can a morality exist independent of any kind of belief?

Question

I don't mean outside of religion. more like can it be based on some principle found in empirical data or reason.

Answer 1

You can reason that if you treat others with respect, be sexually responsible, refrain from lying, never taking or someones justly acquired property, you would lead a healthy and profitable life in all aspects.

Answer 2

A very large subject, (and a good question), so I shall give a summary only.

Some sort of belief, whether formally defined or not, is implicit in the human condition. Everything we do (since we have reason as well as instinct) is conditioned by our beliefs about ourselves, the world and (possibly) the god(s).

There is no reason for morality to fall outside this general rule. If my attempts to cook an omelette are governed by my conscious beliefs about how heat, eggs and my digestion interact, I am sure that my attempts to have a successful marriage will be equally affected by my beliefs about the nature and interactions of men and women.

And so on.

In a word, I don't see how you can have a morality (any more than you can have a scientific theory) without some sort of conceptual framework. Emotions, perhaps. But hardly reasoned thoughts.

Answer 3

I know of no field - NONE - that does not rest on a base of unproved assumptions. They may be very good assumptions, mind you, but they are always still there.

In math we assume that any two points can be joined by a straight line. In science we assume that laws of the universe are constant through time. In language we assume that common words will tend to be used in common ways. In religion it is usually assumed that the gods aren't lying to you.

Aristotle pointed out even in his work that unless you accepted these many assumptions, there was no way to prove them and that without them there was no way that the entire rest of the structure could stand.

Philosophy tends to assume the least of all, which is why some people tend to see it as muddle-headed. A philosopher might not assume that your senses are bringing you accurate information or that your memories are accurate in any way. Which leads us to your question:

How can you draw up an ethical code unless you assume many, many things about free will, time, how the universe works, the existance of certain things, and so on? You cannot even collect data unless you assume that there is data there to be collected, that you can detect it, that your recording have meaning, and that they will continue to do so.

These may all be good assumptions, and it may be pointless to assume otherwise, but they ARE assumptions based on nothing but belief nonetheless. So it goes.

Answer 4

I'm absolutely POSITIVE that Jesus had no intentions of building a religion around Himself. To do so would mean taking people's focus away from the Creator. Christianity was invented by those who require a figurehead to worship.

Jesus was NOT the only one in history to cite The Golden Rule. However, He gave The Rule as the Eleventh Commandment because we're all too foolish to comprehend that the original Ten are a breakdown of the Eleventh. Nobody can agree completely that the Ten Commandments are all about personal selfishness toward others (morality). So Jesus assured us all that---in treating others the way we personally wish to be treated---we'll automatically be accomplishing the other Ten.

In The Golden Rule we have morality---it makes good common sense---and yes, it DOESN'T require any sense of religion to practice it!

Answer 5

Your question implies that Morality can exist outside of any system of belief, which would lead you to ask how Morality could relate to anything else. Don't get caught up in the complexity of language. Morality is a description of a code of beliefs which inform or govern actions such that they can be judged as 'right' or 'wrong' - it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Answer 6

The universe has as an underlying theme Form, Precision, and Perfection. Morality can be based on Natural Law reflecting these qualities.

The very parameters of the cosmological structure are extremely finely balanced, as is the fine structure of quarks and gluonic fields, electrons and the virtual photons supporting them, and so on.

"The Symbolic Language of Geometrical Figures," O. M. Aivanhov, "Climb the Highest Mountain," Mark Prophet, "Kundalini West," Ann Ree Colton, and "Psychoenergetic Science," Dr. William Tiller, http://www.tiller.org and http://www.divinecosmos.com speak to this.

regards,

j.

Answer 7

Emmanuel Levinas and Martin Buber saw ethics as prior to anything else. Imagine you are treating someone badly and they give you a look which makes you ashamed. Your perception of that look does not involve thought or any kind of reflection, and it involves the fact of shame. In other words, there is an ethical relationship in any interpersonal interaction. Moreover, since we are essentially social beings, in the sense that our thoughts and perceptions are part of our culture, and could not exist as people without some cultural influence, that is also part of our being. One would not doubt the existence of others in the situation just described, so the answer is yes, it can exist and it is in fact the background of everything that exists.

Answer 8

not sure but possibly depending on the data, if it were a long term studdy of feelings in certain situations meassured with psycological testing / blood tests / brain scans then i would suppose yes, or reasoning i don't like this happening to me so no one else would reassoning whould bring about a moral code and an ethical code aswell, socraties had a fairly strong moral code and athough it would of been founded of the beliefs of his youth would of evolved with his philisophy.so it could be said his moral and ethical stance was developed in a reasoned way.

Answer 9

Of course it can.

As a starting point, I think you would agree that you would like others to treat you with respect, be honest with you, not try to exploit you or steal from you, etc., and if a person did treat you in this way you would reject any further contact with them.

By extension, it would then be in your own best interests to treat others in this way, as being actively exploitative, dishonest or otherwise antisocial means that others will reject you and cut you off from social discourse, leading to personal isolation and probably loss of access to paid employment, as others will be unwilling to have contact with you.

Since we define 'morality' as being a form of behaviour which rejects antisocial behaviours it is therefore more advantageous to oneself to act morally, as acting immorally attracts negative consequences such as imprisonment. There are useful social advantages to be gained by acting morally, and as such behaviour is self-reinforcing it becomes the socially accepted norm.

For a much fuller explanation I recommend Aristotle's 'Ethics'. It's a lot more accesible than you might think!

Answer 10

Yes, absolutley. And that is a very astute question. Read anything by novelist, philosopher Ayn Rand. Her fully-integrated philosophy of Objectivism is based on reality, on reason. For starters, read The Fountainhead. If you feel a little more ambitious, read Atlas Shrugged. It has just about everything you need in it, as well as being a fantastic mystery story!