A personal morality

Done? I'm still trying to find where you began, really I like to learn things from reading the posts on this website. I've read many posts from many people here defending and even advocating different versions of relative morality. Any promotion of absolute morality has never been able to hold up to even a slight amount of scrutiny.You seem to think that there is some form of Absolute Morality, that not only exists, but is also glaringly obvious.I am interested in hearing your view, if you wouldn't mind sharing. I've gone back over your posts, and, well, I can't identify where you actually described this Absolute Morality. There only seems to be hints that one exists and that you believe in it. Can you show it to me?

So, what you're saying is... as long as one knows what's good from bad, they won't do bad? That doesn't sound very correct.And this "knowledge" that one needs to learn. You seem to be of the stance that everyone learns the same knowledge. I would agree that this is theoretically possible. Yet, in practice, I don't see how it could possibly work with any level of normally functioning society.I mean, yes... if two people have the same knowledge, if they've learnt the same things... then yes, of course they are going to make the same decisions with that knowledge. That seems... trivial.But, that's really the whole point. There are no two people who have the same knowledge. And it's that knowledge that shapes what we think is good and bad in the first place. I agree that knowledge lends a discerning eye to man. But which man's knowledge is better, or true, as you put it? Is it only true when two or more people agree on it? That's the whole problem. Some people's knowledge will tell them something's wrong, another's will tell them something's right.Maybe you're correct, and only 1 of them is true. Yet, how do we tell which one? More knowledge? Who's knowledge says which is correct?

No, if you would like to continue discussing something that's exactly what this place is for I'm not sure where though, is here on-topic enough? Maybe we should just start a new thread. That one seemed rather popular anyway.

What you seem to be saying is... you don't so much make any kind of affect/change on God as you do affect/change your relationship with God. Sort of like... you let him down, kind of thing. As in, you could have done better, you know you can do better, and God is disapointed in you in some sort of way? Would that be a correct assessment?I agree with jar that God remains unaffected, however, that's not the point I want to talk about.I want to talk about this part: I don't think that's accurate. I mean, I've taken God out of the picture, and there is no "one less reason for me". I've just replaced God in this way. That is, I don't worry about my relationship with God, yet I worry about my relationship with those I love, those I respect, and how I think about myself.I would also contend that this transfer from God to people is a larger reason than God alone. That is, if I go against a relationship with God, I feel guilty, and bad, all internally. Yet if I go against a relationship with myself or those I love/respect, I feel the same intense level of guilt and internal badness along with having to interact with those people externally. I will have to go to their house and discuss the issues with them and other peers. I will have to deal with seeing them and interacting with them on an everyday, physical basis.I understand that there are those who believe they act with God on an everyday, physical basis. Yet I can bring you over to meet my friends and family to show their physicality. Obviously this level of objective, physical interaction does not exist with God.Basically... can you identify some sort of relationship/feeling/thing with God that you think you have that I do not have with myself, my loved ones, and those I respect?If you can identify that "extra thing" you have with God, then you have identified the "one less moral reason" you would have without God. If you cannot identify it, then without God you lose nothing. ...Sorry, that last sentence is loaded I mean, you lose nothing when we're talking in this God-is-needed-for-morality sense. Obviously there are other things God provides for certain people that I'm not talking about right now.

Gaining the freedom without the threat of punishment.I started to think about how my "threat of punishment" comes from what I fear my loved ones would think of me, or possibly even stop interacting with me. However, this fear of punishment is very low on the why-I-do-good-things meter when compared to the "because it's the right thing to do" motive.But then I thought that you may mean the threat of eternal punishment. And, I must admit, that there is no threat of eternal punishment from any of my loved ones. However, if this fear is high on anyone's why-they-do-good-things meter, I would argue that they have deeper problems to worry about. That is, if you don't have any positive reason to do good things, and you are only afraid of a threat of punishment... I would argue that you're really not a very good person to begin with. To me, a fear of punishment is a very immature, and low-level motive for doing good things.I would also point out that I (personally now, likely not representative of any other atheists) do have a very minor threat of eternal punishment. Not so much of God judging. But more of a possibility of something judging. I mean, I don't really believe in anything being there, but the fact that no one's ever come back from being dead to describe and show us what really happens adds a certain amount of "anything's possible". So I do have a very minor threat of eternal punishment, but I would say it's incredibly low on my why-I-do-good-things meter. Perhaps even the very bottom.

I agree. It's easy for anyone to talk about the right things to do, and much harder to actually do them. Harder still to do them for unselfish reasons. Actually, yeah. I manage the construction (wiring/building/part development) of automated assembly lines (those car-building lines with all the robots). In that scenario, yes, I agree that a fear of punishment is extremely useful. However, my lines come out with much more profit because I use a good dose of positive reinforcement.However, regardless... I find your metaphor lacking. I don't think God's relationship is a boss/employee one. I don't think it should be, don't think it's described as such in the bible, and don't think that would even be a very nice God to have. I don't think being a good person is a "job". That is, I don't do it for money, I don't do it for compensation, and I definitely don't do it because of fear of reprisal. Certainly. One would be wrong, but one can argue anything they'ed like. This arguement would come down to neither person (myself included) being able to actually prove my motives. Therefore, with equal probability that I'm doing good things because they're good to do, or because I'm selfish... I'm right that I do them because they're good to do soley because I say so, and I am me. I could be lying, but if I was a liar, I'd hardly be worried about being moral enough to come and discuss it on internet message boards Sure it would. Like a 5 year old who doesn't steal cookies from the cookie jar because he knows he'll have his TV-time taken away. The threat of punishment is an effective moral motive. I just see it as an immature, and low-level one. With "because it's the right thing to do" or "because I want to help others" being much more mature and advanced motives. I would even put "for selfish how-it-makes-me-feel" reasons above fear of punishment (but not above the other two I just mentioned). I didn't find your post hostile. Why shouldn't we question and try to understand where our morality comes from? To me, it's very important to understand these things in order to be a moral person for the right motives/reasons.

I think what crash is trying to get at is (and I agree with him):You think about God and then don't do the bad thing. Now, ask yourself this question:Would thinking about your loved ones, or yourself even, not prevent you from doing the bad thing?Answer Yes (I don't think you're really worried about this one): Then your normal "non-God related" morals are sufficient for you to restrain yourself. And therefore, you are not losing any sense of morality. More... cleaning it up and making it more efficient. Sort of... more succinctly defining what's actually driving your morals.Answer No (the troubling topic):No "A": You are not worried about any affects on your loved ones/yourself because no one's getting hurt, or no one's being negatively impacted in any physical or mentally abusive way.
-Like crash mentioned. Who cares, then? Maybe it really isn't immoral to do this thing in the first place.No "B": You are not worried about any affects on your loved ones/yourself even though they are getting hurt either mentally or physically in some way.
-Like Nator and I mentioned. You are probably not a very nice person. If you do want to improve, perhaps the problem isn't with your morality, but with your relationship with your loved ones/yourself. You may want to look into some social help, such as therapy. If you do not want to improve, then yes, I am glad your thinking of God is there to prevent you from going here. Otherwise, I would be hoping that the local authorities would pick you up before I ever had the misfortune of being on the negative side of your actions.

I see. I don't know how to objectively tell you that I think this is a rather bad thing. As in, I think that you think I am in a biased position becuase of what I've been saying already.I will just try a metaphor of my own:-----------------------
An 8 year old boy is in Grade 2. A 19 year old girl is beginning her 1st year of university. The 8 year old understands he has less education than the 19 year old girl. The boy decides to drop out of school. The girl tries to convince him that this is a bad idea, and that there is still a lot more to learn.
"I understand I only have a 2nd grade education" the boy says, "you won't see me sitting on an educational high horse."
-----------------------The girl here shouldn't feel guilty about her education, or for trying to show the boy that there is more.
Nor should the boy feel easy in the fact that he's being honest with himself.
The fact remains that they boy has less education.
The fact remains that the boy is quite capable of learning more.
The fact remains that neither student has completed their learning (and hopefully never will).We both agree it's easy to talk about doing good things, yet harder to actually do them.It is also easy to fool yourself into thinking you're not capable of being more.I don't see any reason for anyone to ever stop trying to improve upon themselves.

"...that is not what my conscience is saying."Same as - Answer: Yes.
-obviously, your feeling of yourself (your conscience) will keep you from doing this thing.
-you are incorrectly assuming that the non-God related morality is insufficient by including the thoughts of your conscience Neither does it sit well with me. Hence we both agree:Answer: Yes.
-your personal feelings that this "does not sit well with you" will keep you from doing this thing. But, you just said:

quote:

---

that is not what my conscience is saying

---

and

quote:

---

The point is that my conscience has labeled some behaviors as immoral, a priori.

---

and

quote:

---

The idea that if nobody is getting hurt then its okay does not sit well with me

---

So you have nothing to worry about since, obviously, you do care about it.
Or are you under the belief that atheists do not have a conscience? This was all a mistake, I got confused:
-------------------------
But... that doesn't make sense.If you're a nice person, then you will care if you hurt people. (Answer: Yes).
You can't not care when you hurt people, and still be a nice person. It doesn't work that way. That's the definition of being a nice person.
-------------------------Replace with:
So what if you're not a nice person? It doesn't matter to me. But, like I said, I'll hope the local authorities get a hold of you and lock you up before I get in contact with your negative actions.Edited by Stile, : Mis-understood the last part...

Fair enough. I think we've gotten as far as we can go in our conversation (Ringo has a good point however...).My point is only that God is not needed for Morality. As in, God is not needed for all Morality.If your point is that you personally need God in order to behave morally. Then I accept your point. No, you don't always have to listen to your conscience. My entire point, however, is that moral people do just that.If your conscience only goes so far, and then God covers the extent... I would compare that with my conscience covering up to the extent that God covers for you, leaving us equal.Perhaps that makes me arrogant. Perhaps that makes me moral.In any case, thanks again CS for discussing things with me. If nothing else, it helps me write out and further understand my own thoughts and feelings.