Let's talk morality

Let's talk morality

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on June 26th, 2010, 7:25 pm | Religion

I just got through reading Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation." Interesting little book that my wife got me for my birthday. I don't recommend the book for most folks, because it has nothing new to add to the discussion between fundamentalists and reason. But it had a fair number of points that are presented quite succinctly. Including some thoughts regarding morality.

First: let's define morality. Webtser's Dictionary has this list of entries:

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

Now I know from years of experience that religious people -- particularly fundamentalists of all religions that I've ever encountered -- firmly believe that they pretty much own the subject as their strong suit. Most of them believe it so firmly that they become deaf when others try to present alternative views on the subject. Which I suppose it to be expected. Thinking that they know all there is to know on the subject creates a perfect barrier to learning or thinking beyond the familiar limits they've ruminated on for years. It's a shame, IMO, and I wish they were less unthinking on the subject, but that's life I guess.

I wonder if a discussion on the subject might be possible. I hope so. But I admit it's a very faint hope.

Instead of discussing the nature of morality or how it develops (I'd love to get to that later), I was wondering if we could start off by discussing its purpose. As in WHY do we have morality? What purpose does it serve?

The secular, sociological view of morality (so far as I can ascertain at this time) is that it is a set of rules that allow society to function smoothly. This view explains how things that are seen as "moral" in one society are not seen the same way in others. And it explains how things that are seen as "moral" at one point in a society's life are not seen the same way later on.

But I understand that religious folks have different views on the subject. I would like to hear what THEY think morality is for. And I'd like to hear their views on why morality changes over time, and from society to society.

Just to start off. Any takers?

It's been a while since I've read that book.... but... morality, in general to me I think is some form of self-preservation. Ideally we interpret that in the larger sense as rules for our species, for mass survival, but often morality is bent, or interpreted to include only the individual.

Liv wrote:It's been a while since I've read that book.... but... morality, in general to me I think is some form of self-preservation. Ideally we interpret that in the larger sense as rules for our species, for mass survival, but often morality is bent, or interpreted to include only the individual.

Well, morality IS an individual concern, and it sure would be a plus for everyone you meet to be on the same page as you. And most of the time, they are. This is why societies tend to move along peacefully nearly all the time.

But I'm still interested in getting some responses from the religious, regarding the WHY these rules (whatever they are) were created, and why they think God cares so much about them being followed. I've been open about my views on natural explanations of why these rules exist, and I think my views explain what we see in terms of changes between societies and over time. I keep wondering what the thinking is on the other side of the theological fence. Cause no one has every told me anything besides memorized platitudes.

I think we need an example of morality. Say err... "Do not steal" which would morality-wise make sense to adopt to your values because we don't want to be stolen from either. Stealing requires more effort to replenish the theft, so it's only beneficial whose warped morality is adapted for only their own self-preservation.

Oh, we can get into examples at some point, I'm sure. I'm really curious about some features of the "objective moral standards" crowd who positively laugh at the notion that morality changes. Because from such people, I've observed a lot of behaviors that I consider deeply offensive to my moral understanding, and that really makes me wonder if the details of their moral views are all that admirable.

But that's for some later time, I think. I hope to get some peeps from the religious side, to start the ball rolling.

What defines what is moral?

BecauseHeLives wrote:What defines what is moral?

That's not the question under discussion at this point. Please post your thoughts on what the purpose of morality is. I've posted what I think it is for.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:What defines what is moral?

That's not the question under discussion at this point. Please post your thoughts on what the purpose of morality is. I've posted what I think it is for.

I think that my question is exceptionally relavent to the discussion. I think before you can discuss morality there has to be a concensus on how that morality is defined. Otherwise there are several unrelated conversations going on in the same thread. If you can't define where morailty comes from then that leaves open the possibility that morality doesn't exist.

Moraility does exist and it is not relative. Truth exists and is not relative.

BecauseHeLives wrote:I think that my question is exceptionally relavent to the discussion. I think before you can discuss morality there has to be a concensus on how that morality is defined. Otherwise there are several unrelated conversations going on in the same thread. If you can't define where morailty comes from then that leaves open the possibility that morality doesn't exist.

I have a feeling that you have not bothered to consider my question, which is why you are itching to answer a question I haven't asked yet. I'll be happy to explore that part of the subject at some later point, I promise. So let's see if you can at least agree with the definition of morality that I started with... is that dictionary definition agreeable to you at all?

I also think that I met you half-way by assuming that you believe that God creates morality. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about why this might be. Put another way, what do you think was God's motive for doing this?

Moraility does exist and it is not relative. Truth exists and is not relative.

We'll have to discuss relative morality at some point, and I rather doubt you'll enjoy that exchange. Similarly, when things roll around to "truth..." that's a somewhat different ball of wax.

I'm not sure he's trying to derail the thread as such. I think he simply wants to discuss the subject in terms he is familiar and comfortable with. What I'd like to see is a more serious exchange with a variety of people who look in on this forum. Don't know how likely that might be, but I do have a hope.

And BTW, I recognize that the realm here isn't really conducive toward civil, calm exchanges. I'm really sorry about that... it's the only forum I currently am familiar with.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I'm not sure he's trying to derail the thread as such. I think he simply wants to discuss the subject in terms he is familiar and comfortable with. What I'd like to see is a more serious exchange with a variety of people who look in on this forum. Don't know how likely that might be, but I do have a hope.

And BTW, I recognize that the realm here isn't really conducive toward civil, calm exchanges. I'm really sorry about that... it's the only forum I currently am familiar with.

SFI, with all due respect, no self proclaimed Christians that post here regularly have ever been interested in true civil exchanges. They have an agenda... steer threads into the same rhetoric and talking points, or blast and insult those that wont allow such derailment of real thought exchange.

I suppose it's sort of easy to forget Questioner, considering she hasn't posted much so far this year. But you are most likely right about the majority of Christian regulars. It would be interesting to see some new folks have a go at this. Only time will tell, tho...

<sigh>

As usual, no one wants to discuss what I thought would be an interesting topic.

That's the sound of one hand clapping, I guess.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:<sigh>

As usual, no one wants to discuss what I thought would be an interesting topic.

That's the sound of one hand clapping, I guess.

*fapping

Sanjuro wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:<sigh>

As usual, no one wants to discuss what I thought would be an interesting topic.

That's the sound of one hand clapping, I guess.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking this: Why would God want morality as a human mandate?

I believe it is for the same reason listed in your first posting--so that society can proceed with shared understandings of what behavior is acceptable and what is not.

Clearly God intended us to be a social species. In every social species, there are behavioral rules and means of enforcing those rules. The rules are generally designed to improve species survival by keeping internal conflict low so that the species can focus its energy on survival activities such as obtaining adequate food and successful breeding and rearing of the young. Most of the morality rules facilitate meeting these objectives. There is always the tension between what is best for the group and what the individual wants. Morality rules mostly seem to demand that the individual subordinate his/her private interests to the welfare of the group.

Questioner wrote:Morality rules mostly seem to demand that the individual subordinate his/her private interests to the welfare of the group.

Or rather morality rules have developed because the long term interests of an individual are linked to the welfare of the group. Assuming he/she wants to mate and produce offspring.

A Person wrote:
Questioner wrote:Morality rules mostly seem to demand that the individual subordinate his/her private interests to the welfare of the group.

Or rather morality rules have developed because the long term interests of an individual are linked to the welfare of the group. Assuming he/she wants to mate and produce offspring.

Sort of chicken and egg sort of thing. Ultimately, the group will not thrive if most of the individuals are not happy and thriving, and individuals don't thrive if their group doesn't thrive. However, as individuals, it is awfully easy to believe the group is better off if we are immediately better off. Ultimately, it is social mores that have to ensure that individuals put their immediate interest behind the group's interest. It is social pressure that enforces the morals/rules of the group.

Hi. I'm new.

Thought this post was interesting so thought I'd chime in and try to answer the original question.

I think morals come about by the way people choose to live. That seems obvious I guess, but I think what I mean is that it starts by understanding what one person decides is a wrong action or a bad action, for that person or the group (meaning any group from a small group to the universal whole), and therefore that one person avoids that action and it becomes part of their way of life. RULES then come about when one person declares that a moral is legally enforceable. I'd say most technicolor large examples are good things everyone can agree on, i.e. Killing a person is a bad thing, therefore it is illegal to kill a person. i.e. stealing is wrong, therefore it is illegal to steal.

When applying this to religion is where the gray areas begin (an understatement) and I think it can begin to make a person inauthentic. Personal convictions and beliefs can be denied by religious rules. For example, someone says "I can't find any problem with drinking alcohol in moderation, yet so and so in my church thinks its a sin" so they don't drink alcohol at all. In other words 'so and so' made a rule based on a moral from their own conviction (which they perhaps got from their understanding of the bible, or other text) and enforced it onto someone.

In summation, I guess the process goes something like- conviction/belief > moral > rule. I think most would agree that most morals are good (not that that was the argument here) but personal conviction can sometimes be askew or unfair when pushed onto someone else. Morals exist as a by product of the way we live. They change because of experience I suppose, and healthy discussion allows for a better understanding of who we are as people and why we believe what we believe. Which may change the moral outlook, or simply allow people to honestly agree to disagree.

Its really a great question you posed.