can a morality exist independent of any kind of belief?

[katia]

i don't mean outside of religion;  more like can it be based on some principle found in empirical data or reason?

[Hazumu]

Do you mean to ask if there is an absolute, immutable morality.

Personally, I don't think so.  Nevermind the Religious Right who believe in a hard-and-fast god-given morality. 

There appear to be two major focuses (foci?) of morality, though. 

One where the focus is on strength and cleaving to what adherents believe is the absolute, god-given morality -- the other is based rather on that which fosters cooperation, coexistence and nurturing.

Karen

[Nero]

I think morality can exist purely on human needs. In a primitive environment, people have to rely on one another to survive. They won't injure or kill, because all hands are needed. They would care for women and children to ensure the future of their tribe.

Of course, nothing is that simple, and it didn't always work that way. But I think it could.

If that made any sense at all, lol. Had a few too many tonight.

[cindianna_jones]

I believe that it can.  I heard of a study yesterday where they measured the effectiveness of total sex education vs abstinence education with a large group of teenagers.  Guess who got pregnant the most?  You've got it... those with the higher moral teachings of abstinence.

It seems as though teenagers can be taught.  Those who knew the facts about contraception and STD's, were able to avoid pregnancy.

I believe that if we can produce a quality education where all the facts are laid bare, people will be able to fabricate a morality based on reality.

I consider myself a very moral person.  None of my core values are currently based on any religious principle.  For you see, I value these things for their simple purity, not their righteousness.

Cindi

[lisagurl]

You do not need laws or dogma or any other social rules to be moral. Your own logic an experience can reason what another person is understanding about your actions. If you want the human condition to live on.

[Hazumu]

I believe that it can.  I heard of a study yesterday where they measured the effectiveness of total sex education vs abstinence education with a large group of teenagers.  Guess who got pregnant the most?  You've got it... those with the higher moral teachings of abstinence.

Aw, but teaching them how to use contraception is cheating!  How else're we going to find the vile, filthy vermin except that they don't listen to our God Given moral teachings and do it anyway!  That's what shotguns are for!  To enforce the morality by forcing the young'uns into a marriage made in sin!

<huff, huff>

C'n you tell I don't think much of absolute morality?

Karen

[cindianna_jones]

You are not going to keep teenagers from having sex.  It feels good!

That said, I was a very religious person and in fact, was a virgin when I married.  What a schlameal I was!  I don't even know if I spelled that correctly.  I'm not up on my Yiddish lately.

Morality is taught by example.... not from anyone's law.  The actions of our society are the text books for those growing up in our world.  We say "do this" and then do "that".  Double standards, deception, and out right lies are the lessons our young people learn.  They can not and will not learn it from religious dogma, civic lessons in school, or forced by law.

And I'm stickin to that story.

Chin up!

Cindi

[lisagurl]

Morality is reasoned by each individual. Depending on how you live and your expectations of the future on human kind.

[Attis]

Morality is a code of how to live on Earth, so I would have to say it's both necessary to hold some value essential to your being, but that context plays more of a significant role in the given situation that one makes a moral decision. By an essential value is that it's something you see as your highest value, like wanting to live, or to seek knowledge, or what have you. These values have a premise behind them for which one can use to make their decisions without ambiguity. Context is important, too, because it takes some perspective to understand what is right and what is wrong. Is it right to kill (no context)? Or it is right to kill in self-defense (a context given)? As you see, context can change the very nature of a situation greatly, making something that could be right and wrong at the same time, but is clearly one of the states that can be designated in regards to morality (right/wrong). With both in mind, it makes morality less a list of dos and don'ts, and more a process by which can figure out the truth of a given moral dilemma, without pleading to special cases.

-- Brede

[lisagurl]

Right and wrong are debatable and do not explain morals.

[Attis]

Right and wrong are debatable and do not explain morals.

Debatable, yes, subjective, no. Why? Consider two fundamental situations in morality: force and fraud. Force is the unbridled action which either causes the death of a human being or moral agent, or some sort of harm to said moral agent (assault, forceful robbery and etc) Force is known to be morally wrong in that context, especially since it is the initiation of force by which immoral actions of force are possible. Although, using force to defend your life is clearly moral, because you didn't initiate the act of force, you simply are responding. Fraud is another case of immoral or wrongful action, it is the attempt to mislead another moral agent about something, whether it's robbery of one kind or other, fraud is considered immoral because it would allow others to have a right to the goods, services, and lives of others against their will. In essence, fraud is the attempt to override consent, thusly it is immoral on those grounds. So, it's very easy to define right and wrong.

As for how they relate to morals, simply put morals are the 'north stars' of morality, they suggest paths we need to take to get a certain result. Although, context, in this regard, could be called the immediate state of the 'sea' of existence, thus defining the immediate situation with provisos on what is right and what is wrong. It's not much of a leap of reason to recognize this fact, only if you accept that all moral propositions are rational propositions (equivalent to propositions in science, math, engineering, and etc).

-- Brede

[Cire]

Right and wrong are debatable and do not explain morals.

Right and wrong are debatable, and morality explains them.

Morality cannot exist without beliefs. If you believe in nothing, you can value nothing. Without anything to value, you can't have things that are for or against you. With no value, nothing is good and nothing bad.

But in life, you have to have values. If you valued food and rocks equally, you'd soon starve (with many rocks). The only way to have no belief is to be in a coma. You believe that you are reading this, that there is a person typing this, ect. There's a chain of beliefs with every action a living being takes.

Can morality operate without FAITH? Easily. People that believe that reality is reality, that faith is trying to ignore reality, that there is no mystic world above our own, there are plenty. They are people who live in this world, people that focus on the life that they're living.

[Nero]

They are people who live in this world, people that focus on the life that they're living.

The myth that the religious are not concerned with the here and now needs to die. Any religious person obsessively focused on an afterlife is not the norm.

[lisagurl]

Then there is the sting.

[Cire]

The myth that the religious are not concerned with the here and now needs to die. Any religious person obsessively focused on an afterlife is not the norm.

What's religion except a promise that some unprovable thing will happen after you die? It doesn't matter if the person obsesses about death, or only sometimes thinks hopefully about death. It's that their main focus and goal is to die, and life is nothing but a way to death.

[Nero]

The myth that the religious are not concerned with the here and now needs to die. Any religious person obsessively focused on an afterlife is not the norm.

What's religion except a promise that some unprovable thing will happen after you die? It doesn't matter if the person obsesses about death, or only sometimes thinks hopefully about death. It's that their main focus and goal is to die, and life is nothing but a way to death.

How do you know what their goal is? Most religions are built around belief in a creator, first and foremost.

[Cire]

How do you know what their goal is? Most religions are built around belief in a creator, first and foremost.

Religion is built around the belief that there is something greater than humans in the world. That there is something greater than life. That we were made to serve a purpose.

A rational person wants to be a great as possible. A rational person wants their life to be the greatest. A rational person makes their own purpose. They don't fake reality by believing in being some cosmic entity's toy, or that their role has already been determined.

[Nero]

A rational person wants to be a great as possible. A rational person wants their life to be the greatest. A rational person makes their own purpose.

And why do you assume religious persons don't feel that way? I'm tired of the stereotyping, to be frank.

[Cire]

A rational person wants to be a great as possible. A rational person wants their life to be the greatest. A rational person makes their own purpose.

And why do you assume religious persons don't feel that way? I'm tired of the stereotyping, to be frank.

Stereotyping? It's called a belief system. To the extent that a person is religious, they don't care about this world. To the extent that a person believes there is something better, they cannot care about reality as much. To the extent they believe they are not in control of their lives, they cannot treasure what they have.

[lisagurl]

Many religious people have doubts but go along with the crowd as not to make waves. Many lack a strong self confidence.