I have a question about morals.?

Question

Im curious as to what non belivers think about morals and their origin. Im not trying to persuade anyone to my line of thinking, (Christian). I am simply trying to get a better understanding of how a non believer rationalizes a moral standard.
As I understand it, to be moral is to be concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.
Im guessing here and not trying to put words in anyones mouth, but would a non believer say that this standard of conduct has been generated by society as a group to help govern how we should act towards one another?
If my assuption is correct, then the question still remains un-answered...where did society come up with its standard?. Agian, im not trying to be arrogant, or presumptious, but I would like know know better the "other side of the coin". Any and all respectful answers will be appreciated.

Answer 1

interesting question

as a "non-believer" I guess ... I believe that morals are a common sense thing ... they were taught to me by my parents ... and, they are, in a way, christian ... do unto others

but it doesn't take a genius or even a God to realize this

and morals were around long before the bible or Christianity

and, as you know, only 2 of the commandments are even against the law ... so, seems to me society it not basing its moral standards based on christian beliefs

in a sense your asking, which came first, the chicken or the egg

what I'll say is this, Christians dont have the moral high ground any more than any other group ... morals are an individuals decision

Answer 2

The standards of a moral system lie in what is held specifically as the supreme value, in which all choices support. Each choice is a trade, a trade up for the more perceived value.
A sobjective moral system (yours) puts God, society or whim, as the supreme value that all right and wrong questions either support (right) or destroy (wrong). The problem with a ubjective system (yours) is; the next question is; which God? Which Society? Or who's whim?
Which causes the destruction of human beings. And without human being's value, morals etc is irrelevant.
So the opposite is an objective moral system. That puts something real as the supreme value. I have decided, like the founding fathers, that the individual mind is the fountain head of which springs all values. Thus the single individual Free mind is the highest value, and none can ever be sacrificed for another.
It will be fun to read through people answers and see all the differnt supreme values they use to suport their answer.

Answer 3

This is an evolutionary psychology issue. You'd have to understand how the human mind works within the framework of anthropology and sociology. To make a long story short, our morals, or societal mores, are not only learned, but innate, a product of both nature and nurture. We are born having evolved to know how to exist as part of a group, and taught by peers and authority figures. This happens all over the world, in societies that have no Christian god or what is referred to as the "Judeo-Christian ethic". A society in which parents do not care for their young, or in which members kill each other, will not survive. If humans cannot learn from their mistakes, again, they won't survive. When missionaries came across a primitive tribe in what is now Hawaii, those people were not all raping and killing each other, they had developed societies. They might have had a leader, and they might have deified the nearest volcano because they were afraid of it, but they didn't have God. Strangely enough, fighting, drunkenness, theft, and prostitution started after the islands were settled by white Christians, and it got so bad that laws had to be written, one of which was "Thou shalt not sleep mischievously". None of that had existed before the missionaries brought religion to that tribe.

Morality has nothing to do with religiosity. If it did, then atheists would be destroying civilization, and they are not. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are under-represented in prisons, and hundreds of atheist scientists have contributed to our society in ways that have benefited humanity.

Answer 4

A very good question. The most recent thinking attempts to ground the development of specifically moral thinking in evolution, that moral codes enhance the survivability of groups of human beings who accept them.

Societies require some norms to survive and those norms that worked best relative to other societies tended to survive.

This evolution based morality is far from perfect and requires rational critique and thought. It is not fixed and continuosly evolves over time. Slavery was not immoral, now it is.

A morality of this type places a high value on people thinking realistically for them selves about which principles are best. The risk is that people will choose bad or ineffective moral codes. This is the best critique of Atheism by the way...it's harder to come to a clear judgement about right and wrong.

And thanks for the serious question!

Answer 5

"Moral" in the world's standards really have no base if you think about it. The tolerance of different things changes yearly. Think back to the 1950's. The standards and morals to them then were totally different than they are now. It is all based on acceptance. How much can "they" (who ever they may be) get people to accept? Obviously a lot now. Where as God's laws and standards are never changing. They have been the same. So I think I will base my life on those. I hope this helps or even has anything to do with what you were talking about!

Answer 6

How do we know whats good and evil? The same as how we know right from wrong. Whether we learned it, or just feel it, I'm not sure. I was brought up catholic, but have found no happiness in it...nor in any other religion...so I follow my own...or what I perceive God would want of me. After all he did give me free will.

I try hard every day to be a good person, to help others, to make others smile, to raise my kids to be thoughtful and caring individuals who do not follow the crowd.

The morals you speak of come from a really great novel...the bible. Its a wonderful learning tool...but really mostly just a beautiful fictional story, published to keep the masses in line.

My sense of morals come from common sense...its better to make others happy than sad..better to help than to hinder...better to keep trying to be a better person than complacently reading my bible or following others to find the answers.

Answer 7

Well if you weren't Christian would you still have morals?

If there was never anything called the ten commandments or anything like that do you think that no one would know the difference of right and wrong?

I think it all comes down to just good ol' common sense.

Answer 8

I think morals come about because we are social creatures. If you're going to band together in a group, it's important that everyone in the group understands that they can't bash someone else over then head when things don't go their way. Morals exist to keep us from causing harm to one another.

Answer 9

I'm not on the other side of the coin, but if you haven't read it, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity lays out the case for the God-morals connection beautifully. It's a much deeper issue than the answers you're getting here.
God bless.
†

Answer 10

morals come from empathy, our ability to put ourselves in anothers shoes.

its also dependant upon time period and place (society)

you'll see today we believe slavery is wrong, but back in the day it was a very widely accepted practice.

you'll see today cannibalism is immoral as well, but in different tribes and little societies they practice it as apart of religion and it is an accepted practice.

we say today that killing for punishment of crime is immoral. yet many societies say this is ok practice. even the bible practiced this back in the day.

morals are not absolute. morals change with times ans society.