Developing systems of morality, outside of religious influence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Basically, one of the biggest things I’ve had trouble with since leaving Christianity is justifying my actions.  Before, when I needed to make an ethical decision, I would rely on the bible to tell me what to do.  Or, if that failed, I’d ask someone more educated in the bible than me, and they’d tell me the “best” interpretation.

I doubt that's even remotely true.  I'm willing to bet you stumbled through life making hordes of decisions with a moral component without ever even thinking of what magic book had to say on the subject.  Is there some problem with continuing to do what you've always done?  

Now, I’m aware that the bible isn’t any better of an ethical system than anything else humans have come up with - probably worse, in a number of ways, seeing as it allows all kinds of things I would, at least in a gut response, see as atrocities.  However, at least from the point of view of the people inside of their religion, they have a rock solid starting point.

"Pixies said so" is hardly a rock solid moral footing. It's not even morally relevant. Pixies can say whatever the hell they want.

I guess I’ve got my “shoulds” mixed up nowadays.  I come to an argument on whether or not someone should do something or not do something(abortion, animal rights, lgbtq rights, racism, etc), and it seems like the best I have to contribute is “I personally like/don’t like that idea”.  I’m aware that there are a number of different moral systems that aren’t necessarily religious(hedonism, utilitarianism, Kant’s theory, etc.), but I don’t feel at all qualified to just pick one arbitrarily and run with it.  Would it ultimately be an emotion-based decision, going with the one that just makes me feel better about myself?

How people might feel subject to a given x seems like it's a morally relevant consideration.  I don;t know why you'd stop with yourself, there, though.  

So anyways, for a TL;DR: how do each of you, personally, approach ethics?  Do you adopt a certain system, or do you use a more cobbled together way of approaching things?  How does one feel justified in applying their belief system to the world, if there’s no divine objectivity backing them up?

The same way that christians do, and the same way that former christian atheists do.  "Divine objectivity" is a bit of a misnomer anyway.  The mandate of heaven is subjective.

[FatAndFaithless]

So anyways, for a TL;DR: how do each of you, personally, approach ethics?  Do you adopt a certain system, or do you use a more cobbled together way of approaching things?  How does one feel justified in applying their belief system to the world, if there’s no divine objectivity backing them up?

The same way that christians do, and the same way that former christian atheists do.  "Divine objectivity" is a bit of a misnomer anyway.  The mandate of heaven is subjective.

Yup.  Clearly illustrated by the billions of Christians that disagree with each other on what is moral. I agree that appealing to the Bible or God is the opposite of 'rock solid'.

[rskovride]

 The inmates are running the asylum, and they can either make life nice for each other, or make everything unpleasant. I'd prefer the former.

That is an awesome analogy.  

[GrandizerII]

Religious influence? More like religious monopolization.

[robvalue]

 The inmates are running the asylum, and they can either make life nice for each other, or make everything unpleasant. I'd prefer the former.

That is an awesome analogy.  

Many thanks!

[henryp]

Wasn’t sure if this should go here or in the philosophy section, but here goes.

Basically, one of the biggest things I’ve had trouble with since leaving Christianity is justifying my actions.  Before, when I needed to make an ethical decision, I would rely on the bible to tell me what to do.  Or, if that failed, I’d ask someone more educated in the bible than me, and they’d tell me the “best” interpretation.

Now, I’m aware that the bible isn’t any better of an ethical system than anything else humans have come up with - probably worse, in a number of ways, seeing as it allows all kinds of things I would, at least in a gut response, see as atrocities.  However, at least from the point of view of the people inside of their religion, they have a rock solid starting point.

I guess I’ve got my “shoulds” mixed up nowadays.  I come to an argument on whether or not someone should do something or not do something(abortion, animal rights, lgbtq rights, racism, etc), and it seems like the best I have to contribute is “I personally like/don’t like that idea”.  I’m aware that there are a number of different moral systems that aren’t necessarily religious(hedonism, utilitarianism, Kant’s theory, etc.), but I don’t feel at all qualified to just pick one arbitrarily and run with it.  Would it ultimately be an emotion-based decision, going with the one that just makes me feel better about myself?

So anyways, for a TL;DR: how do each of you, personally, approach ethics?  Do you adopt a certain system, or do you use a more cobbled together way of approaching things?  How does one feel justified in applying their belief system to the world, if there’s no divine objectivity backing them up?

You figured it out already.  All you have is your own opinions, and your own reasons.  The closest we get to 'should' is practicality.  You shouldn't touch the stove, because you'll burn yourself.  

On a grander scale, we come up with a system of behavior that we'd all prefer to live in.  Then punish people for not following the rules.  I don't want my stuff stolen.  You also don't want your stuff stolen.  Some other people agree.  So we say "No stealing."  And because that doesn't mean anything to a person who wants to steal, we also say "We'll cut off your hand if you're caught."  Ta da!

[Kookaburra]

Thank you guys so much! I just got back from work, so I gotta read through and catch up, but there’s a lotta helpful stuff here.

---

 The inmates are running the asylum, and they can either make life nice for each other, or make everything unpleasant. I'd prefer the former.

This is a cool way of thinking about it.  I like it.

[robvalue]

Awesome!

The fact that you are taking the time to think about it makes me confident you'll be absolutely fine. The only people for whom morality is a genuine mystery are those who entirely lack empathy (psychopaths/sociopaths). Even for those people it still pays to mimic morality most of the time, to avoid pissing people off or going to jail.

For most people, being moral makes them feel good, and being immoral makes them feel guilty.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ethical systems develop in the community at large and the churchmen take them and claim they provided them. It's a little trick they've been playing for centuries.

[SteveII]

Doesn't this entire conversation presuppose free will? But I know some of you don't believe in free will. How does a determinist justify a belief in moral values and duties?