For the secularist, what is the source of morality?

Question

I've looked at the most common answers:
1) Common sense. But what is that and where does it come from? Is the source worthy of being obeyed?
2) Education. I must have been absent that day. Is that under mathematics or literature?
3) Instilled by parents. Where did the parents get it and how did they instill it? If they're the paragons, do you still place yourself under their authority?
4) From evolution. Christians hear complaints about moral teachings from thousands of years ago; Evolution is a mindless process from millions of years ago; why is it worthy of obedience?
5) It's a social thing. Okay, but how is that different from social customs and tradition? Should we not put society norms to the test of reason?
6) Conscience. See common sense.

I hope some Buddhists will respond.

Can the secular positionstand on its own without reference to being against religion?

As for evolution. Should we not be able to put evolution-inspired behavior to a rational test? For example, if evolution had us jumping off a cliff would we not think about it first?

Education was the literature? Most of the morality in lit I took came with a heavy focus on God, directly or indirectly.

I reject evolution because it is a non-rational process. If we can explain why evolution has given us some good standard for morality then we must be judging it in accordance with some other standard. In that case, forget the evolution standard and let's look at that other standard.

"The reason we accept evolutionary morality as somehow "correct" is not because we can use reason to demonstrate its validity, but because it has had beneficial effects in preserving our species, and those effects continue."

Certainly reason has got to be better than some evolutionary impulse developed millions of years ago. For example, perhaps the evolutionary impulse is to get angry or perhaps run when logic would say that those are not the best solutions. Your answer is anti-rational.

I don't see the Golden Rule as common sense. Check atheist Carl Sagan for his article on his rules. From a secularist point of view, the Golden Rule invites me to amplify my sympathy and empathy to what could be my disadvantage but to everyone else's advantage. Sagan essentially says forget empathy and just do what's best for you.

Battery operated:
Sagan was saying that you can and should use reason to determine if your kindness is going to result in kindness or not from the one you with whom you are dealing. The GR does not make that distinction.

Answer 1

4, 1, 5, and 6.

The basis for moral thought is evolutionary. We have the desire to to good things for others because those desires provide an evolutionary advantage. Because of that evolutionary advantage, we have evolved a conscience that tells us not to do bad things. Society's collective conscience is what dictates common sense morality.

The reason we accept evolutionary morality as somehow "correct" is not because we can use reason to demonstrate its validity, but because it has had beneficial effects in preserving our species, and those effects continue.

Answer 2

1. Common sense says to treat others as you want to be treated. The Golden Rule.
2. Education: This isn't a school subject. It is education by parents and family. Racism is a great example. Some families teach their children it acceptable to hate others while some don’t. That trend has changed a lot in the past century.
3. It isn't about someone else having authority over you. It's about them having taught you right from wrong. Look at the abortion issue. Some say it is right, others say it is wrong. Each person ultimately makes up their own mind.
4. I don't think evolution has anything to do with morality other than the fact that it is the process that gave us the brain capacity we now have.
5. Morals are based on society. Different societies have different morals. There have been times in history when murder, rape, and theft were acceptable within a civilization. Our current world does not accept these things because they are detrimental to the well being and happiness of society as a whole.

Edit:
What you and Sagan think doesn't necessarily dictate the way things are. Many of us use morals for that exact reason. I'm going to treat others well so that they in turn treat me well. If it harm them then I can expect them to harm me.

Answer 3

Morality comes from evolution. Yes, evolution is a mindless process with no foresight, but as we evolved, it was much more beneficiary for us to be nice to one another than to go about murdering and stealing and such.

To say that you are moral only because there is a god watching you with a promise of heaven, is pretty lazy and scary, if you ask me.

Edit:
"As for evolution. Should we not be able to put evolution-inspired behavior to a rational test? For example, if evolution had us jumping off a cliff would we not think about it first?"

Lol. Jumping off cliffs would not be a good survival tool now would it? I'm sure if there were any 'cliff jumpers' they surely died out a long time ago.

Answer 4

Evolution is the most likely drive for morality. You are sort of misunderstanding evolution. Evolution doesn't only drive survival of the fittest attitudes. Humans are a social animal. That means it is better for the individual and the species to work in a social group, rather then work alone. There is a natural drive in most social animals to help and support their families, friends, and social group. Many social animals do have "morals" that are almost always followed. And it isn't from religion.

Answer 5

Morality is an illusion.

We live in an amoral universe - one that creates and destroys basically at random.

As part of that universe, we also have the ability to create and destroy.

The average 'moral' person is just better at hiding their dirty little secrets. 'Good' and 'Evil' are mostly based on perception - since what is 'Good' to one person might be 'Evil' to another.

In short, there is no such thing as morality - and if people choose to be 'good' it is generally based on their society or culture (including their parents, schools, religious institiutions, etc.). Personally, I live by the 'treat people like you want to be treated'. It generally gets you further in life - even though someone who doesn't have any qualms about stepping on people might be able to acquire more money and power.

In the long run, they usually lose. And even if they don't - their lives are hollow, meaningless ones.

I choose the 'morals' that I live by based on what I find to be true. I think that most people just want to live their lives, enjoy time with friends and family. Unfortunately there will always be those who are unhappy - and want to make everyone else unhappy too.

Answer 6

It is from society.

There is little difference between moral standards and customs and traditions. It appears that there is, but we live in a scientific society in the western world, so our customs and traditions are largely based on learning and education. So our moral standards are evolving to support our education and scientific understanding.

The reason we reject racism, isn't religious. Racism is supported in many places in the new and old testament. We reject racism because the theory of a master race is not supported by science.

The same applies to many immoral practices dictated as law in the bible. We don't slaughter unruly children, or non believing relatives, because we understand that killing someone for disbelief is unjust. That moral standard comes from our society, certainly not from the bible.

Unfortunately God, has yet to evolve morally, and still thinks its ok to torture someone for eternity for disbelief, when will he catch up.....

Answer 7

IMMORAL, adj.
Inexpedient. Whatever in the long run and with regard to the greater number of instances men find to be generally inexpedient comes to be considered wrong, wicked, immoral. If man's notions of right and wrong have any other basis than this of expediency; if they originated, or could have originated, in any other way; if actions have in themselves a moral character apart from, and nowise dependent on, their consequences -- then all philosophy is a lie and reason a disorder of the mind.

- Ambrose Bierce

Answer 8

At the root, morality is a term that we apply to a set of behaviors and beliefs that stem from our biology and our particular culture and experience. It is not supernatural and is subjective/relative. It is a akin to personality. Now, I'm sure you, as a believer, would ultimately say that we get our personality from god, but as a rational person, you would also acknowledge that personality is a result of biology, upbringing, culture and so on. Why is it difficult to understand that morality is an aspect of personality and subject to the same conditions? You see it as being something spiritual, while I see is as being something natural.

Answer 9

There were plenty of moralist philosophers out there who didn't involve God in their reasoning. Immanuel Kant simply says that the way you treat people entitles them to treat you the same way, so technically it is just common sense.

Btw, in education, morality is usually covered in literature, or (if your school has these kinds of classes), philosophy. So yeah, you must have been absent quite a lot.

Answer 10

morality arises from the need for people to coexist in a stable, productive environment. as social animals, we crave community, but for community to exist, there must be a set of ground rules by which we interact with each other. if we are allowed to lie, cheat, steal, and kill then there can't be a stable community because there would be no way to trust each other. without some level of trust, we wouldn't be able to interact with each other.