Secular Ethics June 11, 2007
Posted by Joe in belief, blogs, ethics, immorality, morality, psychology.add a comment
Here is an interesting blog about a system of secular ethics, or more specifically how to decide what is right or wrong without consulting the supernatural.
Absolute Morality? June 7, 2007
Posted by Joe in belief, ethics, freethought, logic, morality, psychology, skepticism.1 comment so far
In a recent blog comment discussion I struggled to explain subjective morality. Here I would like to switch things around a bit and give my thoughts on absolute morality.
My working definition of absolute morality will be a specific unmodifiable set of moral codes that are held to be completely correct and unvarying through time. It has a few advantages.
The big one is the certainty and simplicity. You can easily judge your own or others actions just by looking at the absolute code and seeing if they fit. Most things are easy to figure out. There is no gray area. Everything is either clearly moral or clearly immoral.
But my question is this, can there really be such a thing as absolute morality?
What does it mean to be a moral person? June 7, 2007
Posted by Joe in agnosticism, atheism, belief, ethics, freethought, immorality, morality, psychology, skepticism, theism.1 comment so far
This is not an easy question to answer. It is an issue that philosophers have been struggling with for centuries. I don’t pretend to have figured it all out, but I do have my own thoughts on the issue.
First I want to consider the source of morality from a secular perspective. I believe that individual concepts of morality come primarily from two sources.
Call it genetics, call it innate, call it whatever, but it does seem there is a sense of fairness that just comes “built-in” to most people. Children have a highly developed sense of “fairness” which at first is quite selfish, but as they develop they come to apply to others. As a child grows he develops a Theory of Mind, which is a natural human understanding and empathy for the “other”. They grasp the idea that other people are like them. This is when they see that fairness is not about getting their share, but about everyone wanting a “fair share”.
Then there are external influences. How a person makes moral decisions will depend highly upon what they learn to value. If they grow up in a environment which values possessions, their morals will contain strong rules against stealing and abusing property. If they are brought up in an environment that values personal expression, their morals will contain strong rules against suppress of creative and expressive impulses. If the environment contains religious influences then their morals will be highly influenced by the religious instruction that they receive.
All told a persons morals are a part of their personality and a result of genetics, development and environment.
On the Motives of Atheists June 5, 2007
Posted by Joe in agnosticism, atheism, fallacy, logic, psychology.13 comments
I recently read Evolution and the Bible and commented on a few things there. I often hear in religious discussion an attack on both sides of the motives of the other. Regardless of the fact that the appeal to motive is a type of ad hominem fallacy and should not be considered a valid refutation of most impersonal arguments, the motives ascribed to either side are usually inaccurate and in poor taste.
Theists are often characterized as being motivated by an inability to cope with harsh reality, an infantile need for authority, being brainwashed or otherwise unable to think for themselves, or possibly just being too stupid to dim witted to understand the complexity of the real world.
I hope the falseness of these mis characterizations is obvious. There are many intelligent theists that have well thought out and considered ideas and opinions on many subjects. I have had enlightening and interesting discussions with theists and have learned a lot from them.
Despite the feelings of many atheists, religion is not a haven for the stupid and ignorant. Are there stupid and ignorant theists? Of course, but there are also stupid and ignorant atheists, agnostics, etc…
A motive often ascribed to atheists is one I find particularly insidious. It stems from the common mis perception that religion is the source of all morality. It goes something like atheists choose to not believe in god because it would interfere with the immoral things that they want to do. Usually sexual immorality is implied or stated. This serves a twofold rhetorical purpose, it poisons the well for atheism by painting atheists as immoral sexual deviants and it attacks the motives of atheistic belief.
When any of these devices are resorted too, one can presume that the wielder is not interested in a positive discourse, but I think the benefit of the doubt can be given and you should try and cut through the rhetoric.
I believe the only way an intelligent respectful discussion can be had is for both sides to presume that the other’s motives is as they represent. Typically a pure desire to pursue the truth is what I presume, unless I am given signs otherwise by use of the usual rhetorical techniques.
(Edited to fix confusing sentence described by Richard Wade below)
Dr. Death June 4, 2007
Posted by Joe in death, law, life, media, politics, psychology.add a comment
With Dr. Jack Kevorkian being released from prison there is a lot of talk about how he was motivated to help the suffering relieve the misery of terminally ill patients.
Here is the well-documented truth about Jack Kevorkian. Whether you are in favor of euthanasia or not, Jack is a creepy guy with a lot of nutty ideas.
