Morals....

[Asherah]

I know you all have probably talked about this topic many times. I couldn't find anything going through the search function. So, I'm just going to ask. I'm sure many have heard about various tribes who have horrible practices such as: clitorectimy for women to keep them from cheating; when a girl starts her period, put her in a tent at the edge of the village and rape her until she gets pregnant, then she can come back home; man/boy sexual relations, etc. So, hopefully, we all find these acts appalling and morally wrong. But, these tribes think it's fine. So, if they think these actions are fine, then how can I tell them they are wrong? If there is no objective morality....than I really can't say that anything some else is doing is wrong. All I can really say is I think it's wrong. This is very unsettling to me. I want certain things to be wrong for everyone.

Now, what about less horrible "sins". Like, I'm pro-life. I think it is morally wrong to have an abortion and I think that the government should protect the unborn. I also think that looking at porn and making porn for others (except your partner  ) is wrong. I think having multiple partners in a sexual relationship is wrong. I think having sex outside of a committed, loving, relationship is wrong. Etc.... And, I KNOW that many of you will disagree with my values. And, that's fine. I don't want to argue whether something I believe to be wrong might be okay with you.

Why do I have these values that I think are wrong for everyone, but other people think completely differently? How can I tell my kids that this is "right" and that is "wrong". I know that I can rationalize my positions. But, if nothing is wrong outside of our own minds, then is anything really wrong?

Do I have to become completely liberal to be atheist?  I don't know.....may I should run for the hills...LOL...just kidding 

[xSilverPhinx]

Have you seen Stevils threads on why "right" and "wrong" don't exist? 

In my opinion the best we can do is rationalise and persuade others that we're right and they're wrong. I know what I think is wrong, you know what you think is wrong - not much really to do other than talk on how I would like to be treated and you would like to be treated.

The examples of cultural differences of those tribes you listed are wrong because they do harm others, and don't respect those victims' freedom and choices.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'm wondering how I got a near perfect score in reading comprehension on the ACT and failed to comprehend the entirety of the above post. Let's try this again...

It depends on the reason's behind those views. I have heard some valid arguments against abortion, and I'm still unsure if an unborn child constitutes life. Regardless of my not knowing, a woman should decide what is allowed to develop in her body.

To skip ahead, I think you should rationalize why something is wrong. If you can't justify the reasons behind something being wrong, it's a clear indication your view may be nothing more than a pleasant feeling. 

Edited completely.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Do I have to become completely liberal to be atheist?  I don't know.....may I should run for the hills...LOL...just kidding 

I don't think it's a matter of becoming a liberal, I think it's a matter of challenging assumptions.

And yes, sorry, I do think you listed some assumptions there that should probably be challenged. Being an atheist means that you don't get an "easy way out" for defending a position. You don't get to point to the bible and say "because God said so". You have to pick an argument apart, defend it, analyze it. Even if it's your own argument.

So it can be unsettling, but it's important work, I think. If the world is ever going to come to any kind of consensus on some of the "big issues", it's going to come from a place of rationality, not from a vague sense of morality.

My two cents, anyway.

[Whitney]

In societies where a certain gender or class of person can be acceptably treated poorly it is because that gender/class is considered less than the real members of society.  All societal morals boil down to actions that are for mutual benefit of members of that society.  Since we are all human, acceptable morals tend to be similar across societies if they are boiled down to basics...ie don't do things that harm your society.  So, there is a basis for morals; it's just not black and white.  I can judge that a society which allows the lawful rape of women to be wrong because they obviously have discounted the value women can add to their society as equal contributors and their society is worse off for it...so they have a broken moral system that will only work as long as the women put up with it (and history has told us that eventually women, or other mistreated groups, rise up and say enough is enough)

Anyway, you don't have to be liberal to be an atheist...you can have all sorts of conservative views and still not believe in god; but it doesn't mean you'd be right about those conservative views. 

Really, I think that your idea that government should force women to carry babies they don't want is troubling...there isn't a shortage of people (so there is no reason for government to be forcing more babies to exist) and preventing women from being able to keep medical choices between themselves and their doctors is a infringement on women's freedom...most abortions occur by taking an pill that forces a miscarriage well before the developing cells become a fetus and let's not forget about rape and medically necessary abortions.  Way more harm is done by government meddling in abortion decisions than good is done...I'm not even sure what the good is since it's not like elective late term abortions are common enough to even worry about.

Unless there is concern for those employed by the porn industry...I can't think of any reason why that would be wrong.  It's not like looking at porn causes anyone to cheat who wouldn't otherwise do so.  Considering that sperm comes in different types; some of them to kill of foreign sperm and the human penis is shaped in a way to help scrape out sperm too...there isn't even a reason to think that humans are naturally monogamous.  Monogamy is just what some societies have decided is ideal and that's probably because we've moved away from the tribal approach to child rearing.  If we had a tribe ready to help take care of new members there wouldn't be a need for society to want couples to stay together for long periods of time.  I haven't read this book yet but attended a lecture related to it (through which I learned about the penis shape thing...it was not a lecture for prudes lol); it goes over how religion has distorted sex http://www.amazon.com/Sex-God-Religion-Distorts-Sexuality/dp/0970950543 Darrell Ray has lots of other books too and is a real down to earth intelligent person...one of the few approachable atheists celebs out there (probably because he doesn't seem to really view himself as a celebrity).  To the same end...I don't think multiple partners is wrong either; it just needs to be mutual....personally, I find one to be enough to manage and can't imagine trying to balance a third person (especially since society's views would make it even more difficult to manage).  I do think that having sex outside a committed relationship is wrong...but it's wrong because it breaks trust, not because it's bad in general (like is done in open relationships).


oh and moving this to the philosophy section since it doesn't have much directly to do with religion.

[Too Few Lions]

As long as no-one's being hurt or killed I think everything's ok.
Abortion's a personal choice, and who am I or anyone else to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies? Same thing goes for casual sex and porn, I don't see anything wrong with either. Porn is just people being naked or having sex (both wholly natural ordinary things) but it's being photographed or filmed. Why should that somehow make it immoral or wrong? Same thing goes for polyamory between consenting adults.

Personally, I like the idea that life isn't black and white and it's all far more shades of grey. But hell, I'm an atheist and a liberal! For me both are the default worldview, it's the way I naturally am. I think the idea of objective morality is highly dangerous, it's resulted in countless thousands of people being persecuted, incarcerated, tortured and murdered for not living by set dictates. Plus who decides what constitutes 'objective morality'? No-one can, what we invariably end up with is people claiming their god dictates objective morality, which is just an extension of peoples' personal subjective morality masquerading as something more. I don't think there is anything as objective morality, just controlling pent-up religious people who claim there is to justify their own personal prejudices.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with you or anyone else being uncomfortable with abortion, casual sex, porn or polyamory, just also accept that those things aren't morally wrong to plenty of people, and neither should they be. It's a subjective personal choice, and nobody's right or wrong.

The only real morality you need is don't go out to hurt anyone else.

Is it so bad to be a liberal? I find it a lot of fun!

[Sandra Craft]

Well, I'll go to what I think is the meat of it first:

I know that I can rationalize my positions. But, if nothing is wrong outside of our own minds, then is anything really wrong?

I'm not sure it's possible not to rationalize, and as pack animals we hardly live entirely inside our own minds so we reach a certain degree of consensus in our societies, and the more different societies interact, the more they start sharing views and values.  It seems only the isolated groups are really out there morally in comparison to the rest of us.  So, yes, I do think there is a right and wrong outside our own heads but I also think it's subjective, based on whetever society we belong to, and that's an unavoidable result of how morality develops.  

So, if they think these actions are fine, then how can I tell them they are wrong? If there is no objective morality....than I really can't say that anything some else is doing is wrong. All I can really say is I think it's wrong. This is very unsettling to me. I want certain things to be wrong for everyone.

That would simplify things but let's face it, people have never been simple and never will be.  

Now, what about less horrible "sins". Like, I'm pro-life. I think it is morally wrong to have an abortion and I think that the government should protect the unborn. I also think that looking at porn and making porn for others (except your partner  ) is wrong. I think having multiple partners in a sexual relationship is wrong. I think having sex outside of a committed, loving, relationship is wrong. Etc.... And, I KNOW that many of you will disagree with my values. And, that's fine. I don't want to argue whether something I believe to be wrong might be okay with you.

Well, aside from also thinking abortion morally wrong (tho not being opposed to its being legal), I would disagree with you on everything else.  This is where consenus breaks down to allow more personal leeway, and that's fine with me.  The only time I care about other peoples moral opinions is when they try to turn their personal morality into laws that everyone must live by.  Obviously, I'm refering to things that are only moral issues (such as having multiple sex partners) and not things that are based in practical considerations and are coincidentally also moral issues (such as murder, or theft, etc).

Why do I have these values that I think are wrong for everyone, but other people think completely differently?

Because we're all individuals, and individuals are different from one another -- sometimes very different.  Like I wrote above, humans are never simple.

How can I tell my kids that this is "right" and that is "wrong".

Because that's your opinion and those are your kids and you're entitled to raise them according to your own moral values.  Just like everyone else does.

Do I have to become completely liberal to be atheist?  

I'm not, I don't see why you should.

Personally, I like the idea that life isn't black and white and it's all far more shades of grey. But hell, I'm an atheist and a liberal! For me both are the default worldview, it's the way I naturally am. I think the idea of objective morality is highly dangerous, it's resulted in countless thousands of people being persecuted, incarcerated, tortured and murdered for not living by set dictates. Plus who decides what constitutes 'objective morality'? No-one can, what we invariably end up with is people claiming their god dictates objective morality, which is just an extension of peoples' personal subjective morality masquerading as something more. I don't think there is anything as objective morality, just controlling pent-up religious people who claim there is to justify their own personal prejudices.

Completely agree, esp. in liking life for not being black and white.  More difficult, but also much more interesting.

[Whitney]

What I think it interesting about the idea of morality is that so many people think they have to be objective in order to be practical or rational...if morality is understood for what it is, a subjective set of evolving rules developed to help society function optimally, then it's a lot easier to make sense of what ought to be considered right or wrong and what ought not to considered either right or wrong.

[DeterminedJuliet]

What I think it interesting about the idea of morality is that so many people think they have to be objective in order to be practical or rational...if morality is understood for what it is, a subjective set of evolving rules developed to help society function optimally, then it's a lot easier to make sense of what ought to be considered right or wrong and what ought not to considered either right or wrong.

Agreed. I think that people often fall into the trap where they think, in order for an argument to be valid, it has to be rooted in some kind of accessible, objective universal truth. "Universal truth" is its own philosophical debate, but when it comes to whether we should actually DO A vs. B, it's almost irrelevant a lot of the time. I think building a consensus based on the real world functioning of society is a pretty worthy view of morality.

In other words, you can argue a position without making that claim that you are always, objectively, universally right.

[Asherah]

I've been told many times by people to try to see the grays in life. I am such a black and white thinker that I have to actively make myself see the gray. I really don't like it. For some reason, I want things to be black and white because somehow that seems more simple. When things start getting too complex, my head hurts LOL.  Thanks for all the responses. I'm going to work on seeing the gray......

On another note, I definitely don't think that the Bible sets a good moral example. I'm sure we can all agree on that. And, I've also noticed that when people think something is immoral and it conflicts with what the Bible says (such as spanking, or leaving your family for Jesus, homosexuality is wrong, etc), they tend to reinterpret the verses in order to make the Bible fit their moral view. Then they say that the Bible teaches great morals. So, that is as huge indicator for me that we don't need to point to a book to find morality. But, I have to admit that it would be nice to say that something is right or wrong because the book says so! It's so much easier than thinking! 

So, back to thinking about what my morals are and why.....who knows? maybe I'll change my views....

[DeterminedJuliet]

I've been told many times by people to try to see the grays in life. I am such a black and white thinker that I have to actively make myself see the gray. I really don't like it. For some reason, I want things to be black and white because somehow that seems more simple. When things start getting too complex, my head hurts LOL.  Thanks for all the responses. I'm going to work on seeing the gray......

I used to be a very Black & White thinker (actually, if I could debate with the me of ten years ago, I'm sure it would make me shudder now - I thought I had EVERYTHING figured out). It took a lot of head-hurting to get my mind around the fact that I didn't/probably couldn't have the answers to a lot of things.

[Stevil]

I've been exploring the idea of morality a lot lately.

To get the record straight, I don't believe in morality. I think it is a make believe human made concept. You cannot test for it and you cannot measure it. It is simply a way of categorising human actions into good (right), bad (wrong) and neutral. The thing is, when we start categorising, we all tend to have different lists. There certainly is no absolute standard of right and wrong, so when we categorise, we are using different standards to do this. Some people use the golden rule, others a perception of what humanism is, others use the teachings of the enlightenment of Buddha, others use the teachings of Mohammad, others the teachings of Jesus and others the teachings of the Old Testament, etc.

I guess, people by and large have a desire to be good. The problem is that there is no way of telling what is good from what is bad. I feel this is a driving force behind why people take up religion. They quickly learn that the definition of good differs from person to person hence they realise that they cannot trust themselves and hence they look to the wise. However the problem with the wise is that one wise person's morality differs from anothers. Human defined morality is a problem in that one person's morality is no better or no worse than another's. Thousands of years old religion that claims to know what is good, inspired by a perfect and all good deity becomes a compelling guide. If a person chooses to believe in the deity and believe in the specific religion then their problem of defining good goes away, thus they can now work towards being a good person.

An atheist doesn't have the deity option. An atheist looking for morality must either look for a principle, a wise person/organisation or must trust themselves.

The dangerous side to belief in morality is that morality doesn't stop at the self. Morality leads towards judgement of others, as people are now making bold claims as to whether others are acting morally or immorally. If a person stopped at only the self, they would be defining their own personal values rather than morality. Once people go down that dangerous path of moral judgement of others, they then look to enforce moral rules on others, so they put this into law.

Morality based law will result in oppression, which will result in conflict, which will result in danger for those living within that moral based society.
All religious wars are due to an insistence of pushing a flavour of morality onto others.

I am a strong proponent for defining a clear and specific goal for law. I would rather law act towards creating a stable and functional society rather than a moral one. With this goal in mind it would be hard to justify law against homosexuality, or polygomy, or pornography, or prostitution, or euthanasia, or against religious freedom. You don't have to agree with these things, you would just have to realise that it isn't your place to prevent others from doing them.

[Asherah]

But, in order to have a stable society, you have to have moral laws to some degree. I'm sure we can all agree that murder and theft are morally wrong. So, you obviously mean that there should be moral laws that provide a consequence for people who choose to hurt other people. But, if no one is getting hurt and all involved are consenting adults, then there should be no laws in those instances? (homosexuality, porn, polygamy, etc).

I think it's wrong kill. However, it's not universally wrong, it's just wrong to me and most societies. I can rationalize it by saying that you shouldn't do anything that hurts another person. But, why shouldn't I hurt another person? I guess the answer would be because it's not good for society as a whole. That sucks. I want killing to be bad for everyone. I want there to be some omnipotent being that says "that's wrong".

What about someone who is a child molester, looks at child porn, and/or makes it. I want that to be wrong!!!!!!!! I know that we protect children for the good of our society and they are innocent without the ability to consent, etc. But, I can just imagine trying to talk to someone who does that sort of thing and hear them say "There's nothing wrong with this. It's wrong for you, not for me. You think it's bad for society and that society won't function well with folks doing these things? People are involved in this stuff all the time. It's rampant. And, our society isn't falling apart." It infuriates me that I can't say that's wrong for everyone because there's someone or something 'out there' that says it's wrong. That this might be okay for some people. I feel like I'm about to throw up.......blah. 

[DeterminedJuliet]

There seem to be two threads going on about this at the same time, I just wrote a post about child molesters and morality here that's relevant.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9143.msg160771#msg160771

[Sandra Craft]

But, in order to have a stable society, you have to have moral laws to some degree.

I disagree.  I think laws only need to be based on practicality, protecting persons and property; that those laws may also intersect with morality is coincidental.

I think it's wrong kill. However, it's not universally wrong, it's just wrong to me and most societies. I can rationalize it by saying that you shouldn't do anything that hurts another person. But, why shouldn't I hurt another person?

Because it sets a dangerous precedent.  I sure don't want to live in a society where that sort of thing goes unpunished, or where I'm left to my own devices in dealing with it. 

What about someone who is a child molester, looks at child porn, and/or makes it. I want that to be wrong!!!!!!!! I know that we protect children for the good of our society and they are innocent without the ability to consent, etc. But, I can just imagine trying to talk to someone who does that sort of thing and hear them say "There's nothing wrong with this. It's wrong for you, not for me. You think it's bad for society and that society won't function well with folks doing these things? People are involved in this stuff all the time. It's rampant. And, our society isn't falling apart." It infuriates me that I can't say that's wrong for everyone because there's someone or something 'out there' that says it's wrong.

There is something out there that says it's wrong -- other people, society as a whole.  We aren't chopped liver, you know.  You can't control other peoples feelings and desires, and personally I wouldn't want to.  Can't really control other societies either.  Restricting and punishing actions amongst our own is as much as it's possible to get.  Be glad we have that.