Moral/Immoral behavior

[Rockon]

Ok,

I guess this has gone around before, but I couldn't find any other thread where it was discussed...so here goes:

I'm intrigued by the recent talk about moral behavior (or perhaps morality in general) in Randi's recent commentaries. Last week (I think) he said that he is insulted when religious people question the source of his morality..as though you have to be religious to be moral. This week, the topic was raised again in the letter from Eric Carpenter.

As far as I can tell, (and I haven't done a ton of reading on it, so I hope to get educated here) there is no way of establishing a moral code without some kind of higher authority. Or, perhaps I should say, in the absence of some kind of authority, one person's goodness is another person's evil. So in the case of a secular country, it's local custom and law that attempts to define (or at least limit) what is moral or ethical behavior. Two different secular countries could have widely differing views on the subject. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the moral code that Randi happens to live by is necessarily "good." He just happens to live that way. (Or he has happened to evolve that way.)

So why would Randi be "insulted" when someone asks him where his moral behavior derives from? In other words, he seems awfully proud that he adheres to what could be described as a religious ethos without the need for religion. But why should he be proud? What's so great about a (roughly) Christian morality if you're not a Christian?

Tim

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon

So why would Randi be "insulted" when someone asks him where his moral behavior derives from? In other words, he seems awfully proud that he adheres to what could be described as a religious ethos without the need for religion. But why should he be proud? What's so great about a (roughly) Christian morality if you're not a Christian?

Well Rockon, you could describe it as a "religious ethos", but then aren't you falling beforehand into the very trap you are trying to objectively discuss? The questioner is implying that without the threat of eternal damnation and the promise of eternal reward, a person cannot be moral. In short, he is calling Randi a barbarian. This is both insulting and preposterous.

We could have a discussion about how morality can differ from culture to culture (of course it does), but the people we are talking about belief that morality comes directly from their favourite divinity, and these people are hard to reason with.

I will relate an episode that I personally experienced. I bought some stuff at a supermarket. During checkout, I was undercharged. I mentioned this to the clerk, and offered to correct it. The person behind me in line said "Must be a Christian". I felt insulted. Would you say that I was wrong in that feeling?

Cheers,

[BillyJoe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon
As far as I can tell.....there is no way of establishing a moral code without some kind of higher authority. Or, perhaps I should say, in the absence of some kind of authority, one person's goodness is another person's evil.

One person's goodness: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
....Another person's evil: Do unto others and split.

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Well Rockon, you could describe it as a "religious ethos", but then aren't you falling beforehand into the very trap you are trying to objectively discuss? The questioner is implying that without the threat of eternal damnation and the promise of eternal reward, a person cannot be moral. In short, he is calling Randi a barbarian. This is both insulting and preposterous.

The real issue is whether or not there can be an objective morality. A fundamentalist might say, "I don't know if there's an objective morality or not, but if I don't act a certain way, I'm gonna be punished, so I better behave." A more moderate religious person might say, "Objective morality is defined by the creator of the universe. So even though I don't really want to behave this way, if I want to be moral I have no choice."

In most countries, there are mutually agreed upon laws that govern the moral behavior that is very similar to the fundamentalist perspective: "I don't know if I agree with this law, but if I get caught breaking it, I'm gonna be punished, so I guess I'll be a good boy."

In the case of a religious person, the authority to enforce (or define morality) comes from the creator of the universe (supposedly). In the case of a non-religious person the authority comes from the court system in place for that culture. If the court system does not claim jurisdiction, then there is no authority for moral behavior...at least as far as I can tell.

Quote:

We could have a discussion about how morality can differ from culture to culture (of course it does), but the people we are talking about belief that morality comes directly from their favourite divinity, and these people are hard to reason with.

I think this is the crux of the argument. Where does the morality of a non-religious person come from? If there is no authority guiding moral or ethical behavior beyond what is "inside a person," so to speak, then isn't it rather random? Or, more to the point, isn't Randi a product of his environment just like everyone else? Isn't his sense of morality largely based on the Judeo-Christian ethics of the culture he grew up in? If so, then taking pride in his morality is pretty silly.

Quote:

I will relate an episode that I personally experienced. I bought some stuff at a supermarket. During checkout, I was undercharged. I mentioned this to the clerk, and offered to correct it. The person behind me in line said "Must be a Christian". I felt insulted. Would you say that I was wrong in that feeling?

I guess it depends on your view of what the person was trying to say. i.e. "Must be a deluded numbskull" is pretty insulting. OTOH, "Must be a selfless and giving person" is a nice compliment. If I had been in your shoes, I probably would have just smiled at the person and said, "No, not a Christian. Just a nice guy."

More generally, if I understand you right, you felt insulted because it was implied that your "Christian behavior" was assumed to be motivated by Christianity. That implies that you think Christian behavior is worthy of praise. Why should that be if you're not a Christian? I mean, there *are* people that are a*holes about stuff like this. A religious person might say, "Those people are challenging the authority of the creator of the universe." If you're non-religious, you can call them an a*hole because they don't act like you, but so what? They could just as easily (and with equal validity) consider you an a*hole or foolish for *your* behavior. In other words, (and please don't be insulted, I'm trying to be logical about this) morality without authority is meaningless.

Tim

"morality without authority is meaningless."

Not to be dense, but could you explain this more clearly? I don't see how this follows.

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lost Sailor
"morality without authority is meaningless."

Not to be dense, but could you explain this more clearly? I don't see how this follows.

Oh, you're not being dense. I'm not sure I understand exactly what I'm saying myself.

Anyway, maybe a better way to say it is that there is no such thing as morality without authority. In a secular society, the best judgement you could make about a citizen would be based on how law abiding they were. Any other judgement is meaningless (or insignificant) because there is no authority to back it up.

So Eric Carpenter "chooses" to be moral. Well, he could just as easily "choose" not to be. If he has no authority (except perhaps the police) to base his decision on, then why would anyone expect him to choose wisely, so to speak? Or, more importantly, why should he be insulted when someone wants to know how he came to make that choice?

Tim

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon

So Eric Carpenter "chooses" to be moral. Well, he could just as easily "choose" not to be.

I get this alright...


If he has no authority (except perhaps the police) to base his decision on, then why would anyone expect him to choose wisely, so to speak?

And why would anyone expect him to choose unwisely?

Or, more importantly, why should he be insulted when someone wants to know how he came to make that choice?

Tim

I suppose that in my case., I find it insulting because it usually comes off as "I know why I'm a moral person. God commands. But what makes you think you're moral without belief in my god?"
Such questions often come from a smug sense of superiority, or seem to, and therein lies the problem.

Why can moral behavior not come from the self? Why does it require any special backing? Interesting questions...

[CurtC]

So what are you reading that tells you that there is no morality without authority? Is this the writing of Jerry Falwell? I think that it would be pretty universal that "moral" generally means that you're getting along with others in society - not killing them, stealing from them, etc.

I gather that you're religious. Let's say you wake up tomorrow and realize that, with the lack of evidence for any diety, and the fact that the worship of dieties throughout history can so easily be explained by human nature, that you couldn't believe that a diety really exists. Would you suddenly find it acceptable to murder, rape, steal, and cheat? Is your diety the only thing holding you back? That's pretty scary.

[Denise]

IMHO, long before there was Christianity, or Islam there were human communities. Human tribes who had to live by rules so as to be successful as a tribe. Gorillas and other primates also live by rules, by social constraints. I think they probably don't believe in a diety. We are social beings and we tend to conform to the rules of our group, it has nothing to do with a god.

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
So what are you reading that tells you that there is no morality without authority?

I'm not reading any one. I'm making it up. I find the issue fascinating.

Quote:

I gather that you're religious. Let's say you wake up tomorrow and realize that, with the lack of evidence for any diety, and the fact that the worship of dieties throughout history can so easily be explained by human nature, that you couldn't believe that a diety really exists. Would you suddenly find it acceptable to murder, rape, steal, and cheat? Is your diety the only thing holding you back? That's pretty scary.

Whether or not I'm religious is irrelevant to the discussion, but anyway.... If I woke up tomorrow absolutely, positively, and without any question in my mind that there was no god, then probably nothing much would change, because I was raised to believe that those things are bad. Actually, I don't know how much of it is from my upbringing or is part of a taboo that was there when I was born. I know that I don't like to see people suffer.

The point (if there is one) is that it shouldn't be scary (or at least surprising) at all that some people might rape, murder and steal if there is no real authority to provide a moral principal. After all, it is by no means a proven fact that altruism is good for anything. Most species survive (and thrive) by being amoral: Mother Nature is a b*tch, right? And we certainly are full of impulses that, left unchecked, could lead to stealing, murder, etc. The animal kingdom is full of examples of all those seemingly horrible acts. We're just another species in the animal kingdom, right? So why not?

The fact that you think it's scary implies a value judgement on these acts. What are you using as the yardstick for that judgement? Peer pressure? Your upbringing? What?

Tim

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Denise
IMHO, long before there was Christianity, or Islam there were human communities. Human tribes who had to live by rules so as to be successful as a tribe. Gorillas and other primates also live by rules, by social constraints. I think they probably don't believe in a diety. We are social beings and we tend to conform to the rules of our group, it has nothing to do with a god.

I disagree. I think the moral principles that we guide ourselves by are strongly influenced by religious values.

For example, let's pretend you're an athiest and you have some children. Are you going to teach them the golden rule or are you going to teach them to be ruthlessly selfish? Without any moral authority as a guide, either approach is equally valid.

Tim

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon

I disagree. I think the moral principles that we guide ourselves by are strongly influenced by religious values.

For example, let's pretend you're an athiest and you have some children. Are you going to teach them the golden rule or are you going to teach them to be ruthlessly selfish? Without any moral authority as a guide, either approach is equally valid.
Tim

Here's a link on The Golden Rule. Note that it exists in a wide variety of human cultures with vastly different religious beliefs and practices. I would have to posit that this supports Denise's contention that morality precedes religion.

Man is a social animal.

BTW Rockon, have you read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker? I don't think it supports your position that without divine authority, morality is absolutely relative.

[CurtC]

Quote:

Rockon wrote:
I know that I don't like to see people suffer.

So do you not like to see people suffer because your god commanded you to not like that? Not liking to see people suffer is pretty close to the core of what most of us think of as morality. Don't murder, rape, steal, cheat, because it makes someone else less happy, more miserable.

Yet when you made this comment, it sounded like it somehow exists in you already, not that it's forced on you by god. Could it be that our brains are hardwired for morality, therefore it's not completely relative without an authority?

For some strange reason (I'm an atheist with children), I have a strong sense not to harm others. Yet I don't have any fear of being cast into eternal flames upon my death.

[BillyJoe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon
After all, it is by no means a proven fact that altruism is good for anything.

Nothing is ever proven in science but there is a lot of evidence for altruism being advantageous to the "selfish gene". You are much more likely to show altruism towards your relatives than someone you don't know and, let's fact it, towards your own race than another race.

[Rockon]

QUOTE]Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Here's a link on The Golden Rule. Note that it exists in a wide variety of human cultures with vastly different religious beliefs and practices. I would have to posit that this supports Denise's contention that morality precedes religion.
[/quote]
Thanks for that link...I'll check it out.

Quote:

BTW Rockon, have you read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker? I don't think it supports your position that without divine authority, morality is absolutely relative.

I haven't read "The Blank Slate..." I'll put it on the list.

I haven't meant to imply that you need divine authority (or religion) to define morality or make it meaningful. And I'm certainly not trying to imply that religious people are more "moral" than anyone else. (No one has accused me of that, but I just wanted to say it for the record, just in case.) But if you aren't going to use divine authority (real or not) for the basis of your morality, then where does the morality originate from? Why should Randi (or any other atheist) be insulted when someone asks how they build their moral framework?

Now, I suppose I am kind of making the point that if there is no authoritative source (regardless of it's origin) for the moral framework, then the moral principals that Randi lives by could be described as "Randi's Morality," and Eric Carpenter lives by "Eric Carpenter's Morality," and I might live according to "Rockon's Morality," all of which are essentially meaningless. Sure, we might all agree on some of the more fundamental taboos such as murder, rape, incest, etc. But there are a lot of other moral questions/issues that are essentially undefined.

Tim

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon
I haven't meant to imply that you need divine authority (or religion) to define morality or make it meaningful. And I'm certainly not trying to imply that religious people are more "moral" than anyone else. [/b]

On the first point, you seem to want to flirt with that insinuation, rather than take a clear stance one way or the other.

On the second point, I'm glad of it, and I'm sure you realize that there are a lot of people wh do think that religion is the only valid basis for morality, and these people have caused a great deal of trouble for people who differ with them over the ages.

[bignickel]

Anyways, to boil down my entire posting (after losing most of it yesterday. Grr!):

Ask a presumptuous Xtian (as opposed to a humble one): If God in the New Testiment said that rape was something all men should do (not to one's enemies, but to 'spread the seed' or other such nonsense), would it be moral to rape?

The Xtian will hem and haw and try to get out of the question. Don't let them. Eventually they will admit that that if that was the case, they wouldn't be Xtians. And thus, morality isn't dictacted by religion.

Occasionally you might run into someone who actually said yes. One type will realize how ridiculous this is as soon as they say it. They'll reflect on it later, and try to reconcile this with their faith. They may never mention this to you, as their pride prevents them from doing so.

The second type won't think it ridiculous at all. They are also known as psychopaths.

The problem for you is figuring out which type you're dealing with.

[CurtC]

Quote:

Rockon wrote:
Sure, we might all agree on some of the more fundamental taboos such as murder, rape, incest, etc. But there are a lot of other moral questions/issues that are essentially undefined.

Which ones?

I guess by saying that there are "fundamental taboos," you're coming around to our way of thinking. No murder, stealing, cheating, assaulting, threatening to assault, etc. Raise your kids so that they grow up to be able to take care of themselves and be moral. Help others when you can.

So which aspects of morality does that leave? Graven images? Having no gods before [the big one]? Remembering the sabbath, and making it holy? I'll concede that without some authority, these particular items are relative. I don't consider them to be in the domain of "morality."

[Soapy Sam]

It seems to me that morality is just individual survival behaviour in a herd context. The biggest danger to a human is from other humans. Incurring the wrath of the group is apt to have a negative effect on one's survival and reproductive success. Moral behaviour enables you to fit your environment.

There is nothing absolute about it. It is wholly relative to the society you are in. Is a Muslim in Saudi Arabia with three wives behaving immorally? Of course not. But what if he moves from Riyadh to live in London?

I see no need for a higher authority than peer pressure. Moral behaviour is what society says it is. It is impossible for a solitary man on a desert island to commit an immoral act, unless his actions can reach out to affect others. The worst he can do is kill himself, which is entirely his business.

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
Which ones?

I guess by saying that there are "fundamental taboos," you're coming around to our way of thinking. No murder, stealing, cheating, assaulting, threatening to assault, etc. Raise your kids so that they grow up to be able to take care of themselves and be moral. Help others when you can.

Who is "our?" You part of some strange Illuminati?

Quote:

So which aspects of morality does that leave?

How about cheating on your taxes?

Tim

[CurtC]

1. By "our," I meant me, arcticpenguin, BillyJoe, Lost Sailor, denise, bignickel, and Soapy Sam. First person, plural.

2. I said "cheating" in my list of universal immorals.

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
1. By "our," I meant me, arcticpenguin, BillyJoe, Lost Sailor, denise, bignickel, and Soapy Sam. First person, plural.

2. I said "cheating" in my list of universal immorals.

But lots of people cheat (at least on their taxes), so clearly it's not a universal immoral. Lots of people also steal, lie, assault, etc. Are they immoral? You or I might say so. With what authority do we speak?

Also, consider some controversial issues such as abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment and prostitution (just to name a few.) How do you decide if any of these activities are moral or not? Guess? Make it up as you go along? As long as it's legal it's moral? Isn't it possible that two athiests would disagree on the morality of, say, prostitution? Eric Carpenter says he "chooses" to be moral. Ok, what did he choose in regard to prostitution and how does he know it was a moral choice? I don't understand why Randi would be insulted by that line of questioning.

Here's another question: does morality only apply to human Earthlings? In other words, Are these behaviors truly UNIVERSALLY immoral? I think we can all agree that we humans are the only Earthlings that engage in "moral" behavior. Why? Just how smart do you have to be before behaviors are determined to be moral? In other words, given the size of the universe, isn't it possible (or a given) that there is an alien species regularly engaging in what we've described as "universally immoral" behavior? So do we treat them the same way we treat non-human Earthlings that behave immorally and consider them "unworthy of morals?" Does it make a difference if they happen to be smart enough to build what we consider to be cool tools? What authority would we use to classify their behavior?

Tim

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon
I think we can all agree that we humans are the only Earthlings that engage in "moral" behavior. Why? Just how smart do you have to be before behaviors are determined to be moral?

I think that you think wrong. I mentioned above that man is a social animal. I would guess that any social animal would have codes of behaviour, which could easily be called morals.

As for differences over whether prostitution, abortion, etc are moral, many Christians differ on whether these are moral, so I don't know why you would single atheists out. We are seeing in the news just recently that Christians even differ on whether gambling is immoral.

[jimlintott]

Moral is a label we give a certain type of behaviour.

I think that seperating humans out of the 'rest of the living things' and treating them as special is always a mistake. All living things have behaviours, some are instinctive and some are taught. All living things are interesting in nothing more than survival of their genetic population. Behaviours that are conducive to this will become very succesful. That's why morality is more common than murder.

There is your higher authority. All living things answer to it. Its called evolution.

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyJoe
One person's goodness: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
....Another person's evil: Do unto others and split.

GW Bush: Do unto others before they do unto you.

[NoDeity]

Quote:

Originally posted by Denise
IMHO, long before there was Christianity, or Islam there were human communities. Human tribes who had to live by rules so as to be successful as a tribe. Gorillas and other primates also live by rules, by social constraints. I think they probably don't believe in a diety. We are social beings and we tend to conform to the rules of our group, it has nothing to do with a god.

I agree. It's not just primates, either. Look at wolves. Even my goofy little dog follows rules, especially if he is aware that I'm watching.

Human morality is more complex and flexible than the rule-following behavior of other animals (as far as I know), and I expect that this is because of the greater complexity of the human brain and that human capacity for adapting to a wide range of situations.

There are many things that we're not born with. An absolute knowledge of which specific actions are right or wrong for humans is one of those things. My guess is that if it were otherwise, our ancestors would have been less likely to successfully adapt to new situations and survive long enough to reproduce.

Religion may have come about because it makes it easier to get people to behave. That is, I think religion is a tool of morality rather than morality being the creation of religion.

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoDeity

I agree. It's not just primates, either. Look at wolves. Even my goofy little dog follows rules, especially if he is aware that I'm watching.

It's not a question of following rules. It's a question of whether or not the rules are moral. Nazis followed rules, right?

[q]Religion may have come about because it makes it easier to get people to behave. That is, I think religion is a tool of morality rather than morality being the creation of religion. [/quote]
Exactly! From a religious perspective, it's God (supposedly) that provides the authority on what is moral or not. In the case of Judaism, it was Moses speaking with the authority of the creator of the universe that "layed down the law," so to speak.

So if you are not religious, where does the authority to establish morality come from? One could say "I choose to be moral," but that statement is meaningless because there is no consistent or authoritative law that defines the word "moral."

BigNickel: By definition, it would be moral to rape if that's how you define morality. (In your example, the authoritative source defines rape as moral.)

JimlinTott: I don't see how evolution provides an authoritative framework for morality. Evolution, as far as I know, only describes the process by which life changes over time. Evolution does not put a value judgement on any behavior.

ArcticPenguin: I'm not trying to "single athiests out." This is not a discussion intened to pit religious people against athiests. It's a discussion about how you define morality. My position is that morality is meaningless without some kind of authority. Either you agree with that or not. If you disagree with that, please describe how you build a moral framework in the absence of authority. Perhaps you can use your own experiences as an example. How do *you* decide what is moral?

Tim

[NoDeity]

Quote:

So if you are not religious, where does the authority to establish morality come from? One could say "I choose to be moral," but that statement is meaningless because there is no consistent or authoritative law that defines the word "moral."

If I understand correctly, the objectivists see rational self-interest as an objective basis for morality. Even if there can be no truly objective basis for human morality (can there be? I've not studied it enough and I don't know) and if we then need to adopt or invent a basis for morality, rational self-interest seems like a pretty good one.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon

It's not a question of following rules. It's a question of whether or not the rules are moral. Nazis followed rules, right?

[q]Religion may have come about because it makes it easier to get people to behave. That is, I think religion is a tool of morality rather than morality being the creation of religion.

Exactly! From a religious perspective, it's God (supposedly) that provides the authority on what is moral or not. In the case of Judaism, it was Moses speaking with the authority of the creator of the universe that "layed down the law," so to speak.

So if you are not religious, where does the authority to establish morality come from? One could say "I choose to be moral," but that statement is meaningless because there is no consistent or authoritative law that defines the word "moral."

BigNickel: By definition, it would be moral to rape if that's how you define morality. (In your example, the authoritative source defines rape as moral.)

JimlinTott: I don't see how evolution provides an authoritative framework for morality. Evolution, as far as I know, only describes the process by which life changes over time. Evolution does not put a value judgement on any behavior.

ArcticPenguin: I'm not trying to "single athiests out." This is not a discussion intened to pit religious people against athiests. It's a discussion about how you define morality. My position is that morality is meaningless without some kind of authority. Either you agree with that or not. If you disagree with that, please describe how you build a moral framework in the absence of authority. Perhaps you can use your own experiences as an example. How do *you* decide what is moral?
][/quote]
As to what you are trying to do, and what your stance is, it seems to be shifting from time to time. Compare your paragraphs 1 and 4 above. In paragraph 1, you seem to be saying that the "rules" of the Nazis did not constitute a morality. In paragraph 4 you seem to agree with a claim that morality is relative. Take your ground and defend it, I will not waste my time chasing you incircles.

[arcticpenguin]

Timely article on animal morality: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3014747.stm

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

As to what you are trying to do, and what your stance is, it seems to be shifting from time to time. Compare your paragraphs 1 and 4 above. In paragraph 1, you seem to be saying that the "rules" of the Nazis did not constitute a morality. In paragraph 4 you seem to agree with a claim that morality is relative. Take your ground and defend it, I will not waste my time chasing you incircles.

Don't quibble. It's not like this is a PhD dissertation defense.

The question remains:

How do *you* decide what is moral?

NoDiety: rational self-interest sounds interesting. At least someone put a name on it. Should be worth a look.

Tim

[Rockon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon

NoDiety: rational self-interest sounds interesting. At least someone put a name on it. Should be worth a look.

Well, here's the website that will tell you all about it: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

It can probably be summed up as "Ayn Rand Rules!"

Tim

[angard]

I think that moral(morality?) on a basic level is self taught, after you develop a self. Not dependant on religion or higher athourity. That its based on emphaty(Hmm, is that the word I'm after? ) for others, ie I don't want to do that to him/her/it because I wouldn't want that to happen to me.

As you grow up you pick up more and finer "Don't do that's." with help from others and by yourself and eventually, hopefully you turn out to be a person with good moral ( Both in your eyes and others.).

Also, it's important to think, to be critical about stuff in order to develop a sense of moral. Don't just take things for the truth just because someone says so, or you read it in a book, especially the internet. :P

That said, ( sounds like you wouldn't need anyone, but thats not so. ) adults, parents and friends and other people are good to have around, to point you in the right direction, to ask stuff and learn, to love, to play with and to live among and with, to disagree with.

Regarding Nazis in the post above I think most of those people was unaware of what was happening. Some was misslead ( lack of critical thinking? Indoctrination (sp?)?). Only a few ( I think and hope.) were really evil ( Iwould say sick and lacked empathy for others.) and ordered murders and had a strange view of things. The latter I don't think had any rules to speak of either, they just made their own rules to break or obey when it suited them.

Different societies have variations of their moral code, but are similar to others because of empathy and social interaction I think.

Does this make any sense at all? Well, I can't explain my view of moral any better in English. It's my second language, so I am sorry for sentence errors and typos.

Flame away

[NoDeity]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockon
It can probably be summed up as "Ayn Rand Rules!"

Well, I don't think Ayn Rand has the rational self-interest market cornered. I don't see that one has to be an Objectivist in order to practice rational self-interest and not even all Objectivists are fanatical "worshippers" of Ayn Rand (although I think most Objectivists would argue that consistent application of rationally self-interested thought would inevitably lead you to Objectivism).

I don't identify myself as an Objectivist. That's partly just because I'm not much of a joiner. I think Ayn Rand wrote some rather good stuff but I also think she was a bit of a nut.

[Kimpatsu]

Of course illegality and immorality aren't the same. For example, it's illegal to shoot Sylvia Browne and John Edward, but it's certainly not immoral.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

As far as I can tell, (and I haven't done a ton of reading on it, so I hope to get educated here) there is no way of establishing a moral code without some kind of higher authority.

A good place to start your research into the topic will be the writing of Immanuel Kant. An internet search on Categorical Imperative will point you in the right direction. Very briefly put, the C.I. instructs us to act in such a way that our actions would become universal law. So if you are planning a murder, you ask yourself, what would happen if everyone were required to murder someone. At that point it is not a matter of asking would that be a good thing or a bad thing, but asking is it logically sound. For instance, lying is immoral because if everyone were required to do it, the words like truth and falsehood would become meaningless. Littering is not immoral because if everyone were required to litter, the world would be very messy, but no words or concept lose their meaning.

There are several corollaries and Kant includes a number of examples in his writings.

You may get more responses if you move the thread to Philosophy.