river rat
BUCKING GOAT
No way that happened. There were no morals until God sent punishment and open the eyes of sinners. They're values stemmed from the fear of God.This said the answer to the original question is NO.
No way that happened. There were no morals until God sent punishment and open the eyes of sinners. They're values stemmed from the fear of God.This said the answer to the original question is NO.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Is morality based on fear actually morality? Do right, or burn in hell? Doesn't that kind of imply that without that threat and that fear, people would not be moral? That doesn't sound moral to me.
I believe in a higher being, but that is not what makes me moral. There are moral people who do not believe, and there are immoral people who do believe.
MMDad
Lem Putt
This said the answer to the original question is NO.
Morality based on fear is not morality.
tommyjones
New Member
excellent post MM
despite what people here might think i also believe in something higher, but i think that our morality is a human construct
This_person
Well-Known Member
I agree. But it comes down to the definition of "morals" vs. "ethics". Morals are based on something other than societal norms and/or customs. Acting "ethically", or good, or whatever does not require that. It's a semantics issue.
tommyjones
New Member
so morality is something you do becasue you fear an angry god, while acting ethically (or morally to an aethist) is something we do just becasue its right?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Not even close.
As told many times before, a moral person, a religious person, is not controlled by punishment and reward. A moral person, a religious person, is controlled internally, and does right (and avoids wrong) to glorify that person's vision of their diety. If a person is acting out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward, they're not acting morally. They're acting selfishly. This, my friend, is the true difference.
"Right" and "wrong" are relative terms, as we've discussed before. Morality comes from a basis outside of custom or societal norms to what is "right" and "wrong". Ethical behavior comes from what is "right" and "wrong" to that person, based upon their customs or other beliefs (experiences, etc.).
I know you get it, because we've discussed it many times before. I'm not sure why you want to go through the whole thing again. I'm not saying that there's any supreriority to either action. I'm saying it's a semantics thing based upon the definition of the word.
tommyjones
New Member
and i know you get it. and aethist has no 'stick' for acting morally, so they cannot be acting sefishly as you put it. however, religious people have 'the carrot and the stick', so they are obviously acting morally out of selfish reasons. you are only glorifying your diety becasue you want to go to heaven and have eternal life.
Who said that? Didn't I mention that I'm not sure I even believe in God, much less heaven, hell and the rest?
I'm saying if there's no higher authority to establish it, it's just something we make up. Perhaps the code of morality is enscribed in mile-high letters of fire on a distant planet. Perhaps it's woven into the fabric of the universe, like gravity.
Or perhaps we just make the damned thing up.
I mean, really. When someone tells you a law or rule you think is absurd, isn't your gut reaction to say "who says"? Because if the answer is nobody says - not the cops, not the government, not the Bible, not the neighbors - just no one - you're going to react with "well the heck with THAT". If I think a rule or concept is bogus, unless you can compel me to comply, I'm going to ignore it.
Getting me - or anyone else - to do something I don't want to do has everything to do with consequences. You jump right to "punishment". Not at all. I won't jump off a cliff and pretend I can fly, because I don't want the consequences that await me at the bottom.
But I can absolutely tell you, barely a soul I know will obey a speed limit if it's absolutely clear there will NEVER, EVER, EVER be anyone passing out tickets. People loot during riots and storms because - they don't get caught. I'll say this till I'm blue in the face - if there are no unpleasant consequences for any action, there is no reason on this Earth to NOT do them.
SOMETIMES - the unpleasant consequence is a guilty conscience. You don't steal or kill because you'd feel guilty. You were, however, *taught* that. Your first reaction in life was to take what you wanted and to hit those who stopped you.
Morality without a higher authority, whatever it is, is arbitrary. You can just say no it's not, but this is just logic. For it NOT to be means it's established beyond the will or control of man - which makes my point. Man creates it. If he doesn't, it exists outside his control. That means I can declare anything I want as wrong, sin, unclean or whatever you want.
Because I am making it up. It's wrong to screw someone who isn't your wife - it's ok to screw someone who isn't your wife. People deal with THAT kind of morality all the time.
This_person
Well-Known Member
That's like saying "I wonder what atheists would be like if there was physical proof of God that they'd believe".
I agree, you can't take the concepts of Heaven and Hell out of most religions - just like you can't put a "reality" of God into atheism. If you could, it would be an entirely different story.However, taking punishment and reward out of religion is not what we're talking about. It's the basis of actions, the foundation of what is "right" and what is "wrong". That's what defines "morality" - having a basis outside of customs or norms. Religious teachings provide that basis for "morals", and societal norms/customs/personal experience/etc provide that for ethical behavior.
Semantics.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Well, an atheist can have a stick - bad reputation, going to jail, etc., etc. And, an athiest can have a carrot - job promotion, being given medals, self-promotion. So, yes, an atheist can be doing things for purely selfish reasons. And, an atheist can be doing things for ultruistic reasons of just being "good". Again, please let it sink in, I'm not saying one action is superior to another. Read that again, maybe it'll sink in. Okay, try again.
As for glorifying a diety for the reward, that's not what the definition of morals would indicate. Maybe that's a person's (bad) reason, but that's not what the definition would indicate. As told many times before, a moral person, a religious person, is not controlled by punishment and reward. If a person is acting out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward, they're not acting morally. They're acting selfishly.
Semantics.
This_person
Well-Known Member
ED ZACTLY! The atheist wouldn't be an atheist. I would be an entirely different situation.
tommyjones
New Member
man you are a condesending sob. back to ignoring you
This_person
Well-Known Member
I apologize for you seeing that as condescending. You kept repeating something I'd already answered, so I thought you didn't get it. It was frustrating.
Do you have any answer to the rest?
PsyOps
Pixelated
How does a universe, through a random chaos of chemical interaction suddenly poop out a being that has morals?
There's your solid proof.
Xaquin44
New Member
How does a universe, through a random chaos of chemical interaction suddenly poop out a being that has morals?
There's your solid proof.
not really. Society makes its own morals (or ethics, or whatever).
That said, I don't really believe in a higher power and I have morals, so there you are.
This_person
Well-Known Member
If there's a God, it matters not whether you believe in Him or not for his input into you to be true. So, your ethics would be from Him, either way.
If there is no God, then you have the potential to have the same morals as a skunk, or a cow, or a tiger.