Question about morality for the non-fundamentalist?

Question

Agnostic here, not wanting to convert anyone. If you believe the Bible is the word for word of God and morality is set in stone, this question really isn't for you, please hit the back button on your browser.

So, to people left who are religious and non-religious, what is your basis for morality and ethics.

If you say the Bible I respect that 100%; but would ask, how do you determine which parts apply today, and weren't put there based on the bias of the author/translator. One of the reasons I asked fundamentalists to not answer this question is their answers are all going to be the same, Bible is the word of God and Jesus blah blah, so for "real people" and not "robots"; do you have a criteria.

Other religions who don't take their religious book word for word, the same applies to you and your faith. What is the basis of morality.

For non-religious, what is your basis of morality?

If the question doesn't make sense, I apologize. Limited room.

Answer 1

As small children, we are taught right and wrong by those in charge of raiseing us. That is the first basis for everyone's internal right and wrong barometer. After that, experiences show us what makes others cry or smile or want to hit us. So that helps. I would say the law tells us as adults what is right and wrong also, but not all of us agree with everything the law hands down, and we pick and choose what we will obey, and what we won't.

Answer 2

A very interesting question Jim. And you are right that there is some issues with the idea that all morality is set in stone. Some situations have changed when relating to the Bible. A great example of this would be slavery. The Bible talks about slavery being alright. Now, it should be mentioned that the institution of slavery in place at the time of Bible was rather different than what it was here in the States. So, while slavery today would be considered morally wrong, in the past it was considered to be morally ok. Now this particular example resonates with me because American Baptists and Southern Baptists split over this very issue around the time of the Civil War.

In a broader sense, you make a good point about picking and choosing. In my opinion, not all of Scripture holds equal weight. And though they may not admit, most other Christians don't hold it in equal weight either. If they did, they would be following all of the laws set down in Deuteronomy, for example. However, you find more people citing certain Old Testament laws and totally forgetting/ ignoring others (ones that may be in the very same chapter).

For me, my morality stems from the Greatest Commandment(s) given in the Gospels: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. In my mind, the other rules must fall in accord with that and apply only to the extent that they do. They don't all hold equal weight and some are socially/ historically bound. And while I do hold that Scripture is the God's word, that word needs to be understood correctly or the world will be plagued with more atrocities committed in the name of Jesus.

Answer 3

I use many different factors as the basis for my morality. I have the teachings of my parents which was the first I learned. I have the experience of being in certain groups growing up - for me it was the Girl Scouts & 4-H - which did a lot to teach me about morality. I have society and the laws it holds.. now that isn't the end all be all for my little every day decisions but it tells me where the boundary lies. Most of all though, I use my conscience. I know what is right and what is wrong. I know what actions may or may not hurt someone. Ultimately it is up to me to keep myself moral and in check.

Answer 4

We don't have to resort to the Bible/Quran/or any other religious books to have basis for morality.

Communities in the earliest of days already pondered on what's good and what's bad abut everything they did as individuals operating in their small and primitive society. Of course we know there were no books or scriptures that time.

If we look at Anthropology, we'd know that even the earliest version of homo sapiens had rules in hunting, picking, family, and even had rudimentary hierarchy in their very small communities. Males hunt, women and children pick, and they respected the hearth of other males. Morality is not an absolute something given to us once and for all on how to live but a product of the dynamism within society that ultimately reflects the value we give to life. Since society changes so must morality. There are issues today that were not even imaginable thousands or even hundreds of years ago, for instance Cloning or AI and for simpler things, gambling. Past generations didn't have to deal with such issues but our generation has to.

Answer 5

I go by how people will be affected. If I do something and everyone's positively affected, it's morally good. If only harm is done, it's bad. Things get tricky for things that are both positive and negative:

Let's say that I wanted to kill someone because I he stole $5 from me. That would be wrong for 2 reasons:
1. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
2. The negative affects are more than the positive ones. After all, the only benefit is that I get the satisfaction of revenge. However, one person loses his life, which is negative, and his family and friends suffer.

Here's another scenario:
I kill Hitler just after the Holocaust begins. That would be morally acceptable to me because 1 life would be sacrificed to prevent millions of deaths. There would be millions of pissed off Nazis, but there would be millions of happy citizens within the Allied countries to offset that.

Answer 6

Fundamentalist here. Sorry you have such a bad impression. Leave it to the few to defame the many.

I understand your question to be this: Outside the existence of God or a supreme being, what are plausible motives for "morality"?

Im going to assume that you are interested in intentional behavior and not in involuntary or accidental behavior.

The simplest and least informative answer might be something like "man" or "the human experience" or even "some honored ideas of man".

More evaluatable, but less compelling reasons can include "social and cultural habits", and "cultural, social, economic, political or biological sustainability".

The bottom line isnt God. Wow.. I should expand on that because it sounds superficially like blasphemy. :P
Nobody does anything at all, ever, that is not based on self interest. You can argue about what self is, or what self interest means, but nobody including Jesus himself as the bible describes him, ever did anything at all ever without it serving some part of the values and interests of their self. (... for the Joy set before him..., ... it was His will that he should suffer ... ) To do otherwise is a logical impossibility.

As human beings, we find value in an idea, and we act on it.
We find value in an intentional action, and we act.
Thats true of "moral" and "ethical" people and "immoral" or "unethical" people. Some value was found in the act, based on some idea.

This is where the power of a lie, or a false idea is shown, but where the power of truth is also powerfully shown. People can act on ideas that do not deliver what those people expect. People can act on ideas that do deliver what those people expect. Both are still true even when the idea is based on something communicated, and not based on empirical data or observed phenomenology.

Moral people are "moral" because they find value in acting "morally". Immoral people are "immoral" because they find value in acting "immoral". Religious people behave "religiously" because they find value associated with behaving "religious". Racist people behave "racist" because they find some value associated with behaving that way.

What values motivate peoples actions? They abound. There are probably more values and ideas about worth than there are people, because people can have multiple simultaneous mutually exclusive value sets. Ambivalence is a part of the human condition.

Recap:
People act because they have an idea about associating some personal profit, some gain of value, with those actions based on an idea. Everyone does it including God.
Some plausible motives toward the global taboos (things that are globally accepted as evil in every culture in the world) include habits, sustainability, pleasure or pain, and communicated ideas.

Answer 7

Humans evolved as social animals. Every human society has generally accepted standards of behavior and a code of proper conduct. Societies before Christianity had codes of conduct. Chimpanzees have codes of conduct as do bonobos. The Bible is not necessary for the establishment of a code of conduct.
The predominant religion in the United States is Christianity. Listening to Christians, one might assume that the United States would be a highly moral, ethical, law-abiding society. Other societies have lower rates of crime, lower infant mortality, longer average life spans, lower rates of suicide and much lower rates of murder and violence.
It seems to me that those societies are most moral that best contribute to a satisfying community with the best quality of life. Recent data suggest that the United States is declining and the European Union is ascending in qualit of life and citizen satisfaction.
It is likely that the earliest forms of morality had to do with the survival of the species. A general sense of morality may have been something God built into humans. It is also likely that God communicated to lots of humans in lots of ways and over a long period of time and even today.

Answer 8

I think we are born perfect. Look at children who are very young and not yet tainted by society. They don't see different races, just other kids to relate to. I wasn't raised in a religious environment whatsoever. My parents were not religious either but I mean really what does it take to know right from wrong?? Life experience can do that without any particular dogma or text to read. I have studied ALL faiths and even tried Christianity for awhile but just decided it wasn't for me. I am a free thinker and finally settled on Unitarianism. I consider myself to be a very moral person. In my mind, morality can be taught very well without any religious connotations. Not knocking it, I know there are some good values that are taught there but it's not the only place.

Answer 9

I just use the "golden rule". I do the same raising my kids. I am an atheist but I have high morals, not mutually exclusive as some would think. As my kids grow and should they choose to believe in a god then fine. I'll support them but I choose to believe that as long as I treat people well, practice patience and understanding and raise my children with the same values then I'm a good person/good father. I don't need a "higher power" to believe in to live a good life.

Answer 10

I believe in God but do not believe in Jesus...and I think the Bible is one big book of stories. I guess my basis for morality is myself...if it makes me or somebody else feel bad then I probably shouldnt do it. If it is against the law I probably wont do it either(within reason). If my parents tld me it was wrong then I believed them most of the time. It really depends on the situation...most of the time I listen to what my mind or heart tells me.