Morality without God

[Rev. Rye]

What it all boils down to is personally knowing you shouldn't do to someone something that you never want done to you.

Theists need a deity to tell them they shouldn't do something, when for rational individuals it is understood to treat others how one wants to be treated.

There’s a reason that the Golden Rule has been a part of every single world religion. It’s not because a supernatural being is responsible for putting it there; it’s just common fucking sense.

I think one of my favorite versions of the Golden Rule comes from Rabbi Hillel. When challenged by a gentile to explain the whole Torah while standing on one leg (and bear in mind, in addition to what we call the Old Testament, it can also be defined to cover the whole of the Jewish law, which also includes the Talmud, a text so massive and so dense that the ideal way to read it is to study it in yeshiva, where you, a classmate, and a rabbi bicker over what exactly it’s even saying, one page at a time, for YEARS) he said:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.

Kinda makes it all sound self-explanatory, dunnit?

[The Architect Of Fate]

My issue with the golden rule is how self-centered it seems to use yourself as the ultimate standard of how to treat other people. Rather than considering that other people perhaps should be treated how they wish to be treated.

[Fake Messiah]

The so-called religious morality is actually fetishization of things because that's all they know to do. Take fetishization/ sacralization of motherhood and children which is wrong because it diminishes women's liberty by creating a consensus that motherhood is a woman's most important role. When a society tacitly agrees that a morally neutral, biological process--procreation--is "miraculous," then any intervention in that process can be seen as desecrating, and any choice against motherhood will be met with widespread disapproval.

And this cultish preference for motherhood is so embedded in the culture that people judge one another for their reproductive choices. Like people who judge their friend's decision not to have children as "selfish", or not to mention someone's abortion because they couldn't afford another baby.

While the truth is that there is no intrinsic moral value to becoming a mother or not becoming one. A woman who pursues a pregnancy is merely prioritizing her life around motherhood. And a woman who has an abortion is prioritizing her life around not wanting to become a mother or around devoting herself and her resources to the children she already has.

But go to the Bible Belt states, and you'll see this widespread cultural reverence that motherhood is, a priori, always a higher moral or even religious good, with laws that are enacted that essentially force women into becoming mothers.

[zwanzig]

My issue with the golden rule is how self-centered it seems to use yourself as the ultimate standard of how to treat other people. Rather than considering that other people perhaps should be treated how they wish to be treated.

I guess I always saw that as an extension of the golden rule. You wouldn't want something to just be done to you, would you? You'd like someone to ask and consider your feelings, right? That sort of thing.

I think it works as a shortcut to moving empathy. Because sometimes we do prioritize ourselves with no consideration for anyone else. "How would you like it?" is that quick key to unlock a perspective shift. "Oh. Right. That would suck. I shouldn't do that to them because their feelings might mirror mine." I don't think I ever thought of the Golden Rule as used for license to prioritize myself. "I love it when someone does this  to me so of course they'll love it if I do this! (but in actuality, it's not something a lot of people like) I will skip asking first!" That is not the way it works.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not the way that you think or we think it's supposed to work. That probably is the way that it works in practice. Civilizing the natives, for example, was seen as a good deed. What civilizer wouldn't want to be saved and civilized?

At the level of quick intuition or empathy, it's petty much true by definition that we center our self - that we're engaging in a subjective appraisal. When we consider the other though, as themselves, not the other as ourselves - that's a "higher level" analysis of an object - the other person.

I think that subjectivist maxims find their way into our moral shorthand because they're compelling to self and simpler to perform. We're palpably built for it. The gods, in their infinite wisdom, could have told us anything. Could have given us the blueprint to the moral machine they allegedly created or understand. Instead they tell us to do the moral equivalent of stress eating. Good for them. What's next on the list if that doesn't work? Flash my display feathers and gurgle menacingly?

...well...as luck would have it, yup.

[zwanzig]

That's not the way that you think or we think it's supposed to work. That probably is the way that it works in practice. Civilizing the natives, for example, was seen as a good deed. What civilizer wouldn't want to be saved and civilized?

Yes it is. I started the thing with "I think". So clearly...

I don't understand the rest of what you said or why it relates to what I said. Are we talking about moral systems that should work if we used them or systems that we haven't put in place in the past and "here is an example of them not working before"?

You edited. I still stand by my confusion. Are we talking about moral systems that work for educated privileged people or are we talking about systems that everyone can get on board with to help everyone be elevated on a somewhat even playing field?

I'm not religious so, I don't care what God says is right. We're trying to find a moral standard that can be taught to people without God. How do you teach empathy? It starts with putting someone in someone else's shoes. We can of course add on to it.

Edit: alright, I'm done responding to you. You're going to edit rather than respond? So it looks like I am an idiot responding to things not your point? Fine. You can do that without me.

[The Grand Nudger]

A moral conflict arising from a subjective appraisal wouldn't actually be an example of that system "not working" - that's exactly how that system works. When a person decides that they would want to be civilized and saved, believes in the maxim of the golden rule, and compelled by it's additional relationship to the sacred or divine sets out in the world to save and civilize natives.......they haven't made any mistake. That's not an example of that system not working. It's a feature, not a bug.

The difference between doing unto others-as-you, and doing unto others-as-them......as doing what you would have done, or thinking about what they would have done - is the difference between subjectivist and objectivist moral propositions. They're fundamentally different suggestions with a wildly divergent set and type of outcomes.

As a member of contemporary society - you believe in the latter, but you've also been conditioned to believe that your belief in the latter is somehow the same as your belief in the former, or premised on it. Underneath all of this, I think we can fairly say that there are many issues with human moral agency regardless of the system we refer to. We can fail by any standard. There may be no system at all that works™ in the sense that people competently and consistently apply it, or that it's competent and consistent application sits well with us by some other standard.

[Mister Agenda]

I need to learn how to defend not only my atheistic morality but also how to attach theistic morality, so I've got my work cut out for me.

Humanism may be the right moral philosophy for you.

---

My issue with the golden rule is how self-centered it seems to use yourself as the ultimate standard of how to treat other people. Rather than considering that other people perhaps should be treated how they wish to be treated.

Also known as the Platinum Rule.

[Superjock]

I need to learn how to defend not only my atheistic morality but also how to attach theistic morality, so I've got my work cut out for me.

Humanism may be the right moral philosophy for you.

---

Can you explain that for me? Are you a humanist?

[polymath257]

My moral philosophy is quite simple:

Think and Care.

Think about how your actions affect other people. That means thinking deeply enough to see the connections between your actions and the consequences, possibly undesired.

Care about the feelings of others. Care about the health of others. Care about their opinions. Value other people.

This, by the way, leads to the Golden and Platinum Rules: by taking into consideration the desires and needs of others, and caring about how your actions affect them, you won't do things that break those rules.

Humans are a social species. Like most social species, we have compassion for the others of our group. We have a sense of fairness that is held in common with other primates. These are the bases of morality.