Goodness - is this off topic?

[veronica_milvus]

Comments

[priestofmemory]

Nah. Deleting my account is just something I do every once in a while when I feel like I'm spending a bit too much time on here. I have a tendency to... obsess over things. Just give me a couple of days to cool down, and I'll be back.

[lynn_p]

There are myriad reasons why people engage in "good" rather than "bad." Some fear the consequences of anti-social behaviour, while others allow the moral compass in their conscience to guide their propensity toward benevolence. Most adherents to religion have yet to prove to me that their faith leads them to always be good, or at least better than atheists or agnostics. Granted, this is no scientific study, but the Christians I know very well tend to engage in behaviour that is not worthy of the tenets of the faith they so adamantly claim to heed. I have caught them in lies, covert manipulation of others for personal gain, and stealing; the agnostics and atheists I know tend to be more trustworthy and on the level in their dealings with me, if for no other reason than they treat others as they expect to be treated without the trappings of guilt, shame, and punishment to keep them moral. Also, most atheists and agnostics I know contribute to charitable organizations, many of which are Christian in nature. None of my Christian friends

[mogasaurus_rex]

Bear with me on this

[mogasaurus_rex]

On the adaptation of Religion to social system: This is more Marx’s realm, but once religion has become an institution, the ideology of good/evil goes from passively subverting the self and the power of the self to being an active destructive force. Most scriptures have definitions of good and evil that are either totally interpretable and should be regarded more like poetry, or they are legalistic without basis: to simply be told “masturbation is bad because it destroys your spirit” really doesn’t help a person to grow. I want to make clear that I am not talking about ethics, as to philosophically develop an ethic is a different matter entirely. I still don’t believe that ethics are all that valid because I don’t believe in right or wrong (I could go on for many more pages but I feel I should start to wrap this up) but the terms should be beneficial and harmful. With these terms you can actually discuss and study what is beneficial and what is harmful, which you really can’t do with good and evil. If you look at civilizations and try

[empiezando]

I've become a person who has more or less focused on being more altruistic for the reason of bettering the world around me, not for the feeling nor pleasure I would receive of it.

In this compass of people and how and why they do things, where would this put me then? If I'm not doing things that would eventually benefit myself, do I fall off of this scale?

[tormod]

Not that it matters, but I am a male Christian.

I think our "moral compass" is a combination of social instincts, ideas society indoctrinates into us, and our own logical assessments of those two.

If there is a G-d, it contributes to both the nature and the nurture and gives us the ability to use logic. All "moral compasses", barring human imperfection, should point in the direction of G-d's will.

If there is no G-d, then different compasses can point in different directions, and no one compass is more moral than any other.

[veronica_milvus]

There's where I don't agree - I think that all major societies have a moral compass that points in roughly the same direction, which is towards the greatest "good" for human society. No society condones murder, rape, stealing, adultery, bad manners or cruelty, within the society, even though they might have different definitions of what manners are or what the ideal social structure is. (Although, many societies are cool with inflicting all those things on groups outside the tribe!)

Or, maybe, you know of some examples that I'm not aware of.

And why G-d and not God? What scruple are you operating there? Don't mean to be rude, just curious.

[tormod]

We all share genetics and some social heritage, and there are natural limitations in any theoretical society, so of course there are many commonalities in calculating the "greatest good" for human societies. That does not change the arbitrary nature of morals based solely on biological and sociological imperatives.

We in the West consider it moral for individuals to have freedom to question authority, without fear for our lives. In China, Russia, Iran, and so on, it is considered moral to protect the society even if it means killing citizens for their political views.

Were we discussing morals of groups of people or individual people? Clearly, individuals can come to very different ideas of right and wrong even with the pre-programmed input.

"G-d" is the way orthodox Jews avoid taking the Lord's name in vain when writing. Makes sense to me.

[tormod]

P.S. Within Sudan, murder, rape, and stealing are condoned.