Replacing Religious Morality

[genkaus]

Why do we even need a morality i.e. a moral code? The thing with morals is that strict adherence to one can be detrimental. Behavior should change with circumstances, therefore your morality and ethics should be fluid, but what we get with a moral code is an attempt to do the opposite. Moral codes are nothing but enculturation and conformity and have nothing actually to do with an objective right or wrong. Mainly because there is no objective right or wrong. Circumstances change, behavior must adapt to those changes or you and your culture will perish.

That is an extremely ignorant view of morality.

Humans are not animals. We do not automatically act on instinct. We have the capacity to reflect upon our actions, to consider our desires and motivations, to foresee the consequences and make our choice based on all these precursors. Which is why we need a conceptual guide to direct our actions and that conceptual guide is what we call morality, i.e. a moral code.

The simple fact that your actions are based on thought and self-reflection, means you need a moral code to guide those actions. Whether that moral code is rigid or fluid, whether it is good for you or detrimental, whether it is the result of conformity or individuality, whether it is encultured or reasoned, whether it is dogmatic or adaptive, whether it is rational or irrational or whether it is objective or subjective - that depends on the moral code you've chosen.

---

Helping an Orphan is 4000 points, but beating Super Mario 3 is only 340? It's silly (to me).

Where did this point system come from?

Now you could make an argument that you think I'd find living a productive life more enjoyable than a hedonistic life, but I suspect that's just projecting your own made up belief system onto others. And you aren't even an allpowerful omnipotent super being.

Actually, its not projection and I don't have to be omnipotent to know it. Its human psychology - being human means you have objective needs and satisfying those needs is required for happiness.

When you said yes, (to the first part) do you believe the laws of mathematics are subjective, because they were made up by God? That's an interesting position. I still think it's underestimating the nature of such a being, and I'm not sure it would change anything, but an interesting idea.

Its not under-estimation or over-estimation. Its the nature of objectivity - if something is determined by a conscious entity's will or opinion, then that thing is subjective. So, if mathematical laws were made up by god, then they would be subjective. Its that simple.

---

Morality is about how one should act within a given society or culture. It is about enculturation and conformity. Moralities change from society to society and from culture to culture.

Wrong. Morality is about how one should act. The presence of culture is irrelevant. And even if you consider morality within the context of a society or a culture, it does not automatically make it about enculturation and conformity.

Our moral values are not just something that we are born with, those values come from somewhere. And if you study morals, values and ethics not every single value or moral is based on reason, in fact most moral codes are based on something other than reason. It is our milieu, our cultural and social environment that dictates what we view as right or wrong. All moral values are cultural.

Your statement fails its own test. If all moral values were cultural then every single value or moral would be based on culture - which it isn't, so it isn't. The fact that most of the moral codes known to you are based on something other than reason does not mean a rational moral code is not possible.