Question for nonbelievers, atheists, seekers

[Diatheosis]

I am very interested in knowing how those who do not take God's Word as God's Word think of moral and ethics.

 

What is good, what is bad or evil?

 

What is right and what is wrong?

 

 

And especially:

 

How do you define and what arguments do you have for your ideas?

 

It's interesting for me to know what kind of views there are, so please satisfy my curiosity

[Willa]

I am a believer but I can give you an answer. We have been taught situation ethics since the 50s.

There is no black or white--just shades of gray.

So everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Judges 21:22

[Diatheosis]

Thanks for your reply, and this is kind of where I see it coming too, but still I am interested in knowing how do people back up their thoughts considering we are living in a universe without Creator who sets the rules.

 

Although I used to be an atheist long time ago, I want to further explore that world view because it often gives fresh ideas to do some reflective research. So there's no booby-trap hidden here, I am just interested in knowing how people define righteousness and justice etc. by what we see and think is real.

[Alyson]

I am very interested in knowing how those who do not take God's Word as God's Word think of moral and ethics.

 

What is good, what is bad or evil?

 

What is right and what is wrong?

 

 

And especially:

 

How do you define and what arguments do you have for your ideas?

 

It's interesting for me to know what kind of views there are, so please satisfy my curiosity

 

Let's say I describe a particularly gruesome crime scene to you. Two people engage in an act of violence that ends fatally. Children were involved. Maybe even a puppy. It was a truly bloody affair. Naturally, if you are a mentally healthy person, even the image of this fictional incident would cause feelings of horror, dread, anger, sorrow, and even cause you to care about the characters who were unjustly harmed or killed. And like anyone else, when I think of such a crime scene and the pain the victims must have felt, the violence horrifies me. Because of these feelings, I know this act of violence is wrong, or bad.

 

Conversely, when I see a fireman saving someone from a burning building despite possible risk to himself, I feel relieved, encouraged, and generally positive about life. Because of these feelings, I know this act of saving someone is right, or good.

[2ndRateMind]

I am very interested in knowing how those who do not take God's Word as God's Word think of moral and ethics.

 

What is good, what is bad or evil?

 

What is right and what is wrong?

 

 

And especially:

 

How do you define and what arguments do you have for your ideas?

 

It's interesting for me to know what kind of views there are, so please satisfy my curiosity

 

 

Well, if you take man as the measure of all things (and I see no reason why not, believer or not) then it is quite simple. Good is what is in our long, medium or short term best interests, and bad is what does us harm. Right and wrong are thoughts, words and deeds that influence our interests for better or worse. Of course, things get more complex when you try to assess the extent and direction of those various influences over different time-scales, and more complex still when you try to adjudicate between the interests, often conflicting, of various individuals, communities, societies and nations, and of humanity as a whole.

 

As for God's Word on the matter - I believe in it precisely so far as it fits in with this picture, and not one jot further. After all, if God loves us as He is alleged to do, He must have our best interests at heart.

 

Best wishes, eco

Edited August 10, 2013 by ecoTramp

[missmuffet]

The definition of evil in the Bible falls into two categories:evil against one another(murder,theft,adultery)and evil against God(unbelief,idolatry,blasphemy).

 

The Bible declares "No one is good but God alone" Luke 18:19.Good is grounded in the very nature of God,and what He wills is good because He is good.

[Diatheosis]

thanks for replies, I look for a few more still before jumping in.

[2ndRateMind]

I appreciate your point, Gerald, but cultural relativism doesn't work for me. I find unsatisfactory to say, for example, that the holocaust was a good thing because the fascists thought it was. and that the fact that we now find it to be a bad thing is simply a matter of our culture being different to that of the Nazis. I wan't to say that the holocaust was objectively bad, not just subjectively, relatively bad. And I think the harm test, though not without it's problems, offers us a way to do that.

 

Best wishes, eco.

Edited August 12, 2013 by ecoTramp

[Diatheosis]

In a case of emergency when we have to act spontaneously because there is no time to think, we usually tend to instinctively make choices to protect life or save it. Sometimes even sacrificing ourselves for someone else's chance to survive. 

 

Likewise, witnessing a real life event of violence of any form against anyone we can relate to, we normally object that. Probably everyone here agree that at least on some level we feel injustice then takes place. Within us we seem to have a code that defines good and  bad, right and wrong in this sense.

 

Although, as Gerald pointed out, cultural definitions and especially time seems to quite much affect the way we think about these things. Where's the clear zone in all this? How to perceive as objectively as possible the truth about it, or is there such a thing if all is more or less relative to our personal history?

 

Is all the justice, goodness, righteousness man-made, having no real substance to it, but to preserve life as we know it? It's like a contract you can sign if you will, not doing so you make your own rules as history and even today's world show us. The most interesting example is the Western post-modern liberal society where human rights should form the basis, and everyone has the freedom of choice for self-expression, to a certain point after which the laws need to restrict our behavior. Of course, in many ways progress has taken place. It's just that if human rights are pushed forward, although fascism riding the flag of terror is on the rise, still so many feel bad.

 

The spirit of our time seems to be, that almost everything is allowed, for entertainment. In that realm, good and bad and right and wrong are merrily mixed and that's not a problem as long as it is interesting or funny. But the reality then?

 

We may think and ponder, but if the rules are made by us, and extend no longer than that, is there really goodness, or evil?

 

That's of course the fundamental question, if there is no God. Meaning that without a personal self-aware Creator, it's kind of hard to reason what the morals and ethics of life could be. Impersonal source would not have Will as we understand it, would be strange to think it could want something from us in that sense.

 

And yet, from deep inside rises the natural reaction to protect life, to feel something about it. Some of the things we feel are not even necessarily in any way connected to preserving life directly, such as art, nature, love etc. But we all agree they are good to have and feel good.

 

The existence of our species as humanity feels good, although we all sometimes and even too often do things that we don't consider good if we get deep enough and honest enough. Should we think being alive right now, as an individual or group and species is a bad thing?

 

On the other hand, in satanism in its various forms some kind of basic philosophy, if I am not completely mistaken, is it does not matter if it's good or bad as long as it is strong. For some the drive for life , the ecstasy of the moment, goes before all else, living in the now even if it means in the next moment you are as good as dead. Live fast die young, as Jim Morrison would say.

 

Which is better? I guess not too many here votes for the latter option, though.

 

Summa summarum, if a person is allowed to live more or less normal live, not too bad childhood traumas, relative freedom of choice, encouraged for creative self-expression, treated with compassion and perhaps even guided with wisdom, that individual probably at least by the time of having a partner and offspring has some vision of values and tries to pass them down. Considering there is no Creator who set the rules for life in the universe, it is interesting to see at what point we have arrived.

[TsukinoRei]

Thanks for your reply, and this is kind of where I see it coming too, but still I am interested in knowing how do people back up their thoughts considering we are living in a universe without Creator who sets the rules.

 

Although I used to be an atheist long time ago, I want to further explore that world view because it often gives fresh ideas to do some reflective research. So there's no booby-trap hidden here, I am just interested in knowing how people define righteousness and justice etc. by what we see and think is real.

 

Well, since you say it's not a trap.    I'm capable of understanding all three viewpoints,  theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, I think without mischaracterising them with my own preconceptions.

 

Social Scientists and Biologists are now observing that many mammals are social animals.  They develop systems of relating and caring for one another within the group to increase survival chances for the group.  Penguins in the antarctic huddle together for warmth and take turns being on the outer rim of the circle so that none of them get too cold.  Buffalo close ranks around their young when danger is present.  Monkeys throw their poo at the selfish member of the group that takes all the best fruit for himself and doesn't share.  My three cats take turns guarding each other when they use the litter box.  The older of the three, Chewie, looks after the two kittens by making sure they are settled and eating their meals before he will.  All these animals do these things without wondering why, it is simply their instinct to look out for the survival of their group.  And so, for all the rationalisations that humans come up with through their unique gifts of language and higher reasoning, the reason that people feel good when they do the moral thing is because chemicals are released in our brains to tell us that it feels good, because we have evolved as social animals.  We should naturally feel most protective of our immediate social circle, then the level of protectiveness we feel reduces in scale the further removed from our social centre it becomes until protectiveness turns to competitiveness, again for the benefit of the survival of our immediate communities.  

 

Please don't taser me.

Edited August 13, 2013 by TsukinoRei