Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
If morals are to be written into public guidelines as they are today (read: FCC, decency) then a personal interpretation of morality is null and void.
I argue that if you truely lack belief in a higher power, then your "morals" should logically fall along these lines: Since there is no higher authority to judge your behavior, then no behavior is off-limits, lest it cause harm to someone else. This is the very stripped-down skeleton framework of human interaction and comes without saying; thus not needing a title such as 'morality.' It's simply *being.*
|
Why is causing harm to others off-limits? It seems to me that separating any behavior as being off-limits implies some absolute morality. I think it would be more accurate to say that no behavior is off-limits unless it causes harm to yourself (which from a secular standpoint is how I see morals to have evolved). Promoting a society where causing harm to others is considered bad helps yourself (by reducing the chance that you would be the person who someone else chooses to wrong). But outside of being a means for self-protection by entering into social contracts to not cause others undue harm, there is no innate reason to not cause harm to others, and hence shouldn't be separated out as off-limit behavior.