True love for humanity can only come from a "religious" conception of life, as we recognize some divine spark within ourselves which we can love, and recognize that every other person also has this spark within themselves which we can love equally as our own, because it is, in essence, the same. Otherwise, we are working from a version of self-interest, be it for ourselves or extensions of ourselves (family, country, or world...with any moral duty being less strongly felt the further we are removed from ourselves). This self-interested "love" for humanity might be based on genetics and therefore would not always work with regard to treating others equally, as your life and genetics would come first. In a true religious morality a stranger would be of equal importance to one of your own family members. And this moral ideal is rationally recognized as universally desirable since it would eliminate wars, and eventually all types of social problems.
In other words, we want the end result, but we do not want to have anything to do with the vagueness of "faith", but without it we will stagnate in a lower morality and thus a more cruel world.
Comments? Please don't bother with Bible refutations, or attacking church-"christianity", as I will probably agree with you.
True love for humanity can only come from the understanding that dedication to our species instead of a big floating guy with a beard is important. If we are it, the end all of intect, furthering art, music, science, philosophy, and being able to commit acts of true selflessness, without the assistance of a divine creator that allows us to behave in a certian way, then dedication to our own selves as a whole international community is the only real act of truely loving humanity. We are responsible for ourselves.
If god doesn't exist, then selflessness is true and pure, unassisted by a higher power, and only from he mind and heart. It is this ability to put the good of others before yourself that has the potential to could end war and social unrest.
Bottom line, if you need god to be a good person, then believe by all means. You don't have to believe to do good, though, and I'm living proof that you don't need the power of the supernatural to be selfless. Morality doesn't just come from the idea of god. Morality has existed since before we had any knowledge of the judeo-christan god, back when we were hunter/gatheres and moved as packs.
Hi Will, when you say "Morality has existed since before we had any knowledge of the judeo-christan god, back when we were hunter/gatheres and moved as packs."...yes, this is what I was referring to as the "lower morality" that we are stagnating in. The "loyalty to the pack" mentality is what fuels wars, and I think that in order to have a "loyalty to everyone" mentality we would have to have loyalty to our higher spiritual nature. I am not thinking of God in the way you are describing.
Quote from: "Mark_W"Hi Will, when you say "Morality has existed since before we had any knowledge of the judeo-christan god, back when we were hunter/gatheres and moved as packs."...yes, this is what I was referring to as the "lower morality" that we are stagnating in. The "loyalty to the pack" mentality is what fuels wars, and I think that in order to have a "loyalty to everyone" mentality we would have to have loyalty to our higher spiritual nature. I am not thinking of God in the way you are describing.
I have loyalty to everyone, but I don't believe in the certian existence of the supernatural, including god. What I'm saying is my existence negates your theory.
ok, whatever it is in you and in other people that makes you have loyalty to everyone else, call it goodness, or conscience, whatever. I'm not making a case for supernatural beings.
However, you did mention morality in terms of hunter/gatherer societies which makes me think that we're not talking about the same thing. Are you saying that you strive to have *equal* loyalty to everyone?
Quote from: "Mark_W"ok, whatever it is in you and in other people that makes you have loyalty to everyone else, call it goodness, or conscience, whatever. I'm not making a case for supernatural beings.
Not to worry.
Quote from: "Mark_W"However, you did mention morality in terms of hunter/gatherer societies which makes me think that we're not talking about the same thing. Are you saying that you strive to have *equal* loyalty to everyone?
Overall, yes. Loyalty is earned, but everyone gets some loyalty right off the bat. I am loyal to our species and to our planet and to our universe (if we ever have a community that big). My loyalty is to the good of existence. That's my basis of morality. Do good to that around you, whether it be your brother, your enemy, a stranger, or a tree.
ok, when you say "Loyalty is earned, but everyone gets some loyalty right off the bat". This is not exactly striving to have equal loyalty to everyone, but rather making loyalty dependant upon the actions of others. The loyalty I'm talking about is independent of these factors and is unconditional. It cannot be earned by others, but it can be increased within yourself, through your own efforts, and then it will apply to everyone in general.
Quote from: "Mark_W"ok, when you say "Loyalty is earned, but everyone gets some loyalty right off the bat". This is not exactly striving to have equal loyalty to everyone, but rather making loyalty dependant upon the actions of others. The loyalty I'm talking about is independent of these factors and is unconditional. It cannot be earned by others, but it can be increased within yourself, through your own efforts, and then it will apply to everyone in general.
People can't earn or lose your loyalty? Really?
If I were to hypothetically say something like, "Christians have a mental illness and need the help of athiests to get them over their disorder so that they can stop hurting everyone", you'd still be loyal to me? Or what if I hypothetically got your sister pregnant and left. Would you still be loyal to me?
I hope I would still be loyal to you, yes.
The main problem that I have with most religions is that they have a buildin tendency to be intolerant towards people who don't follow their rules and thoughts. This is not what I would call "True love for humanity".
Morality can only be judged by the actions of people, not what they believe in. Basing your morality only on religion can be very dangerous, because it basically means that you can do anything immoral as long as you got the approval of a hypothical creature or find your justification in a holy book. Therefore I like Isaac Asimov's quote "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. " very much.
that is the main problem I have with most religions too, they get perverted and turned into authoritative rules that people must follow or else. So please try to conceive of the religion that I'm talking about without lumping it in with everything you despise, as I despise the same things you do.
Your entire response is based on a conception of religion which includes "holy books", superstitions, and immoral authority. I agree that all this is bad, and this is not what my original post is about.
I think that my previous posting is valid. Your idea of a good religion sounds like an interesting concept but it would never work in the real world, because it would be impossible to bring the "divine spark" over to all people. Furthermore your good religion would most likely fall in the same traps (that I'd mentioned in my previous posting) as all other religions. I truly believe that it is better to leave religion and "divine sparks" out of the morality "equation". People can have lower or higher morals, independent of whether they are religious or not.
QuoteIn a true religious morality a stranger would be of equal importance to one of your own family members.
That is asking a lot. I think it is very reasonable to be kind to strangers and help with good and just causes that help the human species, but I am going to put my family and friends first. I can't imagine the torment that would ensue if everyone around you was as important to you as your family. Living through family ups and downs can be tragic enough. Say your sister needed a kidney and you could donate. That seems like it would be a very easy decision, but there are thousands of needed kidneys out there, and if everyone is equal to you how would you make a choice?
A good thought, but...I think the only thing that will ever bind everyone to the good of humanity is if we get into a war with another planet.
well, with kidney transplants there is the genetic factor. It being better for someone to have a kidney from one of their closest relatives, so that the kidney won't be rejected in the new body. But you do bring up a good point, perhaps we should donate our kidneys to strangers, I realize this is a tall order, but it can still be an ideal.
I don't think "loyalty" is the right term for the source of morality. I think it stems from sympathy, the ability to impress upon ourselves the suffering we see in others, and the ability to feel joy when helping others.
That is the true source of our morality.
Quotewell, with kidney transplants there is the genetic factor. It being better for someone to have a kidney from one of their closest relatives, so that the kidney won't be rejected in the new body.
Obviously. I think we all understand tissue rejection issues here, but people can accept from perfect strangers. It's what makes heart and other organ transplants possible. Usually family members don't donate hearts to other family members...unless that car crash is extremely well-timed.
I'm glad you understand my point, but I don't see the benefit of donating to a perfect stranger over family members. It's still one life. You're family member is a stranger to someone else.
Quote from: "BGMA"I don't think "loyalty" is the right term for the source of morality. I think it stems from sympathy, the ability to impress upon ourselves the suffering we see in others, and the ability to feel joy when helping others.
That is the true source of our morality.
I think so too. We can spend all day discussing purely rational reasons for why someone should act morally. But when it boils down to situations where you could easily get away with doing something wrong what keeps you from doing it is empathy.
Quote from: "Mark_W"well, with kidney transplants there is the genetic factor. It being better for someone to have a kidney from one of their closest relatives, so that the kidney won't be rejected in the new body. But you do bring up a good point, perhaps we should donate our kidneys to strangers, I realize this is a tall order, but it can still be an ideal.
It's not that important that the donor and recipient be related. HLA matching is what you want to look at (matching specific antigens), regardless of family relation. Antirejection meds help with imperfect matches as well.
But that is veering off of the subject! LOL!
Good discussion on morals, empathy, and social interaction.
impaledskier, when you say "... I don't see the benefit of donating to a perfect stranger over family members."...I don't either, this is not what I was originally advocating. I am simply saying that the ideal is to donate to whoever needs one, regardless of who they are, family or not.
laetusatheos, I also agree that sympathy or compassion would be better terms to use in this case than loyalty. However we do need the rational outlook on what we should do; and we shouldn't contradict ourselves in the theoretical, if we do then, at best, we will fall shorter of what we will do in practice, or at worst, do the completely wrong thing, thinking it is the moral decision.
Quote from: "Mark_W"I am simply saying that the ideal is to donate to whoever needs one, regardless of who they are, family or not.
Ah, I think this is the key to understanding "morals". The key is in ideals. What are they, and why are they? And more importantly: What happens when they change? The whole concept of the ideal is placing a target we can all shoot for, right? We know few, if any will achieve it, but it's important for maintaining general morality. As an example, let's look at the ideal of marriage. This ideal would seem to go against a Darwinian model of males knocking up as many females as possible. Yet the structure of an unbroken home provides invaluable social stability. Not all marriages end up as the ideal, and our current climate of make-your-own-morality and don't-be-ashamed-of-anything has led us to denigrate the marriage ideal.
Hrm… just some thoughts.