Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Markoff who wrote (19582)	7/25/1998 9:02:00 PM
From: Sam Ferguson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

Morality At Gunpoint There seems to be no small degree of confusion of late as to just exactly where "morality" comes from, so I thought this would be a splenderrific opportunity to climb up on the soapbox and attempt to clarify a few things as to the derivation of virtue. I am very weary of those legions of religious pinheads who loudly insist that our so-called "moral fiber" (which in every age they claim to be in grave danger of unraveling) is based on religious things like "The Judeo-Christian Ethic". Well, I hate to bust yer balloon folks, but morality does not in any way, shape, or form spring from any religion, period. No, quite on the other hand, morality comes entirely from human experience and the idea that, since we are all being forced to live together here on this utility ball hurtling through the vast emptiness, it behooves us to treat each other according to certain basic ethical precepts. Not because it's "right", but because in so doing the greatest number of people are given the best chance of survival. Yes, you heard right, survival is at the crux of the moral biscuit, not religion. The Golden Rule and all other truly ethical principles to which it gives rise not only predate religion but they have always existed as value judgements entirely independent of religion and it's high time that we realize that fact. Look, we don't say that it's wrong to steal or kill (or whatever) just because religious documents (or Holy Men) claim it is wrong, these are simple man-made ideas which arise from a general consensus that killing and stealing are really crummy things to do to a person. The religious aspect was cobbled together well after the actual existence of virtuous behavior for a variety of reasons including primarily a need to explain how things got here and maybe how we can make things work for us. I have no problem with the basic rules of the ethical road to be found in all religions (don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc.). My problem comes with the fact that, in addition to those basic concepts of kindness, one is often forced to swallow a lot of truly stupid ideas about human sexuality and how your neighbor should conduct his or her affairs along with the religious dosage. So, if the rules say "Do all of these things, or else!", with this in mind, how does this reflect on those who do knuckle under? To my way of thinking, religious people who engage in ethical behavior do so for all the wrong reasons. They do the "right" thing usually because their Celestial Sheriff has promised to throw them in the hoosegow (as it were) if'n they don't. Not that a religious person cannot (or should not) derive pleasure from ethical behavior under these conditions, but it is clearly not originally virtue for virtue's sake, it's morality at gunpoint. Furthermore, there is this sadly prevalent idea that only religious individuals are really "good", and that anyone who forgoes religion is someone who is just not to be trusted to act as if they even know what principals of morality are. I suppose that people figure that if a man ain't got The Fear in him, then we caint trust him not to go around rabbit-punching old ladies and stuff. Well, believe it or not gang, religion never has been, is not now, and never will be the source of virtuous behavior. Morality is an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of human answers to human problems which change as often as the need to accomodate a new idea or human need arises. This is why "morality" changes so often. Remember, just 50 years ago if you were divorced, you were considered "semi-immoral", and 50 years prior to that if you were a female you could be jailed for exposing your calves to public scrutiny. And a few hundred years before that, it was considered the height of virtue to obey God's orders and go slaughter that group over there because they don't have the same ecclesiastical star on their bellies as we do (and that makes 'em BAD). As we grow as a species and uncover more and more facts about that Thing called Objective Reality, our notions on morality (and everything else) will continue to be in a constant state of flux. This increasingly amounts to stress for those whose religious beliefs dictate that they obfuscate or even deny certain aspects of that reality in order to stave off a dangerous threat to The Universal View of How Things Work. From the profane suggestion that sex between consenting adults is OK and wonderful to the sublime fact that the universe is billions of years old, as reality is revealed to us, we will someday understand the significance of our insignificance: We're all alone here and we get to make up all of the rules as we go along in our brave darkness. If refraining from killing, lying, stealing, and wearing brown shoes with a blue suit is "right", it is "right" because a million- plus years of evolutionary success has shown us that survival through moral excellence (and proper color coordination) works because it ensures the survival of the majority, not because it is preferable to fryin' like a Frito in the skillet of Hades.