Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy

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.

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.

You are the only cognitive behaviour therapist here that I am aware of. It is possible to have productive discussions on moral motivation without God, even without talking science. It is possible to discuss music, emotions, and many other things without being scientific. There is really no need for disparaging remarks, competitions, assumptions, or type-casting. There are certain members of this forum who are constsntly stooping to this behaviour and appear to have an agenda of ridicule which reminds me so much of an insecurity. Learned, and chosen.

Thank you, Archer, for bridging the sea.I may approach a conversation assuming that everyone has at one time tackled the issue of personal morality, and most likely come to some resolve even before an education in science. In that scenerio, abandoning a strong resolve to a loose specualtion of moral origins and causes does not necessarily do justice to the present complexity of the issue in other fields of study.It is very likely that some people do not ever come to a personal moral 'conclusion' but rather schlep through life following the standards of society's social contracts, and in that sense there may be very much a 'preservation instinct' behind it. This is not quite pursuing the 'good' for its own sake.I would say that morality at its roots is a personal Code of Honor; doing one's best through recognition of the inherent value of life and human dignity, and by extension giving value to the lives of others and helping them to regard themselves as dignified. I.e., worthy of the same rights and freedoms, the same love and acceptance. Not every moral code holds to the same standard, and those of some societies honestly do not treat much at all on the dignity of an individual, but put more emphasis on the safety of their body and personal property.As an example, the cultures of the East are much more respectful of the 'spirit' if you will, in the way that US southerners are 'nicer'. In regards to the OP, the ability to empathize is at its finest when we recognize the deeper, less physical needs of others. Therefore I would look for a motive beyond empathy as a 'why we do good' and empathy would be a 'how' we decide what is good.The 'higher force' idea is not proven of course. But for me at least it has 'evidence' simply in the evolution of morality since ancient times and man's gradual progress toward some higher standard. Yet we are not limited by the highest common denominator which society can put into a social contract. This is why I have been harping on saints and heros. They have in a sense broken the social contract and are often regarded in the same way as those who break the contract in pursuit of something lesser. Prime example, of course, Jesus. But I suppose the heros and geniuses of any times and any field are those who have helped us to reach a higher plateau. Since they did not 'create' this plateau I would believe they tapped into it. Math is not invented or created, but discovered. I tend to think of morality in that way.

If I didn't mention Free Will here, it is because I mentioned it ad nauseum elsewhere. I think you are saying that we are equal in potential, as in, inherently equal, before or despite the hand that fate dealt. In the eyes of God...metaphorically or realistically. The eyes of God can be borrowed for our own use. What is amazing is that this simple moral principle of equality took so long to develope, even after the coming of Christ. What I mentioned in that post was not denying our potential, but only saying that amoungst Christians, equality is not based on being human amoung humans, but more on the spiritual belief of each human being a housing of God and desired by His will. It is not our humanity which makes us equal, as our humanity can seperate. Consider only that two people on the same footing in society, with equal opportunities and sucesses, can judge each other and condemn each other based on their knowledge of what the other person has done morally. It is hard to apply potential to a real situation, and love another for what they could be. To be blunt, there was some talk earlier to the effect that we can't be otherwise than what we are. That was my main area of disagreement, precisely because of this free will you mentioned.I am not anti-evo. The assumptions during this thread were that I was. Altogether, I just feel that morality is more a product of intelligence than of a natural evolutionary purpose. Also, I had a hard time getting folks on the same page as I was. It is not that I don't know about feral children etc. But if you read my question, I am not interested in whether a person does things which are condisidered immoral. I was interested in whether they did things altogether without 'guilt' or knowledge of the wrongness of certain actions. I don't care if they see eating with two fingers immoral, or walking on one side of the road, or murder. I was looking only for evidence that the individual would not recognize any
sort of standard. I certainly believe they would even if they were never exposed to another human. That doesn't mean God did it...but like I said, moral codes are learned, morality may not be.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.