A rational defense of morality without us all being "the same"

[acroyear]

Pharyngula: We “amoral” atheists:

I do have a real and consistent reason for behaving morally, it's just one that doesn't require a supernatural foundation. I was raised in a happy family, one that reinforced that conventionally 'good' behavior, and that rewarded appropriate social behavior. I lived with good role models who offered love without conditions, who taught by example rather than with fear or threats. I live now in a family and with a community of friends who do not demand obeisance to superstition in order to give respect. I am rewarded materially and emotionally for moral behavior.

That's the recipe for building an environment that fosters moral behavior. [...] The surest way to create moral individuals is to build a stable society where desirable behaviors are rewarded [...]

I'd love to know how "Do Unto Others" became the exclusive privilege of "Christians" who insist on doing everything but...

Comments

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

The author seems to be saying that he's a moral person, even by the standards of most Christians, except for the praying to God and going to church bits. But isn't that like claiming to be a law-abiding person, except for the not stealing and killing bits?

Now, you may say, my analogy only holds if you assume that "morality" is defined by the Christians. I defend myself by claiming that the author created that context not me. He makes the mistake of failing to define morality. Morality is, simply, a code of right and wrong. We have different moralities presented to us, by different cultures and religions, and even our own internal morality. There may be some absolute morality, but any claiming to see it, to know it, will be cast aside by others making the same claim, yet seeing something different.
So any claiming that the author is amoral doesn't know the meaning of morality -- they really mean that the author doesn't subscribe to the same morality.

It could be claimed that true morality is based on good and evil at a level that any reasonable person should agree -- to which I'd have to say that most people are unreasonable.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

you're kind of missing the point - you're right in everything you say, but the context of the ongoing "morality war" between the christian right and, well, everybody else, is much larger.

We ("liberals") know that moral relativism exists and is real. There are some absolutes we think we can argue for (murder, stealing, lying) as part of a "golden rule" type of code. And then there are many others we know are gray areas, best decided on a case by case basis.

and finally there are those that are NEVER "morally" wrong but some groups like the christian right or the islamic faith have placed as moral wrongs simply because they found it easiest to indoctrinate their "moral" ideas into their dogma and thus make it their personal political requirement to have all of the rest of us follow that same bogus code. things like their laws against drinking and policies against birth control and thier attitudes to homosexuals.

it is these laws where they claim a moral absolute that we know doesn't exist. it also is (as we've seen time and time again) these laws that they are often the first to break themselves.

but yes, the context is that because their moral code comes "from god" (or so they are conditioned), they simply can not even fathom the idea of a moral code that is defined by rational discourse that doesn't require fear of punishment. Rather than living in the example of Christ as Jesus wanted and as Paul's better letters taught, they insist the only real enforcement of true morality is the vengeful god of the Old Testament and the book of Revelation (and some serious quote-mining of the rest, especially the book of John). they truly believe that only by living in fear can you live morally.

And they are conditioned by their preachers to stay that way and that those who don't live in the same fear of the same god can't possibly be "moral".

PZ's was a directly reply to that particular definition of morality, that one can follow each of the "love they neighbor as thyself" commandments AND adhere strictly to what they claim is their exclusive definition of "family values" without having to fear anything but a life without that same wife and family (should he screw up) - a REAL fear as opposed to what he sees as a bogus fear of some after-life punishment from some god that otherwise didn't show any interest in his life here in any way that anybody would actually notice.

he was arguing against the christian right, not toward a specific definition of absolute morality.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

and I posted it because I was raised in the same way, even as a Christian - it wasn't fear of God that makes me "good", it was growing up in the blanket of a loving family.

it is also how faireraven was raised.

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

Yup.

Preach it brother Joe!