Moral standards

[GodsRevolt]

It strikes me that a fluid morality is more fitted for flawed human beings than would be an absolute morality imposed by an extra-human authority. A few examples:

-The Bible states flatly (and more than once) that stealing is a sin. This is a prohibition that carries right across all sects of all the Abrahamic religions and can be found in many others as well. Even we secularists agree that - by and large - stealing is morally wrong and shouldn't be condoned. But aren't there some cases where it is a moral imperative to steal something? The classic examples are stealing food to feed a starving child and stealing medicine for a desperately ill one. But in either situation, (most) religions make no exception for the circumstances.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) in regards to the seventh commandment. The numbers are the paragraph numbers:

2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."187 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

-The proscription against telling lies also comes to mind. What sort of lunatic tells the bald truth all the time? Granted that we should be honest most of the time (and I think most people are, but I'm a cynic), would you tell a lie to spare someone's feelings? Would you tell a new mum that her baby is beautiful, even though you think it looks like a poorly shaved ape?

Also from the CCC in regards to the eighth commandment:

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

-'Love thy neighbour as thyself', sounds wonderful on paper, dunnit? But suppose that your neighbour is a thoroughly unlovable person. He may an arsonist, a serial rapist, a paedophile, a drug dealer who targets children, etc. What is lovable about that? Being nice to people is all well and good, but we are 'commanded' to love everyone ALL the time. Some folk simply don't merit my love. Isn't it more morally reprehensible to attempt to put a child rapist on your own moral level ('love' him) than it is to condemn him and turn him into the police?

Also from the CCC regarding man being created in God's image:

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the union of the divine persons among themselves (cf chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,5 The human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

Absolute moral strictures are unsuited for human beings. Our moral code has enough fluidity in it to accommodate exceptions like those mentioned above. It has all the hallmarks of something that evolved right along with us - answers good enough to get by with.

Boru

I concede that there are exceptions in the case of lies and stealing, but those exceptions are not to be taken lightly. There must be just cause behind the exception which upholds the inherent value of the standard.

---

My initial reaction to this thread:
Oh, for fucks sake. Not another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

My reaction after reading it:
Oh, for fucks sake. Another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

Seriously, our morality (yours, mine, pretty much everyone's) comes from their empathy for their fellows and the society they live in. If I lose my empathy, the society I live in will usually suffice to maintain my morality. If my society fails, my empathy will carry me along. If both fail, well that's why some assholes are in prison.

You don't get your morals from a book or from some magic sky-fairy father figure. You get them from the exact same places everyone else gets them from. Deny it all you like, but there a morally upright people from all faiths and no faith, in all walks of life that give lie to your claim that morality comes only from the realm of the supernatural.

This is a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I never said that a person cannot be moral without believing in God. I am asking on what grounds does an atheist stand when demanding that someone act morally towards them or any other human being. There is no consistent moral standard, and when there is disagreement as to what is moral, the "evolved morals within everyone" falls apart.

Of course an atheist can be a moral person. Anyone can practice morality. The question is, where did that morality come from and how does it play out when the shit hits the fan?