Why Christians do good things

[Baruch]

For some, objective ethics is The Selfish Gene ... where we project the immorals of the Chicago School to the level of microbiology.  General Pinochet lives in your mitochondria ;-(

I agree, that given your definition of ethics/morals ... there is no way to be objective about it.  In particular, ethics as social ... means ethics as political ... and there is no ethics in politics.

The old 19th century Utilitarianism was bankrupted long ago ... converted into "market" ... where the common good is determined by consumer demand.  And in the mythical world of free markets rather than fixed markets (markets driven by multinational corporate corruption and their politician/banker fellow crooks) we achieve the quantitative version of John Stewart Mill's greatest good for the greatest number ;-(

[Blackleaf]

and there is no ethics in politics.

I've never heard a more true statement than this.

[OddOneOut]

In order to have a fruitful discussion we need to come to agreement upon some definitions.  What is a moral?  How would you define it?  Are morals a set of rules of conduct imposed upon a person?  If so, who does the imposing--a god or a govt. or a society?  Or ????

Same with 'objective' and 'subjective'.  You said--"So, it is not necessary for all people everywhere to claim rape is immoral, instead all that is needed is for a person to say that they personally believe it is always immoral, no matter what, for them to believe that that point of morality is objectively true."  You just said that a person can subjectively believe a moral to be always true, and therefore make it objective.  So, if I think it a moral imperative for me to impregnate all females over 18 yrs. old, it then becomes an objective moral view?  I don't think you meant that.  So, for you, what is the difference between subjective and objective?

So, for you, who or what does the determining your actions to make them moral???

You have misunderstood me. I am not making any claims as to whether or not morals actually *are* objective. Rather I was responding to the claim made in this thread that only theists *believe* their morality to be objective. If anyone believes something is immoral no matter who does the act then, whether or not they admit it, they believe that that moral claim is objective ie, it is true for all rather than being true for some but not others.

Now, please tell me, do you think that there is *any* instance where rape is not immoral? If you believe there is no instance where rape is moral then, whether or not it actually is objectively immoral, you believe it to be objectively immoral. Since theists are not the only ones to make such universal moral claims they are not the only ones to believe their morality is objective.

[Unbeliever]

I make a distinction between morals and ethics: morals, to me, come from outside a person and impose behavioral obligations on them. Ethics comes from within a person, and are the result of the person's own desire to do good to others.

[Mike Cl]

You have misunderstood me. I am not making any claims as to whether or not morals actually *are* objective. Rather I was responding to the claim made in this thread that only theists *believe* their morality to be objective. If anyone believes something is immoral no matter who does the act then, whether or not they admit it, they believe that that moral claim is objective ie, it is true for all rather than being true for some but not others.

Now, please tell me, do you think that there is *any* instance where rape is not immoral? If you believe there is no instance where rape is moral then, whether or not it actually is objectively immoral, you believe it to be objectively immoral. Since theists are not the only ones to make such universal moral claims they are not the only ones to believe their morality is objective.

I will tell you how I deal with 'morals' and then you can tell me if you agree with that or not, and why.  I don't think morals exist.  For example, the Ten Commandments (for which there are 3 sets in the OT) are talked about as being the foundation of 'morality'.  First, I see them as a code of conduct.  Secondly, I see them as being nebulous at best--each and every one of them have to be interpreted--even the shortest of them--thou shalt not kill.  Well, it does not really mean that--it means 'murder'.  Why not say it then???  Anyway, that is a code of conduct. If one believes that it was delivered by god then one could stay that they are objective.  I don't believe in god, or that the bible has any type of authority or ability to guide me, or that there are morals. 

So, where does society get it's 'morals' from.  I don't believe any society is 'moral'--I don't think the concept of 'morals' exist.  Our society (every society) makes up their own set of rules to live by--it's code of conduct.  They are reflected in that societies criminal code and it's lessor brother/sister, the mores of conduct that society deems to be appropriate.  The societies criminal and civil laws can be said to be objective.  Yet that is only so for that particular moment of observation, for they do change as society changes.  So, the objectivity is not delivered from on high--but from within.  I would call that subjective. 

My personal ethics or code of conduct, is my own and is unique to me and even unique to the moment I sit down to examine them.  My personal accepted conduct is different now than it was at age 12--or 20--or 30, etc.  The basis of my ethics is --first, cause no harm; a form of the Golden Rule.  And it is up to me to interpret what that means in each and every moment of my life.  That is pure subjectivity.  My code of conduct is mine and mine alone.  The only 'objective' thing about it is that I view the results of my actions toward and with others, and note the reaction I get.  And I even have to understand that the reaction I get from one does not mean the same action will get the same response from another.  So, it is a sort of slippery 'objectivity' I see. 

To sum up--there are no morals.  All codes of conduct come from the society one lives in.  And each person has their own subject ethical way of dealing with that society.  Objectivity does not really exist, either.

So, for me, when you say--"Since theists are not the only ones to make such universal moral claims they are not the only ones to believe their morality is objective."--it is meaningless.  I don't believe in morals.  And the rules we live by are all interpreted in our own unique subjective way.  Look at the bible and the koran.  There are billions who will tell you that they get their morals from one of those books.  (of which there are dozens, if not hundreds, of versions) And look at the rainbow of actions that come from that belief.  Nothing has been excluded from being an act of holy morality.  Everything from killing, burning, rape, child torture..............etc, has been and is being practiced as the will of god and moral according to his word. And there are thousands of denominations that have sprung from those two books.  There is nothing 'objective' about any theism.  It is all still subjective and based upon a 'belief'--which is not fact based in any way, shape or form. 

[Baruch]

I've never heard a more true statement than this.

Unfortunately the beautiful dream of people like Pericles and Jefferson are just dreams.  Just as when you are awake, the American dream proves to be what it is.  Not that I am against dreams ... but I do like to keep track of what is a dream and what is not.

[Baruch]

I take all human conversations as exercises in psychological examination.  Often the ego is involved ... not the superego.  The superego we would call a conscience ... and this conscience is a developed construct ... fed both externally and internally.  The person with a conscience (not a sociopath) has an active interplay between his conscience and what he does or proposes to do.  This in religion, where abstractions are personified, would be the same as Socrate's daemon or the Emperor's genius or the Christian's guardian angel.  So I would agree about morals/ethics being a source question ... but it doesn't tell us how it operates in practice ... as I just described.  As for me, I don't really care how relative/objective ... individual/social ... the principle in your head is, or where it came from ... outside/inside.  I just care that you have a conscience and that you continue to develop it and you use it.  When I say that politics is ethics free, this is because politicians are typically sociopaths ... including revered political figures (depending on your nationality).  If you were clinical ... none of these people would get a pass, and most likely would be kept in a padded cell, including Washington, Lincoln, Lloyd George and Churchill.  Just because the other guy's politicians are ... enemy ... they are easy to demonize.  Hitler actually had a cogent and consistent philosophy ... that can be studied clinically ... even though it is repulsive ... same as Aztec religion.

[Solomon Zorn]

Just because a behavioral limit should apply to everyone, doesn't make it "objective morality."  It only makes it a commonly shared understanding of correct behavior. It is not objective in the pure sense, or the absolute sense, because it comes from subjective experience and knowledge. Nothing human, in this sense, is objective. Nothing is demonstrably "right" or "wrong," except by using subjective human measurements, such as the golden rule.

Morality can only be truly "objective" if it is given by an objective mind: God. Those who try to make the case for morality coming from God, find themselves in the embarrassing position of defending the stoning of a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, and innumerable similar divine decrees.

[Sal1981]

Along with Krauss, there's Sam Harris' Moral Landscape ... thing.

[Baruch]

Along with Krauss, there's Sam Harris' Moral Landscape ... thing.

The Moral Landscape ... seems to be an updated Utilitarianism "greatest good for the greatest number".  But on the other hand, Harris denies free will.  Without free will, I don't see any reason for morals or ethics.  We can just say "determinism made me do it" instead of "the Devil made me do it".  Utilitarianism foundered on the problem of measuring the greatest good for the greatest number ... and devolved into consumerism.  If the consumer can shave one cent of the price of some good, even if that is achieved by moving production to China ... and it causes unemployment in the US ... is there a net gain?

[MrsSassyPants]

I hadn't realized they did good.  Other than for publicity, that might be a reason.

[surreptitious57]

There is no such thing as objective morality. Anything which is objective can be measured without subjective
bias. Since morality is subjective by definition this is not possible. So even if there is unanimity on whether a
particular action is moral or immoral that is not an objective interpretation but a subjective one. For it is just
nothing more than argumentum ad populum. And so how common certain beliefs are with regard to morality
is zero indication of whether they are objective or not. As belief is an article of faith and faith is not objective

[Unbeliever]

Christians do good things because the bible and God tells them to do it. They don't do good things on their own.  They want to get into heaven by following God's words.  Does anyone else notice this or thought about this? I'm starting to take notice, especially when my church quotes James 1:27 about saving orphans. So you don't really care about orphans,  I hate that word btw but only want to help because God tells you to not because you want to.

Christians get their morality from outside themselves. Atheists generate their own morality from within.

[Blackleaf]

Christians get their morality from outside themselves. Atheists generate their own morality from within.

More accurately, Christians find justification for their morality from outside themselves. Christians still decide what they believe, but they choose a church or Biblical interpretation that fits their preconceived belief.

Atheists can also find their morality outside of themselves, but it's based on something credible and unbiased: science. For example, is spanking an effective form of discipline? No. Does it cause harm? Yes; increased aggression, lowered IQ, etc. Should you use it on your kids? Only if you're an asshole who puts the words of an old book above solid evidence (ie no).

[Baruch]

Caveat ... most Americans get their morality from neoliberal ideology, or neo-con ideology.  Those are neither Biblical nor scientific.