Non-religious Morality
 

All:

Some very religious people argue that religion is necessary for one to have a moral compass. They argue that without a beleif in a god that has certain expectations for how you should behave (and can observe your actions when other people cannot), there is no reason not to lie, cheat, steal, harm others, etc.

What do you think? If you are an athiest or agnostic, on what do you base your personal sense of morality?

I do know one thing: Religious persons are nearly four times as likely to care for the poor than their atheistic counterparts (And even constitute about 90'ish% of all non-profit relief funds).

...But, no one really cares about that >.>

On the Golden Rule.

I don't want to be stolen from, physically attacked, murdered, lied to, etc.

So then why should I do these things to other people?

I think that in all reality, murder is harder for agnostics and atheists because we are not assured salvation if we kill enemies of the religion, and because death is much more final when there isn't an afterlife.

Additionally, strong Theists can justify any action they take by saying that it doesn't matter what people here (on Earth) think because God is the only one who has a right to judge them. By contrast, I know that the people here on Earth are the only ones to be effected by (and judge me based on) my actions, so I work to avoid doing things that would harm others.

Well, IL, I won't disagree with you, but it's not exactly what Racnad is asking about.

I have no belief in a god, but my moral compass is pretty highly attuned, I think. Rather than god having expectations of me, I have them of myself.

Show me a reputable source which claims such. The difficulty with an assertion such as yours is that it is easier to measure contributions from an organization like a church because they are mandated by law to keep financial records. Unfortunately for you, there are very few "atheist" organizations which keep such records. NO study has been done to defend your claim, and understandably so; it'd be nigh impossible to do so.

Your claim is made even more obviously tenuous by the fact that you used "nearly 4 times" and "90%ish" - meaning you didn't actually read ACTUAL numbers from a REPUTABLE source, but made it up (or someone else made it up, and passed it on).

Yep. Which is even rougher going than it was as a Christian. It was nice knowing that I was forgiven for all my sins... but these days, I know I have to work to reverse or lessen the harm I've done to other people and myself (which is my equivalent of "sin"). And work is a lot harder than forgiveness... which is how it should be, in my world. Also, as JinnKai said, there's no afterlife, so there's a lot more impetus to make THIS one worth it, every last minute of it.

Well, over 90% of the population of the Earth is religious. I'd call that dead even, assuming you didn't pull that stat from thin air.

I base my morality on a few things:
1) The good of the pack: One of the innate traits of humans is that there is an innate loyalty to the pack, to do good for your family, friends, and community because ultimately it's good for survival. This, in my opinion, means that if a neighbor's car needs a jump, I jump the car. They get to work on time, do well, and the whole is benefited (assuming my neighbor isn't driving to go kill someone or rob a bank). This probably explains why I'm socialist.

2) Empathy: One of those wonderful things that seems to come with being sentient is the ability to perceive and comprehend the feelings of others. If I see someone who is sad, I understand sadness myself and I make a connection between my own feelings and those of the person who is sad. This helps in backing up the golden rule. If you comprehend the emotional experience of others, it's easy to sympathize and thus treat them the way you yourself would expect to be treated.

3) The law: Yes, the morality of the land is supposed to be the law. I use the law as a guide to live by, usually. This is unless the first two override the law. If the law says it's okay to torture, the second rule overrules it. If the law says it's okay to let the poor suffer, the first rule overrides it.

Because millions of years of evolution has given us the ability to reason.

Maybe. But I very highly doubt that. However...since you know these "facts", perhaps you would be willing to share your references with the rest us. I, for one, would find that a most fascinating read.

Wait a minute...
Let's say, for arguments sake, that you have 100 people. 90 of whom consider themselves "religious", whereas the other 10 identify with atheists and agnostics. Let's say that all of them donated to a non-profit relief fund. Of course you could say that religious persons constitute about 90% of all non-profit relief funds, and be technically correct. You could also say that 100% of the non-religious persons contributed to non-profit relief funds.
And of those same 100 people...if the religious ones (90% remember) are only 4 times as likely to care for the poor than their atheistic counterparts, that's pretty dismal.

Consider the possibility the morality preceeded religeous belief. Frankly, how could it be otherwise?

I forget who said it but the quote goes something like...

'When people say we need more religion, what they are really saying is we need more police'.

Religion may contain some good morality lessons but its not the source of human morality.

Religion is responsible for the deaths of billions of people throughout history. The ideas and motivations for ethics and morality have little to no formal connection to any organized religious tradition. Stoicism from the Greco-Roman is a key factor in what became the Catholic interpretation of a "moral code" despite the Stoics' aversion to religious dogma. The morality argument frequently used by religious hacks is simply one more method of ensuring their continued ignorance and illogical claims of superiority.

This is exactly how I feel.

In fact, I will go further and suggest that an atheist's morality is stronger than a religious person's as we must do the right thing without fear of an eternity in Hell or some other supernatural retribution should be fail to live up to standard.

I'm an atheistic Buddhist. I won't go into detail, but the Golden Rule plays a lot into it. I don't need to believe in a vengeful or fatherly God to have morality, I merely need to observe and learn what is good and what is evil. It is based on my experience; it is being attuned to suffering and knowing its cause and how to at least try to alleviate it.

Once I know what causes my own suffering, I can determine what may cause others' suffering. I cannot even begin to help others unless I understand it for myself.

This is my moral "compass."

I'll simply note that Confucianism is extremely powerful ethical system which -- egads! -- lacks a diety. The idea that we'd eat each other were it not for Sky Gods is not only absurd but ethnocentric.

As it is written in the Analects, talk about ghosts and things like teacups circling the sun is unproductive.

...Because, you know, I've got nothing better to do than to make up false statistics. I could have said "3.6 times more likely" and "87%", but those figures would be incorrect as that's not what they are. Hence why I said "nearly 4 times" and "90'ish". Also, I love the claim "No study has been done to defend your claim". Really. I do. Because, you know, it's not like it's not possible to, you know, ask someone of they're a theist or not and look at their non-profit contributions for the year >.>

You're right about one thing, though. I don't have the exact statistic on-hand, but I can find it (Won't be too hard. I know exactly where to look).

Anyway, to the two people who've claimed it's harder to be a moral atheist than a moral theist... Just what the hell are you smoking? To assert such a claim you would have to at least acknowledge that there's some repercussions in a disbelief in God-- But you don't (And won't). You, as an atheist, have no predetermined standard upon which you live. Like I've said in other threads, it's much easier to be a moral atheist than a moral theist, because you aren't REQUIRED to abide by any set of rules and regulations.

my moral compass:

if the roles were reversed, would i be happy with what is being done to me. if i don't want it done to me (lied to, stolen from, etc) i don't do it to others.

i am required to follow these rules because i would hate myself if i didn't.

I think you are missing the point.

The fact that it isn't required and that there are no consequences to my choices *is* difficult. I don't have a book that I can point to tell me how to live a "moral" life. I have to come to these conclusions on my own, through experience (usually hard earned). In my experience this is a harder path to walk than one that comes with a guide book and threats of eternal damnation if I fail to follow the instructions found inside.

Compound this with my firm belief that this is the *only* life I have. There is no redemption or do over for screwing it up.

Believe it or not, some Atheist firmly believe in Karma and the kicker is that it actually comes down and kicks you in the ass in this life, not in the next. For someone who accepts a reality that takes this into the lifestyle, it can be far more compelling than eternal damnation. One need only look at the Pat Robertsons and Osama Bin Ladens of the world to see just how powerful a scriptural based morality is on the human mind.
In my own life, I try very hard not to piss off "that which is", and keeping my own Karma intact goes a long way toward that goal.

The predetermined standard upon which atheists live is the one built by theists. Whether they were pagans, monotheists or atheists, there have been many who contributed to what we understand today as morality and ethics. Atheists evaluate this and make their own judgements based on experience and other forms of learning. There are few, if any, born and raised in North America who completely escape the influence of the foundational Judeo-Christian values upon which this society was built. These are the rules and regulations that act as a baseline.

Atheists merely say something along the lines of: "You were right about this, but wrong about that. Thank you, and no thank you."

And Charlatan has an excellent point. It reminds us that this isn't easy for anyone. Besides, trying to determine who has it harder isn't only beside the point, it is something that is unmeasurable. We could spend our time more constructively, I think.

Upon a full reading, and better understanding of your claim....I think you are obviously correct. Throughout my life I have rarely met a Theist who actually follows the guidelines set before them by the faith they follow, and thus must assume it is a very difficult criteria to live up to. In fact my own path led away from a Catholic life because of the inability of Nuns to do so, as well as my own. After watching the priesthood become visibly corrupt the issue of this difficulty becomes all the more clear.
So in my mind at least, the question of actual morality and what it is in practice comes to the forefront. Its all good and fine to read the manual, but if you don't understand it, or cannot follow the directions it is a useless document. If however, you look at the pictures, and can easily see what piece connects to another...you can still build the entertainment center even if the instructions are written in Chinese.
Claiming it is harder for a Theist to follow moral principles does not in any way add respect to them, and in many ways makes the Theist seem corrupt. Personally, I think it makes sense to take from scripture those things that make us a better person (whatever that is), and toss the leftovers away. Asking God to hold your hand just seems like a cop out to me.

I base my morality on three things:

1. Is what I am doing (or about to do) necessary for me to reach my goal?
2. Do I have the means (financially, physically, etc.) to carry out my intentions?
3. Is there a high risk in being caught and punished for what I do? If the risk is great, does the reward outweigh it?

If you cannot answer 'yes' to all three questions, then chances are that you will not commit the crime/sin/whatever. This can apply to anything immoral/illegal from speeding to murder. Try it out the next time you hear about somebody being arrested for something. The first two questions are rather straightforward. The third question will come down to whether it was an act of civil disobedience out of protest, a feeling of invincibility in thinking that they sufficiently covered their own ass so they won't be caught or convicted in a court of law, or in extreme cases, a sociopath who is indifferent to the possiblity of being caught and to the punishment they may face, no matter how severe it is.

Placed in the context of religions, these three questions still apply, however in most cases, the third question will always be no because of their assumption that their actions are constantly monitored by God (or the cosmic forces that manipulate Karma) and the risk of a less than satisfactory afterlife (or simple poetic justice) will outweigh any desire that is fulfilled by committing a wrongful act.

i don't worry about being caught, it has no real barring, because i will know myself that i did wrong, and i don't want to live with that on my conscious.

I believe in a concept I call "moral maturity." That is the ability look beyond one's immediate situation and make consisitant descisions in your own long-term self interest and the interests of those you care about.

If you lie and cheat, you may get ahead in the short term, but the longer term result of your actions is that people will not trust you, you won't do as well in your career and you won't have quality friends. So being trustworthy and true to your word will get you further in the long term.

Another principle I live by is to imagine the world you'd like to live in, and live as closley as practical as if you live in that world. I'd like a world where you can trust everyone, where you don't need looks on your doors, where everyone takes responsibility for their lives and actions.

Well, since I don't live in the world, I do lock my doors. But I can still live my life and treat others as I did live in that world, and pick friends who live the same way.

The problem with morals derived from God is that not everyone agrees on exactly how God wants people to live. By definition, anything that God asks of you is moral, and history is full of examples of people who believe that God had instructed them to lie, cheat and commit violence against others.

If you had the opportunity to steal something you wanted with a very low probability of getting caught, would you do it? If your definition of sin is not derived from religion, then what makes it a sin, if you're not going to get caught & punished?

No religion based in the Judeo-Christian scheme of things (that I know of) requires you to follow a set of rules and regulations. They're all very proud of the idea that God gave us free choice, and the ability to obey or not obey, believe or not believe. Further still, many of the JC religions offer a forgiveness for sin; so long as you repent, you're still A-OK. Frankly, that sounds just like the moral compass used by atheists. You're asked to abide to a set of rules by a book, and we abide to a set of rules from ourselves. You can break rules, and so can we. There's no enforcement agency for either set of rules. If you believe that God will 'enforce' these rules after you die, we too can believe that we'll be 'enforcing' punishment on ourselves in this world for our moral slip-ups. And likewise, if you can transgress and be forgiven, so can we.

The only difference between the rules and regulations and their enforcement is that atheists allow the enforcement (and punishment) to be handled by themselves, whereas theists allow the enforcement (and punishment) to be handled by God.

Demonstrating that equally vague numbers are fallacious does not support your claim. You could've used 94% and 4.2 times more likely, and it wouldn't have added any credibility. My point was that if you had the study on hand (and weren't just reciting a lie by rote) you would've been more likely to specify; out of x number of theists surveyed, y were likely to "care about the poor." And so we're clear, I wasn't implying that you were deliberately making up false statistics, but that you were perhaps reciting a false statistic (lie) passed on by another or that you had misunderstood or misrepresented an otherwise accurate survey.

If you know exactly where to look, you may have it on hand by now. Care to share?

Umm.. I assume you've heard of the Ten Commandments?

The Judeo-Christian family of religions is incredibly diverse. There are almost as many variations of Judeo-Christian belief as there are Judeo-Christians. Almost any statement about the way "All Judeo-Christians" or "all Christians" believe can be shown to be false.

Some are, as you described, big on free choice, with God providing general guidlines and suggestions on behavoir, while other prescribe a rigid system of morality.

I don't believe one can say that being a moral theist or a moral athiest is easier. It depends on the individual.

Some people tend to see the world in black & white and prefer a structured system of right & wrong to be given to them from some authority.

Other people are not comfortable with arbitrary rules being given to them, and prefer to develop their own moral principles.

You might also call that karma. I do. :)

I have.

Name one JC religion that doesn't believe God gave us free choice. If you can, I'll eat my words. It's the whole basis of JC religions.

Been there, done that.

When I was putting my car back together, I would always spend a few hours on the weekend prowling a pick 'n' pull junkyard for parts. Every once in a while I'd come across an item that they'd charge an arm and a leg for, most of the time it wouldn't cost that much less than a new part from the dealership. But I needed it to get my car running (Question 1 answered). So I'd pull the part and bury it in a ziploc bag I had with my hand tools and place it in my toolbox (Question 2 answered) and continue on buy the bigger parts that I pulled. When I left the junkyard, they'd check my reciept and make me open my toolbox to see if I was making off with anything. Even though the part was right there in the ziploc bag, the never noticed it. They'd punch my reciept and send me on my way, and my car would be one step closer to becoming functional again (Question 3 answered).

It's all about those three questions. It's not whether or not I have the opportunity to steal something, it's whether or not I need to steal it in order to take care of business. It's not just stealing, it's anything. It could be adultery (1. Do I or the woman I'm fooling with have a sexual desire that needs to be fulfilled? 2. Do I have game? 3. If we play our cards right, can we continue this without being discovered? Is the sex going to be worth the risk of ending the relationship with our SO?), or an act of vengeance (1. Am I angry enough over what was done to seek an eye for an eye? 2. Do I have a weapon of opportunity? 3. Can I dispose of the body, can I get a good trial lawyer, or is what I'm about to do worth a 25-to-life prison sentence?), or whatever. If you can answer yes to all three, then you can pass go and collect $200.

To me, sin is merely what the law/commandments/sharia/etc. says is wrong.

This should not be confused with what I personally find objectionable because there are cases in which a violation against a person is not viewed as wrong before the holy laws (i.e. 'honor killings'), and there are cases where actions that violate no one is forbidden by holy laws(i.e. gay marriage).

In essence, most things are wrong simply because somebody tells you that it is wrong.

Here's a scenario for you...

You're at a party with at least 25 guests. You enter a bedroom by yourself to drop your coat on the large stack of coats on the bed. You notice the edge of an iPod in one of the pockets on someone else's coat. (If iPods aren't your thing, substitute anything which 1) you'd like to own or own another of, 2) is expensive, and 3) could easily fit in your pocket.)

Applying your test the answers are 1) yes, I'd like to have an/another iPod, 2) Yes I have the means to slip it into my pocket, and 3) It could have been anyone at the party, so the owner won't know it's me, and since I don't know all of the other guests, might not even know me.

Is there any reason to not steal the iPod?

I belongs to this gentleman:
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia...sus_nigger.jpg

In this case, I could justify stealing his steroids.

It depends on how you define "free choice." No one can deny that people have the ability to sin. But I would not consider any church that preaches that God will damn to hell people who have abortions, practice homosexuality, or fail to attend the correct church to believe in "free choice." Is it really free when you'll be sent to hell for your choices?

I acknowledge that not all Christian Churches teach this. But many do.

Well, I'll say it again... in my world, it's karma. I may or may not feel guilt about stealing it, but I really think that all our actions come back to us in one form or another. That's not anything spiritual... just a belief I have. Stealing an iPod would hurt someone, even if they never find out it's me. And if I have any definition of sin left in my head, it's that sin = hurting other people (or myself), particularly for selfish reasons. That's my compass, I suppose.

As for this: Well, I know you say that not all Christian churches teach this. But the fact is that NONE of them should, because if they're truly Christian, they're supposed to teach that one choice over all (the choice to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, etc) makes up for all the other choices that "send you to hell." That's the center of any Christian doctrine, I'm quite sure about that.

Thing is, what happens if you don't make that Very Important Choice to be forgiven by God?... yeah, here comes hell!!! :D (And it's that aspect that I have a problem with.)

Nope no reason at all. The desire to have this iPod is what's driving you to steal it. The opportunity has presented itself, and since the likelyhood of you getting caught is minimal, there is really nothing stopping you from snatching it up.

I'm pretty sure that's how my CD walkman disappeared from a house party years ago.

As for karma, I find it interesting that most of the time it's in reference to the malevolent kind (karma's a bitch!), like the kind of karma you hope a serial killer gets when the police are unable to stop him.

Nobody ever mentions karma in the sense of, "I saved a kid from a speeding truck and then the following week I won the Powerball lottery! Karma is great!"

How about that you'd like to have a video iPod but in your present financial condition it's hard to justify paying $300 for one?

If I really really really wanted it that bad, and the opportunity presented itself, it would probably disappear.

You really have to throw a different scenario at me because I cannot imagine that there's anything out there that would push me to snatch it up simply to posess it.

I don't believe in any sort of metaphysical karma. That said, I believe the concept of karma references the fact that you breed the kind of environment you live in. Sure, you may not get caught stealing the iPod, and I don't think karma will "get you back" for doing so. But, if you're the kind of person who would steal an iPod like that, chances are you're surrounding yourself with other factors in your life which are similar.

Strictly speaking, there's no reason not to steal it. Considering the broader implications, there are plenty. Stealing that iPod would not be an isolated incident of that kind of behavior.

Well-said. That's what I meant by my belief in "karma" not being anything spiritual... it's just a matter of treating others as you wish to be treated, I suppose. And I would not like for other people to steal from me, or do me intentional harm. If they do?... well, that's their own problem, though it does hurt. But I am not going to operate at that level.

The real interpretation of karma, in my understanding, is much more complicated than the context we usually use it in. And most often is meant in the context of good and bad deeds done over the course of multiple lifetimes.

Baraka could probably elucidate on that more with more detail, though.

One thing that needs to be understood is whether you're stealing as a means to accomplish something else (I stole this car because I had fifteen minutes to get from Harlem to Wall Street to diffuse a bomb) or whether you're stealing just to possess the item (I stole this car because I liked the paint). It speaks of your character when you do the latter.

When you use thievery in a hypothetical situation, you cannot limit yourself to just physical items. I'm sure at one time or another one of you have piggybacked your laptop onto an unsecured wireless network and committed bandwidth theft. You needed to get on line for whatever reason (1), the network was available and unsecured (2), and it's damn near impossible for you to either be detected or caught (3). It's still theft, is it not? You are using something that you did not purchase with your own funds, correct?

Is the wrong you commit a means to an end, or is it the means itself? That's the question.

Well, I'm not an expert by any means, but my mother is a Theravada Buddhist (Thai) and I've seen it throughout her family... their constant desire to be born into a higher form in their next life, and to avoid being born into something that is a lower class (e.g. closer to the ground... a snake would be their worst nightmare).

Much of their religion and culture centers around that kind of karma, going so far as to give alms to the Buddhist monks every morning and doing as many good deeds as possible, to make sure they are making up for any "sins" they may have accrued in this life. Mothers hope that their sons will enter the monkhood, at least for a short time, to accrue more merit (which adds to their mothers' karma, since women are seen as somehow more sinful than men, yay)... everything is about "making merit."

Now, I am not saying this is a good way of living, not is it even based on pure Buddhist doctrine (quite distant from it, in fact). But my mother's family (and many Thais) believe in it to the utmost... and they structure much of their morality around the idea of not wanting to incur bad karma and be born as a snake the next time around! Fair 'nuff, I guess.

Karma in a nutshell
 

A helpful way of viewing karma is to avoid thinking of it as a metaphysical "other" that happens to you as an economic system of exchange. Thinking in those terms makes it easier for us to pass on the idea of such a system, thinking that it is entirely possible that it doesn't exist at all.

A more constructive way of approaching karma is to think of it in real terms. Karma can be our way of examining the cause and effect of our actions. Actions, whether they are small or extreme, have consequences or outcomes. That is the nature of action; it warrants a reaction, an effect. The sum of these outcomes is what we call karma. In Buddhist thought, karma is believed to be cumulative and can be carried from life to life. But even within a single life, karma can have a detrimental effect.

Misery is a state that arises as a result of karma. Whether it is carried forth from previous lives or it was accumulated in a single life doesn't matter. What matters is that misery is a real state; it is something we all experience, yet not all of us understand it. Only by working toward awareness can we learn about our suffering and how it comes about through karma.

But what can we do? Do we just "let karma get you"?

The answer, actually, is just the opposite. The answer is dharma. Dharma is rooted in both thought and action. It is what we do to work through our karma and, therefore, deal with our suffering. There are many aspects to dharma, but I will not go into detail here, but I will say that it is possible to have it present in every aspect of our lives. Dharma is what we do to reduce our own suffering along with the suffering of others.

To speak to the iPod example, it would be a karmic act to take it. The reasons could be many. Here is a quick list of a few possibilities:

• The owner enjoys the iPod, and that would be taken away
• The owner had worked many hours to earn the money to buy it, and that would be lost
• The owner received it as a gift from a loved one and it has sentimental value to the owner
• The owner shares it with a loved one and would have to explain its disappearance
• The owner is actually a borrower and would lose the trust of the real owner
• The owner has unique recordings, photos, or other data that cannot be replaced and means much to them
• The owner, the host, and others would have to deal with the thought that a guest is a thief
• The owner may find it extremely difficult to trust others as much, especially strangers
• The owner might experience negative emotions that could affect those around them
• The thief would be breaking a law, trust, and common decency
• The thief may possibly need to continue a lie to remain secret
• The thief has obsessed over an item in an unhealthy way
• The thief might feel remorse but might be too ashamed to deal with it

There could be many more. As you can see there is a great number of ways that this act can cause misery to everyone involved, even the thief. This is the reason why the act is karmic. This would be a burden taken on by the thief, being the direct cause of the negative experience(s). Although the thief might not be consciously thinking of these, it is possible that they will think of them subconsciously or over time. This is why we feel guilt. We think about how our negative actions affect others, and we feel bad because we know how others feel.

Many actions are karmic. Some are big, some are small. Over time, we accumulate the negative effects of these actions. But through dharmic actions, we can alleviate that state, helping ourselves while helping others.

Yes because an Ipod isn't that expensive and if you are caught, even with the low probability it will cost you your friends which are far harder to come by then an Ipod.

Not to mention if the only reason you dont' steal the ipod is you are afraid that god will punish you, I have to question what your morals are. If you rely on punishment to do the 'right' thing you are no better than a child or perhaps as an adult you are just a cowardly criminal.

My response in this situation would be that I would not take the iPod because...

I'd want to live in a world where I could leave my coat in a room witihout worry about people taking valuables from the pockets. Therefore, it would be inconsistent of me to take things from other people's coats.

One of the principles I live by is that if it is OK for me to do something, it's OK for others to do it too. I wouldn't want my iPod stolen, so I shouldn;t steal from others.

The example of connecting to an unsecured wireless network is not applicable. It is unlikely that your unauthorized use of that network deprives the owner of the use of that network. You can't say the same about the iPod.

Another principle has to do with agreements you make with others and being true to your word. When we are at work, when we're customers at places of business, there are contractual, verbal, and tacit agreements in play, and should be concious of them. Don't make agreements you will not keep, and keep the ones you make.

In my iPod example, when you are a guest at someone's house at a party, there are tacid agreements in place. You may sit on their furnature, you may use their bathroom, you may use their toilet paper. You may not go through their bedroom drawers, you may not steal their valuables or the valuables of other guests. To do so violates tacit social agreements.

Plain and simple....causing someone else undo pain is not something I want to do.

.....and I really don't care what anyone else calls it.

Excellent post Baraka_Guru and abaya. The concept of Karma, as with anything else related to belief systems or philosophies, can be seen through a wide variety of lenses. abaya touched on just one reason I have significant problems with Theravada Buddhism. It is often said by some people that "Buddhism is a philosophy more than a religion." Theravada is very clearly a religion. Even Baraka_Guru's description of Karma, which I take less issue with, is initially mired in the metaphysical with its involvement of "past lives" - something which I can't agree with in the literal sense. Nonetheless, his bulleted list is precisely what I mean when I say you breed the environment you live in.This statement is a perfect example, if a bit simplistic. When you take that iPod, the next time you go to a party (especially with some of the same people) it's more likely that you'll be surrounded by people who are much more paranoid and skeptical of others than they may have otherwise been. On top of that, the person who lost their iPod may be made to feel more justified in doing the same to someone else. That only magnifies the effect. Whether you are caught or not, whether you feel guilt or not, the act of stealing has broader implications and effects on the world around you that will likely serve to make your own existence just a little less pleasing.

Stealing is stealing, is it not? If you're not going to stop at using an internet service that you are not paying for and that you don't have the subscriber's permission to use, why stop at using an iPod that you did not pay for and that you don't have the subscriber's permission to use? Besides, given enough piggybackers, it does slow up your connection, plus whatever illegal activity you do while on his network puts him at risk of running afoul of the law (pirated songs, child porn, it'll all get traced back to his IP and you can get away scott-free while he has to pony up for Johnny Cochrane).

You can't condemn one kind of theft while condoning the other just because you don't see the immediate implications for what you're doing.

It like this way of looking at it. All of these possible effects are counter-productive to created the world I've said I'd like to live in.

I think everyone has been in a social circle that has experienced this kind of drama. Someone suspects someone else to be guilty of something, and regardless of whether the suspicion is correct or not people take sides, the same group spots socializing together, and later people fondly recall the "good old days" when everyone still liked each other.

People sometimes refer to lying, cheating and stealing as being "the easy path." I disagree. If you live your life with honesty and integrety, life is actually easier and more fun. There's no reason to keep track of whom you told which lies in order to keep your stories straight. These's no stress about getting caught, and you never have to deal with consequences of getting caught.

"Stealing is stealing" is too simplistic. If no harm, inconveniance or extra expense comes to anyone, or if I am not violating any agreement I have made, then then there's little case to say what I'm doing is wrong.

Downloading childporn through a hacked network puts others at risk, and is therefore unethical. There are free public wireles networks out there, and there are private unsecured networks where the owner may not object to others using. If you have no indication that owner of the network doesn't want you to check your email through his network, then there's no harm, no foul.

If you have an invitation to someone's home for a part, there is implied permission to use their bathroom and use their toilet paper. You don't need to ask for explicit permission. There is no implied permission to take someones iPod without permission or notification. There's every reason to assume that would NOT be OK with the owner, and that taking the iPod would cause emotional and financial pain.

Unless you ask the network owner if he minds having others on his network, how can you know for certain? How can you arbitrarily assume whether or not they'll object?

Think about it: Does an open door to a house mean the homeowner won't mind if I step inside to cool off from the hot sun, even though I don't take anything from the house? Why would my physical intrusion be any different from a virtual one?

I can put it to you another way: Would it be less wrong of me to snatch up a busted iPod that the owner had no intention of repairing or using and would not notice or care if it disappeared? After all, it's useless to him, he has a replacement, no harm, no foul, right?

It's really not that complicated. Stealing is stealing, whether the emotional/financial impact is felt or not. There are no varying degrees for it and it cannot be negated as a vice on the assumption that the owner won't face an emotional or financial impact over it's disappearance.

I could be mistaken, this could be a stretch, but the vibe I'm getting from the responses is that stealing is wrong only if it negatively affects the victim.

Is murder always murder? Are there not varying degrees of it? Self defense murder is different than serial killer murder, is it not?

If so, why is there not the same varying degrees to theft? Moral issues are never black and white.

There are various degrees of murder based on circumstance and intent. You can set out to kill a person. You can have a severe emotional reaction and lash out and take it too far. You can display gross negligence that causes a person's death. There are ways of intentionally and unintentionally killing somebody.

When you steal an item, you can't do it unintentionally. If you've held a job as a security officer for a store I'm sure you've heard the excuse, "I forgot to pay for it," from a shoplifter at least one time, and I'm sure that excuse didn't fly.

Killing a person isn't always driven by intent. It can be fueled by blind emotion, or unintentional consequences. Stealing, on the other hand requires intent. When you steal something, it's already in your mind, "I'm going to take it."

Debatable point: If you have a passenger in their car, and they leave their iPod in your car by accident, when they discover you have that iPod, does that make you a thief since it's in your posession unintentionally?

I've stolen by accident before. I was using a box cutter at work to open a bunch of packages we got in, and then I called out front to deal with a customer. By the time I got home, I realized that the box cutter was still in my pocket. I stole it. Unintentionally.

When you realized you still had the boxcutter, did you keep it, or did you return it to work the next day? The decision to keep it makes it intentional.

No. The theft itself was unintentional, as the box cutter was carelessly left in a pocket with no conscious thought as to theft. Had he kept it, that would not have added intention to the carelessness.

I still find that debateable. Can any item that you forget is in your posession be considered stolen? A friend's set of keys, change from making a lunch run for the guys in the office, a borrowed sweater? How absurd is that?

If it starts out in your posession legitimately, your unintentional failure to return it does not constitute theft. It is not until you decide that you're not going to return it that it should be considered stolen.

Ok...now, granted...I'm not the brightest bulb in the box...but I read and reread these two statements about a half dozen times. What the hell's the difference?!? It's the same thing.

The decision after the accident to keep the box cutter may be intentional, but that later intentional theft doesn't make the initial accident intentional. That act of carelessly leaving the knife in the pocket will always be an accident.

Stealing is a deliberate act. If you return a box cutter or iPod that accidently came into your possesion, there is no moral transgression. If you decide to keep them in violation of company policy or at the cost of a friend's emotional and/or financial distress, then it becomes stealing.

I feel the need to good for the sake of doing good. The religious man does good out of a fear of punishment.

I ask you who the truly moral one is...

how about when people take that sweet nectar from the soda fountain in their water cup...I'm sure that overpriced soda purchases are really one of the only ways fast food companies stay afloat.

I always scold my girlfriend when she does that (I'm the agnostic...she's Muslim)

anyway, basically, the golden rule is the summary of how I behave myself.

I could have likely stolen thousands of dollars worth of stuff (and money) from my dad's company over the years...but I dont want my stuff stolen, so I avoid stealing other people's stuffs.

It sounds like you are referring to Christianity here. If so, I think this is a misreading. Fear of punishment is related to sin. A religious (Christian) man does good to be closer to God (i.e. to feel divine grace), not out of fear. The idea of fire and brimstone and an unforgiving and wrathful God is mostly Old Testament. There is some of this in the New Testament too, but it is more related to what would be your fate if you are sinful. It's more or less an allegory that states: Your fate will be like the Devil's if you align with him (i.e. doing evil will have bad results).

So, to be more accurate: A religious (Christian) man refrains from doing evil out of fear of punishment, and he does good to feel the divine grace of God.

But also bear in mind the idea of repentance from sin, and the atonement of past sins. God is forgiving and has eternal love. Those who end up in hell (i.e. experience eternal torment) only do so because they refuse to repent and/or they refuse God's love, which is universal.

Also, your statement relating to doing good for the sake of doing good is too simplistic. It would be more accurate if you said you do good because of the outcome of such actions. Those of us who are atheists would like to say we do good because it is the right thing to do, but if we think on it more, we will reveal more: We do good because of specific outcomes. We do good because we know why it is good. We do good because evil causes negative effects. What's more, atheists aren't the only ones who think this way.

Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

It's a carrot/stick thing. Do good, get the carrot. Do bad, get the stick. Do good, go to heaven. Do bad, go to hell. If that's not blatant motivation, I don't know what is.

Yeah, it's kinda like the legal system.

No, come on Will... Baraka's got it right here. True Christians don't obey God's "rules" out of fear that they're going to hell... they believe that by accepting Jesus into their heart, they've been forgiven all their sins and saved from hell. That scripture you're quoting is actually saying that if people do NOT accept Jesus, then yes, they will go to hell... but if they do accept him, they no longer have to act in fear. The point of being a Christian is to draw near to God out of love and a desire to obey, not fear of going to hell. At least, that was my 2 cents of understanding...

At least two real numbers:

You are one.

We are one.

If we could remember this we'd have morality.

That's dangerous language. This suggests your interpretation of the bible is correct and someone else's interpretation is wrong. There are plenty of deeply faithful Christians who would call themselves "true Christians" who attempt to do the right thing in order to get into heaven.

Eh, i don't know about stolen ipods or what-have-you.

I don't think morality comes from religion. I think religion just offers a roadmap (one that is very often full of errors).

A moral is just a highly prioritized rule; don't murder, don't steal, don't fart in a crowded elevator. Greed is moral if your morality dictates as much. The details aren't important when it comes to the validity of morals. What is important is the justification for those morals.

I think that being religious makes it a lot easier for a person to justify (or not, depending on your perspective) their morals.

"Why shouldn't i steal? God says so? Well shit, i don't want to piss that motherfucker off, he's like, omnipotent, or some shit."

As opposed to "Why shouldn't i steal? Because it's wrong? Why? What if the person is rich and won't even notice it gone? What if i need to feed my family? What if they stole it from me first? Fuck that, i'm finna go rob some motherfucker. Or not."

Stealing can be moral, if you want it to be, so can the decision to be completely amoral.

From my personal perspective, i don't care where you get your morals, if they are either a) closely aligned with mine, or b)not fixing to fuck up the nouns that i care about, then they're fine with me. I guess that's kind of like the golden rule.

In any case, they all have arbitrary roots, and as such the inherent universality of any set of morals should be doubted with extreme prejudice.

All that being said, i don't think the person who refrains from stealing because of some self defined arbitrary set of rules is any better than a person who refrains from stealing because some deity told them not to. I don't think adhering to your morals is a competition.

The whole argument has one fundamental flaw; it rests on the implication that religion has to be moral. I don't think believing in God would make you a better person if you believed your God wanted you to rape children. So it would seem when religious people announce you need religion or god in your life what they really mean is that you need their particular form of religion or their particular god to be moral.... go figure.

The reason religions tend to be strict or moral, if you will, is not because the idea of a god leads to such revelations, but because empathy is a human trait that displays itself in a myriad of ways. Religion didn’t bring morality to us we brought morality to religion. (I believe this last point was made by a few other people as well, but with over 60 posts above mine it’s hard to read carefully)

You can argue semantics all day, but I stand by my statement.

I was not refering to hell, but rather the worst fate for a true believer, separation from his or her God (or gods).

As for me, I actually try to do what's right because it is right. You are arguing for expediency, not morality.

Although I would love to argue semantics, I don't think we should cross that bridge, so let's avoid that. But, on the other hand, perhaps if we do take the time to look into the meaning of what you are saying, I can better understand it.

You may not have meant hell per se, but hell being a major aspect of a large religion (Christianity), it did make for a good example. It would also be of interest to describe other states of divine separation. A Christian fears hell because there they are separated from God, but what of other faiths? And what if a Christian loses faith? Maybe that is the worst fate for what you would call a "true believer"--becoming a non-believer.

I try to do right because it's right. It is because it is. I am because I am. These statements have little value because they are self-evident. It sounds like you are glossing your morality here. What is right, and why? What makes you try? Why bother?

And I wasn't arguing for anything--neither expediency nor morality; I was outlining the Christian belief of the outcome of good and evil, and how to deal with it. You might find it interesting that underneath the allegory, symbolism, and ritual that the Christian morality is not unlike your own. I can't say myself, because you haven't explained what is "truly moral."

The concepts of good and evil flip sides all the time on a long enough timeline.

No, Will, I did not say that "my interpretation was correct," especially since I don't particularly believe in the Bible anymore (a fact which I thought was a foregone conclusion, given every other thread I've posted on). I specifically said that this was MY 2 cents of understanding, not anyone else's.

And when I say "true Christians," I am talking exactly about those people who are "attempting to do the right thing in order to get into heaven." That's the only "true" Christian I know. But what Christian is going to argue with me, about the idea that you have to accept Jesus in order to go to heaven, and that once you do so, you are no longer going to hell? Isn't that the central doctrine of Christianity, or did I miss something entirely???

Again, my 2 cents on the Christian thing: the whole point of the Jesus-dying business is so that sin no longer matters... but the effort of AVOIDING sin (not because of hell, but because it causes God to weep and it corrupts the soul, etc) is one of the aims of the Christian life. In that sense, Christians are moral because they *want* to be, not because they are *afraid* of punishment. Huge difference.

Now, I'm very open to any of this being wrong, feel free to point it out. (If so, then my whole notion of Christian doctrine was clearly off base, but that's fine.) :)

So you're a corrupt soul destined for heaven. If there's no threat of heaven being taken away from you for sinning, I don't see the motivation for staying within moral boundaries besides claiming bragging rights to who's shit stinks the least.

Well, the latter is probably a pretty strong motivation for a lot of religious (and secular!) people, actually... especially when all your actions might be on display for an entire community (church, Republicans, etc) to see and criticize. You might not be going to hell, but going to social or political hell for the rest of your earthly life might not be so fun either. ;)

That said, for people who truly don't care about shit stinking or punishment or being an outcast, well I refer to what I said earlier... Why is it always assumed that the only reason people obey laws is out of fear?

And where the heck are the evangelicals of this forum to chime in on/correct what I'm saying? :lol:

Because laws are crafted that way. When a law is ineffective, what do politicans do? Clamp down on enforcement and ramp up the penalties. Scare people straight and they'll stay within the lines. There's no law that I can think of that will reward me for following it.

Some people believe that religion makes people more moral. Others point out all of the pain & violence that has been motivated by religion. It's been my belief for a while that religion is a reflection of the person who practices it. People who are inclined to acheive their gaols through violence or deception use religion to justify their behvoir, while altruistic people have more altruistic interpretations of religion.

Yeah, and to some extent I agree with you (only because I am now a secularist and no longer live according to Christian doctrine).

But an evangelical would *most likely* (still waiting for confirmation here) :paranoid: see God's laws as being far different than the laws of the world. "Render what is Caesar's unto Caesar and what is God's unto God," etc. There is no one to "clamp down" on people who "sin" in a spiritual sense, at least not if that person is born again, accepted Christ, and all that jazz. Hell is no longer relevant if one has been forgiven.

So then it's entirely up to that person whether or not he or she *wants* to obey... and that makes moral behavior a matter of will/desire to obey and make God happy, not fear of pissing him off. Hence the New Testament.

There is a very good article about this over at NewScientist. You may need to subscribe to view it all (completely worth it!) but you should get some of the text.

I don't personally ascribe to this idea but it is interesting.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...od-is-god.html

Is there any advantage to making God happy?

If He is happy, then He is not turning you into a pillar of salt...

I guess then it's all about avoiding punishment after all.

Bingo.

I felt my fellows pain, and responded empathetically, and pain relief came back to me.

I wondered why my neighbor did not fear karma, but his lack of imagination came back to hurt him, and I didn't feel that.

You reap what you sow, unless the weather doesn't cooperate. The universe doesn't cooperate. It might love you if you love it.

Was that karmically vague enough? Do unto others and all that!

Dude, that is SO Old Testament. :lol:

Anyway, seeing as no evangelical types are chiming in at this point, I'm out for now. Thanks for the trip down doctrinal lane, though. :)

The "Ten commandments"
Could be boiled with some success
Into "you don't steal"

Hell, y'earn, right?

Before I even read the rest of the responses in this thread I must express just how appalled by this I am. Where does this come from. Is this just your opinion?

Personally I would classify myself as "areligious" I guess it would be relatively similar to agnosticism, but I am very open minded and reserve the right to change my opinion on religion and the belief in a higher power as I continue to explore and learn about the world around me.

But getting back to this statement that religious people are more likely to care for the poor than their atheistic counterparts; I think that is pure crap. From my experience, and that is all I have to base it on, I have found the opposite. I have lived in several parts of the United States and have worked in a number of different fields and have come in to contact with a variety of people from different backgrounds and based on those experiences I find that the more openly religious a person is the more hypocritical they are and in general they lack integrity and are more apt to discriminate against people that do not have the share the same background as them. Granted I have know a large number of people that are very religious and are just "good people" but those have been fewer in number than those that "talk the talk but DO NOT walk the walk" so to speak.

And what really irks me about the above statement is that I would expect to hear the above statement. Infinite Loser, I do not know you personally so I don't want to make any type of judgement on your character so I won't, but that statement is exactly the type of thing I would expect to hear from a very vocal Christian.

It really is not a question of being religious or not religious it comes down to people finding justifications for thier actions. I truly believe that everyone, except for those suffering from some sort of mental illness, know right from wrong. However, many will justify an act that they consider wrong so as not to feel bad about it. They could say, "everyone does it" or "so and so did it so why can't I" or "the Bible does not say it is wrong" or whatever they want to justify thier actions but deep down inside people know right from wrong.

Right is wrong
All knowing aside;
Doublespeak.

Our appetites outweigh our abilities in most cases.

As many others have said, you either know right from wrong or you don't. In the latter case, no amount of training can help you.

I don't think you need religion to have good moral values. I think this subject is great, and an important one at that.

I'm a religious person, proud of a Christian upbringing....BUT.

When I read the original post, a person came to midn immediately. I have a cousin, very close to the guy, who is agnostic. He is not opposed to the idea of a higher power, won't argue against it, simply chooses no religion. His main thought is that organized religion has caused more pain and suffering than the world wars combined....

At any rate, he's a great guy. Good morals, strong values, etc...Holds strong to conservative beliefs, and he does all this with no religious background and no religious basis...

So though I support my religion and the beliefs of it, I do not think its "required" for a person to be religious, if they want to be *good*

-Will

Check out "We are all god"
Because we are.

Plato's Republic
 

the I-Pod scenario made me recall the last time I read Plato's Republic. I have taken a few ethics courses and even nearly come to blows with an ethics professor. I received an "A" for that course. :thumbsup:

Plato proposed to a group of young men a question. If you found a ring of invisibilty, what would you do with it?

I have thought about it myself many times. I consider the banks I could simply walk into and walk out with a pocket full of money anytime I needed it. I could get into any club, concert or event for free. Then I thought of all the things I would be robbing myself of. The ability to share these occasions with a companion or the other people present. The knowledge I would carry that the money I had stolen had to belong to someone and that someone would get blamed for the things I had done.

My ethics have never been defined by my religion, it has happened with me basically in reverse. I grew up being told to define my own life and my own reasons for what I did.

I have seen friends destroy each other using religion as a bludgeon. I saw a friend take custody of his children away from his wife using religion as a weapon. I have also seen people use religion as a basis for taking in people who could not care for themselves. Religion is only a PART of morality. To mouth something on one day and then to live another way can still be considered religious depending upon where you worship.

we throw around terms like "devout" and "religious" a great deal now. I wonder sometimes how much people understand these terms. I am no theology professer and I hate it when people preach to me about how what I believe is wrong. Most of the time I just look at these people and say "judge not lest ye be judged" and walk away. I had a prayer circle formed around me once because some twit believed me having tattoos was a sign that I was slipping into the devils clutches.

I believe Ben Franklin said it best when he said "All things in Moderation." I dont know if thats a direct quote and I am sure someone will probably blast me for it, but I believe that applies to religion as well. Believe what you believe, live how you wish to live, just dont force it down the throats of others.

Well said, and extremely moral. I'd like to hear more from you.

In the meantime, consider the damage that was done to those we consider evil.

I'll bet those who did it considered themselves moral.

the negative post:

the idea that religion is required to ground ethics follows from the notion of original sin--if you assume that human beings are degenerate, fallen, etc. a priori, then you can't rely on them to fashion adquate ethical systems

(this conclusion is contained in the premise--it is nothing more than an elaboration of the notion of original sin, a consequence of it)

so it follows that some sort of transcendent rule-set is required. and since the notion of transcendence is defined in the same terms, by the same religious frame that defines original sin, it follows that a transcendent rule-set can only come from god.

it's circular.
outside a christian framework, this argument says nothing.
you find versions of the same assumptions in each of the main monotheistic religions.
so it follows that the assumption that there should be a transcendent rule-set means nothing outside these traditions.

the assumption that these rules must exist in this way to be stable is a self-evident argument for submission to social control. social control exercised by particular institutions, arranged in a particular manner. a clear, pyramidal social hierarchy. us little people do not need to be concerned too much about how to live because the Important Big Folk at the top of the Great Chain of Social Being do that for us. our role is to submit.

and these arguments are routine in texts--religious and philosophical---that fret about the need to ground ethics.

it's funny how this works---you find groups of people panicking because they understand groups of people to be incapable of defining adequate limits to their own actions. so these groups set about comparative "analyses" of ethical systems in order to develop sets of meta-rules that appear in all systems. these then get set up as transcendent. you can watch this tiresome ritual unfold in areas like bidness ethics, which is only worth mentioning because it is a product of the 1970s and so is one of the areas that you can look at to find a repeat of this procedure, a rehearsal of these assumptions.


this is already too long.
this is a negative post.

Never submit & fail to forgive

Just my 2 cents, but people who say that you need faith in order to behave, just sound to me like they really want to do bad things but are too scared because of God. That's an awfully silly and self-centered reason to be a good person.

There's a different claim that's sometimes made that sounds like what people have been talking about in this thread, but is a bit less crazy. I mean, anyone who has spent time with 'unbelievers' knows that they can be good people, even better people than some Christians. But some want to make the claim that, if there are such things as ethical truths, then they require something like God to make them true.

"Oh, baby!
I didn't mean it.
I love you!"

And the abuse continues simply because many of us don't know right from wrong. We take the pain that's been thrust upon us and reproject it, often with no idea of where it's going or what it's even aimed at. Or even that we're doing it. (See?)

Consider internalizing injustice and only projecting what you know to be good and ethics happens. Unless, of course, your idea of good is bad.

That's a whole 'nother story.

It seems to me at least, that true ethical behavior comes down to a deep understanding of what it means to be a good person....regardless of one faith or another. While it is certainly true that cultural differences make defining a single ethic impossible, there are in mt opinion certain standards that are universal to the human species...part of the "normal mind" in a way.
I would hope that all minds work along the same principles as my own, but understand this is not the case. I may see purposeful damage done to another as something to be avoided due to my belief in some kind of Karma, but there is more to it than that...almost a spiritual guardrail that is meant to keep me on the road.

I don't see how that would be different than fearing gods retribution. Karma is as much a superstition as thinking the old guy with the beard is going to judge you unworthy. Good things will happen to me, if I did a good thing for someone else prior, I may errantly link them. Bad things happen to me as well, if I did a bad thing prior, I may too errantly link them.

But a lot of really good things happen to really bad people and a lot of really bad things happen to really good people. Karma seems a bit indiscriminate, and perhaps less efficient than good old god as he can wait until you die to 'get you'.

You obviously have no Idea what Karma is....at least to me. Why is it that from a simple statement of my own opinion, you find reason to express your own as a tantamount truth? Each individual that follows some sort of Karmic law, has an interpretation as unique as they are, just as each Christian follows those parts of the scripture that fit what they wish to believe.

This sounds right on track with what I stand for also.