I agree, morality is an integral part of what it means to be human. Why? Because we begin to apply it when we begin to understand that what we do to others, we do to ourselves. That at the deepest levels, we are all one. If we can live like this, morality no longer needs to be applied, it just is, and we become as the world becomes. If we feel ourselves applying it, then we are still struggling to underderstand it. If we have trouble feeling our connection to all there is in life (including the God aspect) we lose the link that allows the natural flow of morality, and question the conscious application of it. To me, a moral person is one who can act with love always. This doesn't mean that they allow themselves to be trampled by everyone else, because that really isn't what we want for ourselves, so why would we allow others to do it. It does mean applying understanding and forgiveness and allowing whatever connection is possible, even if it is only in spirit. It doesn't mean evangelizing and imposing our ideas on others in an attempt to get everyone to do what is right as we see it. It means always acting from that place within us that can feel the connection to all others with love. It doesn't mean that everyone always has to agree with us. It means that when they don't, we honor who they are from a place of our own truth.
Morality is simple if it comes from inside and moves out. To examine the external benefits of it is to examine its effects, and they are worth examining if that shows us the path to that place within us from which our morality naturally flows. On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3 Apr., 14:53, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I understand your fears, I have expirienced them myself when leaving > > religion behind. I think the correct answer is, humans are for the > > most part, inherantly moral. > > Much as I would like to think this, lon, I have a major methodological > problem with this premise, taken as an axiom. Personally, I was raised > in a liberal Christian tradition (even if, like you, I have > consciously grown beyond the Christian part of it) and experience a > strong subjective distaste for the idea of amoral humanity. Still, I > find myself wondering how much my desire for a moral aspect to my > fundamental anthropology is rooted within my socialisation, something > which, despite my present postion of professed agnostic atheism, is > still very much part of me. Frankly, I don't want to be rid of it - > it's an aspect of who I am. But it does raise an attitude of > existential suspicion of my own judgement. For a grounding of > morality, I think we must go deeper. > > I see three basic philosophical vectors here. The first is > evolutionary. Without going too far into an area better covered by > people like Dawkins, I do think there can be a certain weight > apportioned to the development of humanity and human societies - some > kind of altruistic genetic direction, which has shown itself to be > generally advantageous throughout the development of our species. > > The second has to do with order. Whether we go into the the > microscopic; from biology (complex organisms, cytology, genetics), to > chemistry, to atomic and subatomic physics; or the macroscopic; solar > and planetary systems, galaxies and galactic clusters, we see > everywhere wonderful complex examples of structure and organisation. I > do not make the jump here to a theological argument from design - the > order we see may just as well be incidental fractal islands of > structure, order and differentiation in an entropic sea of chaos - but > the order we experience gives us a pattern, or an example of > patterning which we may legitimately take over for humanity and the > way we organise our living together - an organising which cannot take > place without morality. To freely choose order rather than chaos (and > such a choice implies basic moral systems) seems to be a rational and > sensible step. > > The third is the old philosophical argument, to wit, that it is the > nature of human beings to seek happiness; and happiness is not > achievable without a basic moral position. > > These are very simple statements of arguments which have much depth > and complexity. They make, in this simplified stage, no statements > about any specific moral content. Still, they serve me as a starting > point for the development of a position which argues that morality is > an integral part of what it means to be human. > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
