Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Is it possible to be moral without any religious influence?
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: Rugged Monk on October 01, 2008, 02:24:13 AM ---yeah but specifically how you explain it, (know any philosophers whose bout it bout it?) how...
--- End quote ---
Yes, Ayn Rands objectivist school of thought deals with this very subject. They have many followers and are somewhat related to Libertarian politics on individual freedom, and the virtue of selfishness. Harry Browne teaches something similar, I prefer his brand of it to that of Ayn Rands.
Harry Browne says morality is... "A systematic attempt to recognize all the relevant consequences of your acts. It's purpose is to prevent you from doing something hastily that might interfere with your long-term goals".
So basically he is saying it's a code of contact that allows you to act with discipline at times you might otherwise be tempted to act hastily or emotionally.
He then sets about teaching his students to develop their own code of contact that is in keeping with their own nature and goals. For himself, he has certain morals like "never present yourself to be anything than who you really are (not lying)" and "never expect anyone to act from your knowledge, perspective, or objectives. Assume that his viewpoints will differ in some ways from yours", "never make important decisions while emotions are dominating your mind".
--- Quote from: Rugged Monk on October 01, 2008, 02:24:13 AM ---
how can you be moral without religious influence...where did you get your morales from then?
--- End quote ---
So these morals are not coming from religious influence, but rather he simply considers what his goals are (making sure the goals are realistic and achievable), and then sets about making a code of conduct consistent with his own naturethat will allow him to achieve those goals. For example, if he knows it's in his nature that he has a sensitive personality. He wouldn't set about making a code of conduct that involved dealing out 'tough love' to those he cared about or being unsympathetic. Rather he would make a code of conduct consistent with his sensitive nature (as an example).
7even:
--- Quote from: Three 2 Get Ready on October 01, 2008, 12:15:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: 7even on October 01, 2008, 01:46:54 AM ---Of course... I'm the living proof nigga
--- End quote ---
That's why you don't celebrate Christmas, right? Or respect your elders. Or accept your Sundays off from work. The whole protestant work ethic never even got anywhere near you. Oh, and also, I understand you don't wear clothes in public on a hot summer day. You're 100% freed from religious influences. I see.
What I'm saying is that you might not be moral because of your religiousness, but you'll still be influenced by religion because that's what shaped the culture that gives form to our world. That's what reflects back onto your personal morality: your acceptance or opposing of the morals of the world around you.
So in short, no, given the social environment we're now in, there'll always be religious influences on your morals. Hypothetically speaking, however, a "new" society made up of "blank" people on a deserted island would start giving shape to a new culture of theirs, but they would almost certainly resort back to some conceptions of the supernatural in order to explain that which they cannot explain. It's a natural coping strategy; humans need that to stay psychologically healthy.
--- End quote ---
I don't celebrate Christmas, and I don't care which day I have off. I wouldn't call the fact that I am not running around in public naked religious influence. If you go as far as to say that culture-society-humans have been in a somewhat religious environment and therefore have a share of religious influence, as to say, Christians usually ate food when they were hungry, then yes, everybody has got religious influence. But that was not the point of the thread now was it?
TraceOneInfinite:
Another important point to make is that while religion teaches altruism and self-lessness, the same morals can be taught from a selfish perspective.
Instead of teaching a chile he should steal because God says so, he can be taught that he shouldn't steal because people will shun a thief and not want to be his friend.
Or that he shouldn't lie, not because "God says so" but rather because the consequences of a lie are that one has to continue pretending and carrying on that lie far longer than they origionally intended and that ultimately they can get what is more in harmony with their nature by approaching the world directly and honestly.
7even:
--- Quote from: Infinite on October 02, 2008, 05:01:35 AM ---Another important point to make is that while religion teaches altruism and self-lessness, the same morals can be taught from a selfish perspective.
Instead of teaching a chile he should steal because God says so, he can be taught that he shouldn't steal because people will shun a thief and not want to be his friend.
Or that he shouldn't lie, not because "God says so" but rather because the consequences of a lie are that one has to continue pretending and carrying on that lie far longer than they origionally intended and that ultimately they can get what is more in harmony with their nature by approaching the world directly and honestly.
--- End quote ---
Unfortuantely the world doesn't work like that. Sociopaths usually cope very well with society. Smart thieves don't get caught. Etc
Elevz:
--- Quote from: Infinite on October 02, 2008, 04:16:49 AM ---
--- Quote from: Rugged Monk on October 01, 2008, 02:24:13 AM ---
how can you be moral without religious influence...where did you get your morales from then?
--- End quote ---
So these morals are not coming from religious influence, but rather he simply considers what his goals are (making sure the goals are realistic and achievable), and then sets about making a code of conduct consistent with his own naturethat will allow him to achieve those goals. For example, if he knows it's in his nature that he has a sensitive personality. He wouldn't set about making a code of conduct that involved dealing out 'tough love' to those he cared about or being unsympathetic. Rather he would make a code of conduct consistent with his sensitive nature (as an example).
--- End quote ---
Since you mentioned Ayn Rand already, let me add to that Ayn Rand's interpretation:
With no God to give our existence a meaning beyond itself, and your life ending the moment you die, your life can only be an end in itself. That means in order to be succesful, all of the actions in your life should be in order to get the best of it. Maximize life. You'll learn when things are going wrong, because ultimately they'll cause you to get hurt, and hurt is a (pre)sign of death. That's why you must always be as objective as possible towards your own sensations and towards everything that happens around you, because through reason you will understand the meaning it all has in relation to your life.
The outcome is a human being which supposedly stays true to its nature (Ayn Rand would call man a "rational being," although that's debatable). If your every action is in support of your own life, that means people would work together in terms of rationality, integrity and egoism (not egotist behavior, but simply the consideration of your own interests. Egotism isn't rational at all). In a truly rational society, no government would be needed, other than to protect peoples basic rights (property rights and the protection thereof, which includes your own safety, as your body also belongs to you). No obligations but those to your own life; it's a failure of your integrity if you can't live up to that.
In short, that's what it comes down to. The implications reach pretty far. Nature can't be fooled, thus we must live with it the best we can.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version