Moral Compass

That's a lie propagated by religious groups, and it's based on their standard "if you're not with us, you're against us" mindset.

The fact is, schools teach very little of any kind of morality. And this is as it must be in today's world. If the religious among us can't recognize that morality exists outside the context of theism, then the only form of moral teaching they'll recognize as being anything other than "moral relativism" is theism.

On the other hand, anyone with a half a lick of sense can see that theistic "morality" doesn't really represent morality. "Thou shalt not kill" is easy to get to in almost any moral system. But "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy" is religious bullshit and is ethically meaningless in anything but a theistic system.

Furthermore, there's ample evidence that religious "ethics" is no such thing. People are routinely slaughtered in the name of various theisms - and they're often considered "ethical" acts by their fellow theists.

There are various attempts at formulating a non-religious ethical system. Personally, I think ethical hedonism is the right model - if you can avoid oversimplifying things, which almost everyone does if they haven't gotten the idea on their own. However, every theist I've ever met immediately dismisses the idea as meaning "do whatever you want".

How do we get back on track? First, let's overthrow the stranglehold that theism holds on discussions of ethics.

Here's something I never understood, how can you know what's moral and what's not moral? Assuming that you're the first conscious human with a conscience, and you don't know anything, so how then can you know what is right and what is wrong? Maybe what we believe is right is actually not right. (Of course, assuming that God didn't tell you what's right and what's wrong)

By ‘moral relativism’ I take it to mean that there is no standard by which we necessarily have to live, and with that there is no way to determine the ethical truth of any thought or action made. A person can effectively live a “moral” life in any such fashion as his present society and surroundings will allow. This is very common in our society today, many people live what they feel is to be a moral life; they don’t steal (much), don’t kill, and are kind to others (mostly). This system can work very well for any individual at any given time, but as a whole it is very dangerous for a society to adopt moral relativism as its basis of existence. A somewhat extreme but also common example of where moral relativism can lead you can be found in places such as prisons, where we all know and hear about what can happen in these ‘societies’. Most of us on the outside can say, “It’s terrible in there.”, because we have our present living conditions to compare to. But what if we didn’t have anything to compare it to?

I have an analogy for moral relativism. Two carpenters each have to cut 100 boards all the same length. They measure their first board with a tape measure and each cut their respective boards to the correct length. Because it’s easier to now use the cut board as a gauge to cut all the rest of the boards, they begin to do this. The first carpenter keeps his original board and always uses it to measure the next board. The second carpenter (hopefully not the one you hired) uses the board he last cut to measure each successive board. When they get to the 100th board, whose do you think is closer to the original length? Right. The second carpenters was 2 inches too short (or long) than it should have been and all the boards in between were some length leading up to this. This is due to a gradual error that will always build on itself if not referred back to the original standard.

By societies going the route of relative morals we will find ourselves so far from what we originally intended that we may not recognize ourselves or have anything to compare back to. This in itself might not be so bad in theory, but things seem to always head downhill when there is no standard or compass to guide us.

Well, young fella, I firmly believe in evolution and my firm morality precludes me from lying, stealing, murder, etc., as well. I think religion simply codified what human beings always knew - treat others like you want to be treated.

The blameless? I read society as having differing allowances for different human beings. I.e., if you're rich or powerful (both is usually the case) you are frequently blamed less than those who are not.

I find this 'moral relativism' crisis malarkey when it is connected to Darwin's theories. Moral relativism's connection to Darwin's theories are a lightweight insubstantial subterfuge to advance positions (often from religionists) that are against evolution. These same advancers can sometimes be read as approving strict hierarchical organization of humanity such as the "Man over Woman" guff that many contemporary Christian conservatives are strenuously calling for. And that's moral relativity to me, in that the rules get applied inconsistently.

Whose "moral compass"?

Personally, I like the compass that points directly at myself - I, and my own happiness, am the sole reason for my existence. Being a rational being, I understand the negative consequences of a Hedonistic life, and therefore pursue a course that leads me to the greatest long-term happiness that I can gain.

Human beings are born with an innate moral compass, and a desire to do what is good. Every child wants to know he is 'doing good'.

So, in order for institutional education to be able to massage the propaganda of moral relativism into the growing mind, it must ALREADY have been prepped for it, before it gets there.

THAT is where parents come in - they impose a hypocritical rule of arbitrary authority from the beginning, that makes the child's mind maleable to the idea that morality is not something to be thought of as universal and absolute -that it must be relative. How else can BOTH he AND his parents be "good", when they use violence against him, but he cannot use it in return against them?

I highly recommend doing a google search on "Stefan Molyneux" and "Universally Preferable Behavior", for a more thoroughly detailed explanation of this.