Morals and Values

This thread is to discuss what morals and values are, how they differ from law, and to discuss how one can have "good" morals if one doesn't believe in a Higher Being (such as God, Buddah, or Allah).

Rules:

No Bashing!
Respect everyone's opinion!
All opinions are welcome and valid
Play nice!

Mama-san wrote:

This thread is to discuss what morals and values are, how they differ from law, and to discuss how one can have "good" morals if one doesn't believe in a Higher Being (such as God, Buddah, or Allah).
Rules:
No Bashing!
Respect everyone's opinion!
All opinions are welcome and valid
Play nice!

Mama-San, I certainly am not of the opinion that people who do not have a faith in God cannot be moral. But where does that moral compass come from? you mentioned in the other thread that stealing and such are against the law which has nothing to do with morality, but i beg to disagree. you see all of the law of this country was based on the law writings of Blackstone, who based all of his writing on the moral authourity he found in scripture. As I said before, if there is no foundation for the law, and thus morality, the morals are simply relative. my two cents

Here's www.dictionary.com 's definition of the word.

mor·al /ˈmɔr&#6 01;l, ˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-uhl, mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

----------

[Origin: 1300–50; ME < L m&#333;r&#257;lis, equiv. to m&#333;r-(s. of m&#333;s) usage, custom +-&#257;lis -al1]

—Related forms
mor·al·less, adjective

—Synonyms 5. upright, honest, straightforward, open, virtuous, honorable. 11. integrity, standards, morality. Morals, ethics refer to rules and standards of conduct and practice. Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual's practice in relation to these: the morals of our civilization. Ethics now implies high standards of honest and honorable dealing, and of methods used, esp. in the professions or in business: ethics of the medical profession.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,© Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source mor·al (môr'&#601;l, m&#335;r'-) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

by Gods grace wrote:

<quoted text>Mama-San, I certainly am not of the opinion that people who do not have a faith in God cannot be moral. But where does that moral compass come from? you mentioned in the other thread that stealing and such are against the law which has nothing to do with morality, but i beg to disagree. you see all of the law of this country was based on the law writings of Blackstone, who based all of his writing on the moral authourity he found in scripture. As I said before, if there is no foundation for the law, and thus morality, the morals are simply relative. my two cents

I really need to think about this to get my thoughts in order. I'll get back to you later :)

In the meantime, this is the definition I choose as coming closest to my thoughts of "what is moral."

3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

by Gods grace wrote:

<quoted text>Mama-San, I certainly am not of the opinion that people who do not have a faith in God cannot be moral. But where does that moral compass come from? you mentioned in the other thread that stealing and such are against the law which has nothing to do with morality, but i beg to disagree. you see all of the law of this country was based on the law writings of Blackstone, who based all of his writing on the moral authourity he found in scripture. As I said before, if there is no foundation for the law, and thus morality, the morals are simply relative. my two cents

I also think that when a person has a personal relationship with God they have different morals and values then a nonbeliever.Do you know what I mean.And I don't mean that judgemental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blacksto...

Bio of William Blackstone. He was born in England and practiced in England. That explains a few things :) During the 1700s, especially in England, there wasn't a hard line between church and state. It was really one and the same. So wouldn't you expect Blackthorne to write his laws thusly? But when our Founders used that guideline to write the laws of America, they made the decision to not include religion in our laws.

Our laws tend to address physical or tangible damage. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part, that's true.

Theft leaves physical damage. Rape, Kidnapping, Murder, and Extortion are all physical too.

I think of morals as sex, gossip, returning something you got by accident that you didn't pay for, that type of thing. Things that aren't against the law (per say) but make up who and what you believe.

I know it's not a legal explanation, but I'm not a lawyer either :)

How can this country with it's many and varied religions write morals into law? They are different things for different folks.

While one person might feel strongly that sex is only okay after you're married, another might feel it's only okay if you plan on marrying that person, but you can do it ahead of the ceremony. A third might feel it's only okay if you love that person. And the fourth might want to do it with a goat.

I once argued a Fundamentalist to a stop. She insisted that you must be married to have sex. So I asked her to define "marriage." She said "pledging to be together in the eyes of God." Okay, so my now-husband and I had had a private committment ceremony in which in view of witnesses and our idea of god, we pledged to stay together forever. She couldn't say it wasn't a marriage, because we'd fulfilled the Christian bible idea of marriage.

papetermann wrote:

<quoted text>I also think that when a person has a personal relationship with God they have different morals and values then a nonbeliever.Do you know what I mean.And I don't mean that judgemental.

would you care to elaborate?

papetermann wrote:

<quoted text>I also think that when a person has a personal relationship with God they have different morals and values then a nonbeliever.Do you know what I mean.And I don't mean that judgemental.

Good morning Pam. Could you please give some examples of how a believer and non-believer's morals might differ?

Mama-san wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W illiam_Blackstone
Bio of William Blackstone. He was born in England and practiced in England. That explains a few things :) During the 1700s, especially in England, there wasn't a hard line between church and state. It was really one and the same. So wouldn't you expect Blackthorne to write his laws thusly? But when our Founders used that guideline to write the laws of America, they made the decision to not include religion in our laws.
Our laws tend to address physical or tangible damage. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part, that's true.
Theft leaves physical damage. Rape, Kidnapping, Murder, and Extortion are all physical too.
I think of morals as sex, gossip, returning something you got by accident that you didn't pay for, that type of thing. Things that aren't against the law (per say) but make up who and what you believe.
I know it's not a legal explanation, but I'm not a lawyer either :)
How can this country with it's many and varied religions write morals into law? They are different things for different folks.
While one person might feel strongly that sex is only okay after you're married, another might feel it's only okay if you plan on marrying that person, but you can do it ahead of the ceremony. A third might feel it's only okay if you love that person. And the fourth might want to do it with a goat.
I once argued a Fundamentalist to a stop. She insisted that you must be married to have sex. So I asked her to define "marriage." She said "pledging to be together in the eyes of God." Okay, so my now-husband and I had had a private committment ceremony in which in view of witnesses and our idea of god, we pledged to stay together forever. She couldn't say it wasn't a marriage, because we'd fulfilled the Christian bible idea of marriage.

Mama-san...but so much of law is based on precedent. We simply cannot ignore 200 + years of history. Yes there was a thinner veil of church and state in merry old england, however, there is nothing in our constitution that speaks to the issue of church and state. That phrase came from Jefferson initially and can be found inthe Federalist Papers. Jefferson's statement was that there should be a wall of seperation between church and state, but that that wall should be one sided, keeping the state from forming a state religion, however, he was clear that Jefferson also said that we should and would never want the church to be kept from the state, as it's was THE moral influence that would guide this new country.

papetermann wrote:

<quoted text>I also think that when a person has a personal relationship with God they have different morals and values then a nonbeliever.Do you know what I mean.And I don't mean that judgemental.

I do understand what you are saying, however, I do believe their are many non-christians who have a deep moral compass. the question is, where does that moral compass come from? any ideas?

p75hh39j wrote:

<quoted text>
would you care to elaborate?

I mean we live according to Gods Holy scriptures which are full of morals and values.

by Gods grace wrote:

<quoted text>Mama-san...but so much of law is based on precedent. We simply cannot ignore 200 + years of history. Yes there was a thinner veil of church and state in merry old england, however, there is nothing in our constitution that speaks to the issue of church and state. That phrase came from Jefferson initially and can be found inthe Federalist Papers. Jefferson's statement was that there should be a wall of seperation between church and state, but that that wall should be one sided, keeping the state from forming a state religion, however, he was clear that Jefferson also said that we should and would never want the church to be kept from the state, as it's was THE moral influence that would guide this new country.

I'm not arguing with what you're saying. And I don't know much about it.

To answer your other question, about where do morals come from if not the bible, it's simple. It comes from within. The same place compassion comes from. Or passion. Or tolerance. In some, it's in-born. In some, it's a learned thing. Some people allow that portion of them to develope, and others don't.

papetermann wrote:

<quoted text>I mean we live according to Gods Holy scriptures which are full of morals and values.

Is it possible that a non-believer lives according to those morals and values just because they fit in with their concept of what's right and wrong for them?

I think morals and values are a way of allowing people to make decisions; tiebreakers if you will. Every action has its pros and cons, and when the pros and cons are roughly equal, the tie-breaker must go to the decision-makers' morals and values.

Mama-san wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not arguing with what you're saying. And I don't know much about it.
To answer your other question, about where do morals come from if not the bible, it's simple. It comes from within. The same place compassion comes from. Or passion. Or tolerance. In some, it's in-born. In some, it's a learned thing. Some people allow that portion of them to develope, and others don't.

Yea but Lynette doesn't God put it there?

by Gods grace wrote:

<quoted text>I do understand what you are saying, however, I do believe their are many non-christians who have a deep moral compass. the question is, where does that moral compass come from? any ideas?

I think the answer to your question is self respect.Whether you are religious or not,that's the force behind morality.All of us ,in every situation,do what we believe is the best for ourselves.We'll behave honorably and ethically if it seems like the best decision for ourselves.I was very bitter about having to go to heaven.I didn't like the idea of being permanent,even as a child,perfect peace and happiness forever sounded more terrifying than a fiery pit,and I hated the God who gave me only those two choices.I'll bet we've got prisons filled with people who feel the same way.Without the threat of Heaven,I can concentrate on being the kind of person I want to be seen as and remembered as,and I don't have to rebel against a cruel God.It's like night and day.If religion floats your boat,okay,but it's not for everybody.I wish people would understand that when they teach their children.

Mama-san wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it possible that a non-believer lives according to those morals and values just because they fit in with their concept of what's right and wrong for them?

I really don't know because I'm not a nonbeliever.(Just being honest)I just don't think you are either,not from what you've told me.

papetermann wrote:

<quoted text>Yea but Lynette doesn't God put it there?

I don't believe so, no.

papetermann wrote:

<quoted text>I really don't know because I'm not a nonbeliever.(Just being honest)I just don't think you are either,not from what you've told me.

You're entitled to your own beliefs Pam. But it has no bearing on me or how I feel.:)

Like you, I grew up believing what I'd been told. There was God who had a son named Jesus Christ blah blah blah. You know the rest of the story! My mommy told me that, so I believed it.

I didn't question it for years and years. But when I did begin to question it, I saw that (to me) it's a house of cards. One card isn't right, and the whole house falls down. I see lots of those "one cards."

You can't imagine that any aspect of our being doesn't come from your concept of God.

I can't imagine that any aspect of our being does come from a god.

It's that simple.

Does anyone believe that their morals are "more right" because they're scripture based? Or that "only their morals" are right because they're scripture based?