there... What if it will? It doesn't change that I will still take in all the information I can, through feelings, and thought-processes, and make the best decision I can. As explained in the Summary post, and all the previous posts. And I do not consciously think about God when I act, yet I too know that something may not be truly good even if it seems 'good' for me or my family, or my friends, or the entire civilization or world or universe for that matter. This is the intellect coming in. You gather all the information you can, and decide if it actually is 'truly' good or not.I still do not see any reason at all for why God is required for morality. Agreed. And again, no mention of thinking of God, or requiring God.Perhaps I should ask you the same question... maybe I am not following you quite clearly. Okay. Do you think that being moral-through God is any... "more" moral, or a "better-way" to be moral than my non-God method? To me, I think our two methods of being moral are equal. As I showed, we both seem to think and believe the exact same thing. You just ascribe it to God where I do not. To me, this makes no difference and I think our two morality systems are equally good. Do you agree?If you agree, I really have no further questions. The thing is, I've received the feeling that you think your God-based ethical system is somehow superior. And if you do think that, I'd really like to know why. Because I am very interested in having my ethics be as good as I can possibly make them, and if you have something you can add, that is exactly what I'm searching for.It's just that, so far, you havn't explained any reasons why God-based ethics are any better, just that they have God included. If that is your point, that God is simply included in your ethics, then I have no further reason to question your moral system. I am only questioning it because your posts seem to imply that I am missing something. If you do actually think I'm missing something, please say what that thing is, because so far, I cannot understand any significant difference in our two ethical systems that is worth mentioning.

Nope, not true.See Stiles msg 150 on this thread for why it appears that you have.

I have a proposition for you.How about a crash course in cognitive behavioural psychology?It's my field and we could look at some research into the very questions we are examining here.Up for a great debate?

No, Larni, I did not wave anything away. I talked about all of the ideas over and again. I am simply not satisfied with a psychological explanation for things which I can consciously do.For example, I have the ability to emphasize with people. I know I do, it may be interesting to know how and why. But I also know that empathy for others is not my sole driver for morality.I do know that we learn specific morals, but again, just learning them is not my reason for doing them.For example, most of us learn that going to weekly services is 'good'. If we were brought up religiously, that is. Many many people at a later age decide for themselves that this 'learning' is no longer relevent or meaningful for them. It is rare in my completely Catholic family for anyone to follow this teaching. Church going may not be considered main-stream moral behaviour, but to me it feels exactly the same to miss church as it does to lie. I guess in a way I feel 'guilty' because I do think of Jesus as real, and I feel like my actions do hurt Him.In the same way, I feel that all of my immorality is 'hurting' God.Maybe this is a problem, as I have said before I might just be strict in my morality. For example, I view things like cursing, skimpy clothes, missing church, not being married to have sex, as 'bad' behaviors, and maybe they can not be viewed as moral or otherwise outside of religion. In short, they don't hurt me or anyone but I believe they hurt God. It is not about survival or learning really. I have learned that these things are bad, yes. But in a sense, I must be my own teacher for me to continue believing them. Belief, here, is not to be scoffed at. It is motivation. We must all have a motive for doing good. I suppose I am looking for what motivates people, and how idealistic their morality can be without getting into spirituality.If you think there is something worthy of a GD, I will participate to the best of my abilities. On the other hand, I feel like I have been talking morality for much too long.

quote:

---

Let's not forget, religion is a big source of influence.

---

Of course it is.But so what? It is an influence to some to do great things. So are people's parents, or teachers, or ambition, or love of money, or attention, or a million other influences.No magic needed.

quote:

---

Because 'better' becomes subjective and relative. Not real.

---

How is subjective morality not "real"? All morality is relative, including yours.If you can give an example of an objective morality, there is a whole thread devoted to that. So far, nobody has ever been able to provide one. Perhaps you will be the first.

quote:

---

I never said morality was not 'natural'...we have a conscience, remember?

​

What I have said is that making moral choices is not natural. We have a choice whether we want to act morally or not. We do not naturally do 'good'.

---

Sure we do. The many ways that we do have been explained to you umpteen times, but you've dismissed them because you find them "unsatisfying".

quote:

---

I have no idea what is vain about saying that God gave us a conscience.

---

Nothing is vain about that. This is not what you said, though.What you said was:

quote:

---

but that the thought of morality without God is so empty. It sorta makes all of our sacrifice and all of our heroism just another possible outcome of biological stimulus; a learned behaviour, both replicable and mechanical.

---

You certainly are saying that it would be a big let-down if our moral sense was natural. This can only be interpreted as being bummed out by the idea that your God didn't give us something special. That's vain.

quote:

---

I am quite sure that we have one, whether we put it in scientific terms or not. In fact, there is no need for science for you to tell me why you believe that something is right.

---

True, but there is a need for science for you to understand why I believe I believe something is right.

quote:

---

I believe that there is a right way to do things. I believe that we have skills and emotions which make up a 'conscience' and which help us to figure out what the right things for us are. We learn from our experiences and those of others. Sometimes we just have to wing it.

​

I believe that our conscience goes far beyond mere survival of the species. If it does not, it can most certainly be used for more.

​

You are welcome to tell me what you believe.

---

I don't have "beliefs" related to this subject.I have knowledge in which I place greater or lesser confidence.What I "believe" is irrelevant to reality.

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

quote:

---

I am not looking for 'evidence'. I am looking for people like you to tell me simply why you choose to do good actions over bad actions.

---

Subjective opinions are nice and all, but in the end, who really cares?What's interesting is the understanding that comes when science attempts to unravel the incredible complexity of our behavior.Like I've repeated many times, simply saying "Godidit" is the most uninteresting, unsatisfying answer.

To me, God is just the voice which tells us to choose the good action. It is not required that you believe in Him. It does not mean that he is actually whipering in your ear. Only that we have evolved whatever abilities are needed to help us make good choices. So, again, this needs a motive. Yes, maybe you can tell me what a moral person is? For example, were slave keepers moral, even if we have now decided that slavery is bad? I must say they were moral by their standards, but not by better standards such as we have today. Yet, somewhere along the line, people began to listen to another voice beside what they had learned. They had always felt empathy, but they did not listen to it. The morality got 'better'. I would say a moral person is someone who listens to the voice of reason, or of God if they believe He is the reason.I would not say that God is required for morality, except that those who believe in God believe it is the Spirit of God which listens to reason, when we could be listening to desire.I agree that moral people are acting with the same goodness whether they believe in God or not. This is why we believe that people of all faiths will be able to reach God and Heaven. I do think that belief in a higher purpose gives motivation for morality, when belief that this world is all we shall ever know would perhaps cause us to change our actions. I am often told that this is not the case. Moral behaviour does benefit us now to an extent. There are few changes that I would make in my morality if I no longer believed in God, but there are some.I would not attend church.
I would have different views on pre-marital sex, pornography, and such.
I would have different views on drug usage when it doesn't get out of hand.At least, I think I would. It is very hard to know from this view-point.

No one has properly phrased the question. There have been many threads devoted to finding out whether or not there is an objective moral, or an absolute moral. I no longer need to take part in such discussions, because I have come to understad this more fully.I have an objective morality. The object is greater unity with God. My morals have this objective in mind, but they can not be absolute in themselves. They are only relatively better or worse than what I have done and known before. No one has answered because no one has understood. An example of absolute morality is a saint or a hero, not an action or a rule. No, again, we do not naturally do good. We naturally have a choice to good or bad. My God gave us all of those things which you are clinging to as evidence that we have nothing. Unless, of course, you can prove that He did not give you empathy, intelligence, complexity, and knowledge. I did not think that anyone had ever proved this yet. Correct; what you believe about the choices you make does not make them either good or bad. But you do have a belief about your choices, right? You believe they are good, I hope, in most part. I can not tell you what 'reality' is, or whether or not your beliefs are relevent to it. I can only tell you that if there is anything really good, you can only be judged based on how hard you tried to find it, and not how close you came.