Secular morality

Oct 12 01:55 UTC 2000

Here's my contribution to the whole heady thing.

Morality has been a major issue of late, politically, as people grasp with
what is allegedly decaying morals in American society, leading to Columbine,
etc. Some politicos have gone to the length of encouraging or even legislating
things like the Commandments in schools and such. What seems to be missing
from these discussions is any concept of secular morality -- morality
independent of spiritual motivation.

So what are people's opinions on:

-- Secular morality. What is it? What are your values, independent of whatever
faith you have?

-- How would you define "American" core moral values?

Be nice. =}

response 2 of 129:

Oct 12 02:45 UTC 2000

  You definitely don't hear much talk about secular motivations for morality
  lately.  Whether this is because of the recent political and social fashion
  for public proclamations of piety or whether it's due to an actual decline
  in consensus over "core" moral values is hard to say..

  The cynic in me, though, can't resist an observation about the startling
  dichotomy in most people's moral values depending on whether they are the
  actor or the object of the action.  

response 4 of 129:

Oct 12 04:19 UTC 2000

I've long thought there was some merit to the approach Heinlein described
in _Starship_Troopers_.  Not that it is a complete system, but I have
found it useful for establishing expectations.

response 6 of 129:

Oct 12 11:28 UTC 2000

re: #3  you are addressing the issue based on today's world, correct?  would
that model have held true for the third reich?  please correct me if i'm
wrong, but you are basing your morals on that which the group finds
acceptable, no?  "get along better and accomplish more if we cooperate"

response 8 of 129:

Oct 12 13:31 UTC 2000

#3> Rane, last paragraph: I hate to break this to you, dude, but you're not
the whole of the media. ;} For that matter, there's a world outside of Grex
(but thanks for your input =} ). As to being mocked, personally, I mock just
about everyone, even (or especially) myself. Dunno if others mock you too.

#4> Could you elaborate on Heinlein's approach? I'm not familiar with that
book (or the movie, though I doubt the movie explored philosophy in depth).

#7> Actually, that's the point... not so much where the idea of "good" comes
from, since that question is generally loaded towards religious faith, but
rather what "good" is -- is it universal, is it culturally biased, and
regardless, what it means to be "moral" in modern America without a specific
God slapping you around?

For the atheist, the question would be: How would you define a moral act, and
what motivates you to behave morally?

For the religious, the question would be: How would you distinguish your
morality from your faith? Are there elements of how you see "goodness" or
"morality" that is independent of your faith?

A secondary question, btw, of which I was reminded by #4> What movies, shows,
or books, or characters within those, would you say best reflect "good" or
"bad" values? If somebody were to ask for the perfect American hero, as
depicted in American literature and cinema, how would you answer (and don't
say "William Katz" ;} )... I don't mean just superheros, either. If somebody
were to ask for the worst American villain, how would you answer? What are
the traits you would use in such a selection?

response 10 of 129:

Oct 12 13:57 UTC 2000

Um... clarify?

response 12 of 129:

Oct 12 16:23 UTC 2000

Ok. On what parameters would you define "benefit"?

response 14 of 129:

Oct 12 17:18 UTC 2000

RE #1, you have to define pain better.  Because a medical professional
inflicts pain, but does it to accomplish a good thing.  But it's not evil.
I think it's the hammer theory.  You have to look at the application, not the
entity itself.

I find myself walking through the day, seeing with stark amazement so many
opportunites to be "bad" but I choose not to take them.  I think I believe
in karma, instant karma, too much to do otherwise.  I don't judge my morals
by a pre-established code, except maybe the traditional golden rule, Do Unto
Others as you would like them to do to you, with the added ending, even if
they don't.   I see people, my roommate included which bothers me to no end,
who use other people because they are "there" to be used.  They allow it. 
Then they complain when others do it to them.

I try and be nice to people because I want to be, not because the pagans,
catholic church, my mother, or anyone else tells me to.  Because if I listened
to them, I would have never read (her being a teacher it is amazing that she
adopts the attitude of reading more does damage because the more you know the
more it confuses what you should believe) anything.  I would hate anyone who
wasn't my religion, or look down upon them in pity.  I claim no religion now,
because I believe there is truth in everything.  

I think my beliefs stem more from not trying to inflict pain, because frankly
sometimes you have to.  Life is not static, and as people used to say, war
is good for business.  We are in the unique position that we are not having
to dictate our position by what war we are fighting or who is our enemy.  We
don't have the Nazi's or the Commies to hate anymore, so we're stuck trying
to figure out how we became the enemy.

Columbine was not the fault of the recording industry.  Nor the fault of the
movies, or video games, or even the kids learning about Hitler.  Finding out
that he failed to get into art school twice before he began his political
career demystified him for me.  All these school shootings, in my humble
opinion, are the result of the "family" becoming less and less important in
our society, other than talking about it for Television programming or
political platforms.  I work with a female surgeon who had the audacity to
have a child!  Oh my! In a field where it is predominatly male anyway, she
has been "mommy tracked".  But for all they talk about the family unit of the
hospital and the department, they look on the time she spends at home, and
the other female doctors, as time stolen from their jobs.  She made the joke
the other day that she should have been sterilized when she got her MD.

If the parents had cared enough to take the time out, we wouldn't have to
worry about so many kids feeling the world doesn't care.  In truth, it doesn't
give a shit if you give your time/effort/money/taxes.  The only time what YOU
want matters to other people is when they want something.  Even if it is to
feel good for being able to help another person.  We are forcing the decision
that if you are going to live, you need to work and have a job/career.  If
you are going to have a career, then you need to put THAT first, and your
life/husband-wife-signifigant other/children/pets after that.  How awful is
it that we had to have a LAW passed so that you could take care of a sick
famliy member without being fired?  We are forced to take care of so many
other things, and then we have so little time to ourselves, that we burst.
So mom and dad work.  Kid wants to talk, well, if they are lucky, they have
a parent who can be there.  Not WANTS to be there, because I think most do,
but can be there.  To a kid, there isn't much difference though, and you get
a lot of mesh between the two, like if t hey can't they don't want to.  

The kids at Columbine were tragic.  But the parents should have seen the web
pages they put up.  They should have seen the sawed off shot gun barrel on
the dresser.  It's not the trench coats or the music.  They didn't pay
attention, and now they are blaming everyone else.

I am nice to people because I want to be, I enjoy being nice.  I look at the
impact, or at least I try to, that things I do have on other people's lives,
and try to avoid things that will be negative, but like I said before,
sometimes you can't help that and blanket statements about "evil" aren't
helpful.

response 16 of 129:

Oct 12 18:00 UTC 2000

Hm. the difference I see there is that it's proscriptive rather than
prescriptive, but otherwise identical. Why the preference?

response 18 of 129:

Oct 12 18:07 UTC 2000

Open question: Is morality universal? Are there things which are "always
wrong" or "always right," or is it always culturally dpendent?

response 20 of 129:

Oct 12 18:16 UTC 2000

Re #16: it has been pointed out that the "do to others as you would
want others to do to you" licenses immoral behavior *if you like it*.
One might want others to provide free drugs, so the adage supports
one giving others drugs, etc. The proscriptive version does not get
into this difficulty. (The difference is an important one between
Judaism and Christianity, where the former emphasises right actions,
and the latter, right thoughts.)

response 22 of 129:

Oct 12 18:39 UTC 2000

        Well, where's the immorality in supplying a drug that a person likes,
if they choose to consume it, though?

        There's clearly immorality in lying about an addictive substance, or
attempting to connive or cajole people into becoming addicts, but once someone
is an addict, precisely why is it immoral to supply them with their drug of
choice?

response 24 of 129:

Oct 12 23:10 UTC 2000

You may want a drug forced upon you, but the other person may not want a
drug forced upon them. You might want some sadomachistic exercise given to
you by some other person, but that person might not want the same thing
done "onto them". Doing "onto others" as you would want others to do onto
you, includes these actions.