The Moral Code

[rez]

I was thinking just now about what someone had recently said here.

They suggested that one might look for a different moral code to live their life by. Try Utilitarianism he says, it has a great code you can apply to everyday life.

Now i don't know much about utilitarianism, i am not here to bash it. What i am intrigued by is the fact that someone might NEED a code to tell them how to act.

This got me thinking about religion and atheist philosophies on life.

They are essentially telling you what is good and what is bad so that you may live a healthy, good and righteous life.

This is most intriguing as i am left wondering how I, as a person who subscribes to no paticular philosophy, could possibly live a good life without a code telling me what to do.

Some people say no to drugs because their moral code prohibits it. Some say no to gay marriage because their moral code disagrees with it.

So how can i with no outlined moral code per say, make my decisions.

The answer leads to another question, a question that turns the focus onto those who do need moral codes.

When i make a decision i do what feels right in my heart (forgive the expression but that is where i get the butterflies when considering right and wrong).

I come to my conclusion fairly rapidly, even i may deliberate on whether the morally right thing is the right thing to do at that point in time. With this unseen and unwritten moral compass my decisions can be made.

I can say i am subject to no one philosophy, i am merely a boy.

So if i can make my decisions without the spur of a philosophy's whip at my side, why can't the people who need an outlined moral code? Surely they must have the same sense in their hearts? Why is their own moral sense ascribed to someone elses written code?

[Darth Wong]

When you have no formalized moral code, you're just going on social conditioning from your upbringing. That works fine but it allows people to have contradictory elements in their morality without ever realizing it. Adoption of a formalized moral code forces you to examine what it is that you think is right and wrong rather than simply letting gut instinct rule your decisions.

It is possible to literally "think your way out" of things you were raised to believe, once you start demanding a consistent moral code out of yourself. For example, when I was a teenager (way back in the 80s), I fit every definition of a homophobe. I didn't like gays, thought all sorts of bad things about them, agreed with numerous forms of social and legal discrimination against them, etc. I had plenty of arguments for why I thought they were bad, but those arguments were specific to that particular subject. I didn't try to make sure that those same arguments would apply everywhere in life. So I had different arguments for different subjects.

My attempts to adopt a formalized moral code (begun in my late education when I had to study engineering ethics) eventually led me to the realization that parts of my morality were contradictory with other parts. This led me to investigate some of those "gut instinct" moral decisions that were really just the product of social conditioning, and decide that my gut instinct was wrong. To this day I still have an instinctive negative reaction to effeminate or homosexual men in my presence, but I advocate for their rights because I realized the difference between morality and conditioning and basically argued myself out of it.

[rez]

When you have no formalized moral code, you're just going on social conditioning from your upbringing. That works fine but it allows people to have contradictory elements in their morality without ever realizing it.

Interesting, however i cannot see this applying to me as i was raised as an evangelist christian.

I do not believe my social conditioning in that upbringing has kept a firm hold on the way i make my decisions now.

Adoption of a formalized moral code forces you to examine what it is that you think is right and wrong rather than simply letting gut instinct rule your decisions

This is paticularly thought provoking. What is there to stop me from analysing my own motives now? As a matter of fact that is one of the ways i am kept in check, i constantly assess my own standpoint on everything. Were i to simply rely on gut instinct then i would never have grown as a person. I would still be the blindingly arrogant christian who screwed everyone over to get ahead.

[Darth Wong]

Interesting, however i cannot see this applying to me as i was raised as an evangelist christian.

I do not believe my social conditioning in that upbringing has kept a firm hold on the way i make my decisions now.

A person's upbringing is an extremely complex system which is difficult to analyze. There is no way that your thinking is not still influenced heavily by your upbringing (keep in mind that social conditioning is not just your church, but also friends, family, peers, TV, the general culture around you, etc).

This is paticularly thought provoking. What is there to stop me from analysing my own motives now? As a matter of fact that is one of the ways i am kept in check, i constantly assess my own standpoint on everything. Were i to simply rely on gut instinct then i would never have grown as a person. I would still be the blindingly arrogant christian who screwed everyone over to get ahead.

Of course you can analyze your own motives now. Nothing is stopping you from arriving at your own moral code. Formalized moral codes are something that you should ideally agree with after analyzing morality on your own, not something that you just follow because you feel attached to them.

But any amount of analysis must eventually run into the problem of contradictory elements of your morality, if it is done honestly. This is the part which forces a re-evaluation. Eventually you have to come up with some kind of consistent system, and if you do so, you will typically find that many philosophers have come up with your ideas before.

Mankind has spent thousands of years debating, studying, and writing about morality. It would be foolish not to examine some of that work while attempting to synthesize your own moral code. It gives you ideas, takes you in different directions, and really helps with the process.

My afore mentioned Christian friend thinks that she can murder a heathen, ask God for forgiveness and go to heaven. The heathen will go to hell for being a heaven. For her this is entirely moral.

If she was subjected to a Socratic interrogation, and she was intelligent and honest enough to do so, she would eventually be forced to admit that she does not apply this kind of ethic evenly in life, hence her moral code is self-contradictory. For example, I could ask if it would be moral for a Muslim to murder her for being an infidel. She would, of course, answer no, and then I could throw her own moral justification in her face. Then she'd retort with some BS about how her religion is intrinsically more valid than Islam, which would lead to more logic exchanges, and once again, if she is intelligent and honest, she would eventually be forced to concede the point. Of course, if she's a moron, she's beyond hope.

[rez]

A person's upbringing is an extremely complex system which is difficult to analyze. There is no way that your thinking is not still influenced heavily by your upbringing (keep in mind that social conditioning is not just your church, but also friends, family, peers, TV, the general culture around you, etc).

again very helpful stuff, but however influenced i may be - i still developed as a person without utilising the moral code that was first handed to me.

Formalized moral codes are something that you should ideally agree with after analyzing morality on your own, not something that you just follow because you feel attached to them.

The perhaps i have a pseudo moral code that i merely have not formalised. However the distinction being in that i amalgamated it myself rather than merely picking one and attempting to stick to it.

But any amount of analysis must eventually run into the problem of contradictory elements of your morality, if it is done honestly. This is the part which forces a re-evaluation. Eventually you have to come up with some kind of consistent system, and if you do so, you will typically find that many philosophers have come up with your ideas before.

then this seems to be the correct system. The one in which a conclusion is reached by yourself, but then correlation is realised afterwards. Lamentably i have grown up around people handed a code and then tenaciously holding onto it.

Perhaps i hastily applied such actions to more people than i should. Is this not an occurence anyone else has seen?

Mankind has spent thousands of years debating, studying, and writing about morality. It would be foolish not to examine some of that work while attempting to synthesize your own moral code. It gives you ideas, takes you in different directions, and really helps with the process.

I agree wholeheartedly, however whilst trying not to sound existentialist i do believe that the definitive conclusion must be pieced together by the individual. Otherwise a true understanding of your own philosophy is kept at bay.

---------------------------------

Absolute truth is not a prequisite to a fundamentally beneficial moral code. It does not have to make you a perfect person, for that is impossible. But self betterment is not unattainable without religion

[removeduser_487563287433]

My afore mentioned Christian friend thinks that she can murder a heathen, ask God for forgiveness and go to heaven. The heathen will go to hell for being a heaven. For her this is entirely moral.

[God]

My afore mentioned Christian friend thinks that she can murder a heathen, ask God for forgiveness and go to heaven. The heathen will go to hell for being a heaven. For her this is entirely moral.

My grandparents believe that if you murder someone, confess, then get run over on the way home you go to heaven but if you get run over on the way to confession you go to hell.

They also believe that lightning is caused by God's anger...

[removeduser_487563287433]

My grandparents believe that if you murder someone, confess, then get run over on the way home you go to heaven but if you get run over on the way to confession you go to hell.

They also believe that lightning is caused by God's anger...

When I was fifteen me and my best friend were sheltering from a heavy thunderstorm. "Tom." He said. "What exactly causes lightning?"

"ZEUS!" I yelled. He laughed and came to the conclusion that that was better than a sensible answer anyway.

[Banninated]

They also believe that lightning is caused by God's anger...

That is not any more irrational than any other belief.

I have an honest question, though, for all of you who have "moral codes." How can you accept such codes, knowing (as anyone with any capacity for thinking does) that they are not absolute. What could convince you of their correctness, when they aren't based on any absolute truth?

[Darth Wong]

That is not any more irrational than any other belief.

You seriously don't think that "God's anger" is any more irrational than electromagnetism as an explanation for lightning? How do you define "irrational"?

I have an honest question, though, for all of you who have "moral codes." How can you accept such codes, knowing (as anyone with any capacity for thinking does) that they are not absolute. What could convince you of their correctness, when they aren't based on any absolute truth?

Since there is no such thing as "absolute truth", it is hardly an indictment of a moral code to point out that it lacks this term.

[Banninated]

You seriously don't think that "God's anger" is any more irrational than electromagnetism as an explanation for lightning? How do you define "irrational"?

I said it is no more irrational than any other belief. Electromagnetism is not something that people need to believe in, we know it exists and that it causes lightning. I was referring to the fact that a belief in lightning being the anger of a god is not any more irrational than a belief in a deity, or a soul, or a heaven, or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.

Since there is no such thing as "absolute truth", it is hardly an indictment of a moral code to point out that it lacks this term.

Adding one and one does not absolutely result in two? It certainly does. There is no absolute definition of what is moral, so how can you possibly accept something as being so? If you say that it is not moral to kill another human, what are you basing it on? It seems there is nothing for you to base it on, other than your opinions and/or beliefs, and those of others.

[rez]

the point i raise is not one of moral relatavism though. it is the fact that she NEEDS that paticular code to function in the world.

According to that code she is allowed to do such terrible things - without that code, what sort of person would she be?

[I Have a Clever Name]

All morals have a foundation in instinct, but in order to avoid hypocrisy we must adopt universal moral tenets. Base instinct may inform you that experiencing pain is undesirable, and that you do not wish to experience pain. But you might inflict pain upon another based on an instinctive compulsion to better your position somehow. However, if you take the statement 'pain is bad' as universal and then apply it to any situation you'll avoid inconsistency.

I think that works, I'm partly drawing from a discussion I had earlier.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I agree wholeheartedly, however whilst trying not to sound existentialist i do believe that the definitive conclusion must be pieced together by the individual. Otherwise a true understanding of your own philosophy is kept at bay.

I would still urge you to read other's works, so that you may assimilate knowledge instantly that has taken a lifetime to establish in the first instance. I would quote that properly, but I forgot who said it.

[rez]

If i was not clear - I meant that i agree that others works must be read, studied and assimilated.

But the FINAL conclusion on your personal moral code can only be pieced together by the individual. And by pieced together i mean from whatever experiences or teachings you have picked up.

[I Have a Clever Name]

But the FINAL conclusion on your personal moral code can only be pieced together by the individual. And by pieced together i mean from whatever experiences or teachings you have picked up.

Or you could just take up religion. Its far more convenient.

[Novusordoseclorum]

True freedom is being able to do whatever you damm like as long as it dosen't effect anyone else. Moral codes are not needed.

[Novusordoseclorum]

Read this book to free your mind - http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=139637

[the Eternal Cocoon]

I was thinking just now about what someone had recently said here.

They suggested that one might look for a different moral code to live their life by. Try Utilitarianism he says, it has a great code you can apply to everyday life.

Now i don't know much about utilitarianism, i am not here to bash it. What i am intrigued by is the fact that someone might NEED a code to tell them how to act.

This got me thinking about religion and atheist philosophies on life.

They are essentially telling you what is good and what is bad so that you may live a healthy, good and righteous life.

This is most intriguing as i am left wondering how I, as a person who subscribes to no paticular philosophy, could possibly live a good life without a code telling me what to do.

Some people say no to drugs because their moral code prohibits it. Some say no to gay marriage because their moral code disagrees with it.

So how can i with no outlined moral code per say, make my decisions.

The answer leads to another question, a question that turns the focus onto those who do need moral codes.

When i make a decision i do what feels right in my heart (forgive the expression but that is where i get the butterflies when considering right and wrong).

I come to my conclusion fairly rapidly, even i may deliberate on whether the morally right thing is the right thing to do at that point in time. With this unseen and unwritten moral compass my decisions can be made.

I can say i am subject to no one philosophy, i am merely a boy.

So if i can make my decisions without the spur of a philosophy's whip at my side, why can't the people who need an outlined moral code? Surely they must have the same sense in their hearts? Why is their own moral sense ascribed to someone elses written code?

a moral code like any code is a formalizatoin of an idea. What is an idea? do you understand something before you know it? When you think of something, do you feel it first and then simply transcribe it into words? People who need a formal code to live thier lives by are people who dont understand themselves or thier emotions. Most people do feel that feeling of right when they come to a moral dicision, but the question is if they can recignize it. People's learned inhibitions, indicicivness, and self-councousness leads to them distrusting themselves, so they instead defer to a written or spoken code taking all responsibility off of themselves. Utilitarianism is a good moral code, but if you cant follow it unless its codified then it will never be natural to you it would be like, to use H&G's example, a athiest believing in god.