Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism.
Even if you accept the idea that a deity exists and has outlined some moral code, you must still make a moral judgement as to whether those laws themselves are "good". You can't pass the buck on that decision.
I think you're approaching this issue for a moral relativism standpoint which is making it impossible to come to any conclusion other than one that agrees with that premise. For example, in the statement above, you are looking for the decision of the individual to determine whether or not something is good. My contention is that with something "bigger" the decision of the individual doesn't matter; things are good or bad intrinsically based on the purpose of our lives. Without purpose, however, I agree that it would come down to an effective vote - the method you propose.
Frankly, as I see it, morality which derives from monotheistic faith is of a pretty shabby sort. If you act in a "moral" way because you want to gain the reward of Heaven or avoid the punishment of Hell, then it's hard to see how you're being "moral" at all - you're simply acting in your own best interest as you perceive it.
I don't think that an action being for your best interest automatically rules out it being moral. It is very reasonable for someone to realize, as I do, that what brings them true and lasting happiness is the same as what will bring others the same. Thus, it is in your best interest to be moral and to be moral is in your best interest.
RSS
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism.
I've been away and didn't get a chance to reply to this. I'm the anonymous poster of the "Schools don't teach moral relativism" thread.
I disagree that "something bigger" than the individual is necessary. The problem with that line of thought is that whatever the "something bigger" might be, it's not sufficient. Even if you accept the idea that a deity exists and has outlined some moral code, you must still make a moral judgement as to whether those laws themselves are "good". You can't pass the buck on that decision.
So, when it comes down to it, the only thing around that can define morality is the individual. Nothing else is adequate to the task, since the individual must still make the moral decision of accepting that moral code.
And of course, this doesn't mean that "there is no way for one's morality to apply to anyone but themselves." It's extremely likely that there will be substantial areas in which people can come to common agreement on moral behavior. If we share common goals or must cooperate to share common resources, then we have incentive to seek agreement on a shared morality for the "important" things.
It's pretty easy to see that if I were to go around killing off my neighbors, they'd eventually come to the conclusion that I was too dangerous to have around and likely kill me off. We all want to be safe from random violence, so we agree - I promise not to kill you in exchange for your promise not to kill me. Same with stealing. Same with pretty much all morality that isn't just an arbitrary superstition.
Theists have a hard time seeing that morality can exist without a deity because there's so much "immorality" among the godless. But if you look at the kind of immorality, you'll see that the main "sins" of the godless are the superstitions - "blasphemy", sexual relations that aren't approved by the church, that sort of thing. The godless don't run around committing murder or theft at a noticeably higher rate than the faithful do.
So, no - there's no "greater reference" by which a law can be judged moral. Conscience must come from within.
Frankly, as I see it, morality which derives from monotheistic faith is of a pretty shabby sort. If you act in a "moral" way because you want to gain the reward of Heaven or avoid the punishment of Hell, then it's hard to see how you're being "moral" at all - you're simply acting in your own best interest as you perceive it.
View Full Discussion