What is a "true notion of "morality"?

[guillaumeb]

This post is inspired by a response that I received in another post. The poster responded, in part, as follows:

You, on the other hand, have an insurmountable challenge in trying to reconcile any true notion of "morality" with the kind of god you believe in.

Is there, can there be, a true notion of morality, (as opposed possibly to a false notion of morality), and if so, who exactly defines what this true notion of morality encompasses?

Or is the position expressed in this phrase instead a logical fallacy?

Your thoughts please.

NOTE: The bolded portion of the quote was my highlight.

[MineralMan]

1. A truly rational essential morality could have been,

and was, developed through simple common sense and observation of society. Almost every culture has expressed this very simply. It is the concept of reciprocity.

Essentially, it is the concept that we should not do anything to others that we would not wish done to ourselves. That simple expression contains within it a complete formula for your "true notion of morality." Nothing more is really needed.

That statement in either positive or negative form can be found in almost all cultures and societies that have or have had a recorded language. It is universal cultural wisdom that is derived by thinking people throughout human history. Sadly, it is rarely universally followed, despite its universal expression.

Viz: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[HopeAgain]

3. I think morality is more than rational

This notion of morality arose among the world religions during the axial age. Rationality doesn't really explain it for me. Why is it "rational" to not cause suffering to others, especially if it could advantage you in some way to do so? should it be rational to risk your safety for a stranger, or share limited resources with strangers?

Altruism, empathy and sympathy are innate emotional reactions, not always rational ones, and yet universally deemed appropriate for most situations. Spirituality is, for me, the deepening of this service to a greater good. And whether it comes from a Higher Power or just genetics, it does not come from logic or cold rationality alone.

[guillaumeb]

7. An excellent answer.

When tribalism conflicts with the admonition to "do unto others", tribalism generally wins out.

[guillaumeb]

6. But it is in the interpretation of this "reciprocity", and how one applies it

to one's own actions, that constitutes the issue.

[MineralMan]

20. Individuals behave individually.

Always. The principle is the same. It is not always followed by individuals.

That is the same story, regardless of the source of the ethical or moral standard.

[guillaumeb]

11. What role does tribalism play in the concept of "do unto others"? eom

Because tribalism assumes the existence of "others", and in a tribal society, this admonition to "do unto others" will conflict with the obligation to one's tribe.

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, of course.

One need only look at history to see that a culture's or society's ethical standards are generally applied only with regard to that culture or society.

That does not change the fundamental, virtually universal nature of that simple moral code. It is observed as it is observed.

For many mindful individuals, that simple statement is all that is needed for a moral life. For others, an entire book of specific rules of morality is useless and will be ignored.

Mindfulness is the key to morality. Consideration before action is essential to all moral systems. But all can be reduced to that single, simple, universal standard.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Try not to hurt anyone.......including yourself

[guillaumeb]

8. One of your better responses. eom

[Angry Dragon]

12. Unlike you, I at least try to answer a question

[guillaumeb]

13. Demonstrated by your complete non-answer here?

I think I understand.

[Angry Dragon]

14. What non-answer are you talking about??

[guillaumeb]

15. Yours, of yesterday.

In response #2.

[Angry Dragon]

16. Golden rule reworded is not an answer??

[guillaumeb]

18. My apologies.

I completely missed it.

[Angry Dragon]

19. Apology accepted

[Lordquinton]

4. How are you coming on your reconciliation?

Seems you are stumped if you're posting a whole new thread.

[guillaumeb]

9. If you have read the comments posted so far, and you read my post,

which called for thoughts, what are your thoughts?

[Lordquinton]

22. So you haven't?

How about your definition of god, how is that coming along?

[guillaumeb]

24. Try again.

[Lordquinton]

27. So you haven't?

How's your definition of god coming?

[trotsky]

5. Define your god and let's find out.

Don't run off creating a new thread trying to change the framework of the discussion.

Demonstrate your sincerety. Define your god. I'm waiting.

[guillaumeb]

10. This is a new thread,

and it deals with something that you claimed in another thread. If you wish to attempt to prove your previous claim, feel free to do so. But this thread is not about anyone defining a god. For that matter, neither was the other thread.

[trotsky]

17. Yes, I know you like to start new threads when you get humiliated in a previous one.

It's just kind of your thing.

And as I have repeatedly stated, I am ready to prove my claims, I simply need your definition of god to proceed.

So please, let's do this. Define your god.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. You are roughly speaking an abrahamic christian type faith yes?

If so, how did you determine God was the good guy and Satan/Devil/Lucifer/whatever was the bad guy?

Therein lies your answer.

[guillaumeb]

25. Therein might lie your particular answer. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

26. No, because I derive nothing from the abrahamic faiths.

Since, (if I recall correctly) you source yours from or along with your faith, one must first pick a faith. How to choose which one, also solves for the problem you proposed in the OP.

[guillaumeb]

28. Mineral Man, in reply #2, differs with you. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I'm suggesting how YOU might approach the problem. Not myself.

I actually agree with MM's position. The 'Golden Rule is quite ancient, and is essentially the basis for my own morality.

From a philosophical standpoint, my foundation is self-ownership and non-aggression. But I can simply express it as reciprocity as he stated.

[guillaumeb]

30. And when members of a tribe encounter members of another tribe,

tribal loyalty often dictates that the stranger is treated differently. Another example of an ancient rule that obviously explains much of human history.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Often yes.

But I think we're getting better.

[trotsky]

33. And we seem to do better, the fewer things there are that make us feel we're different or special.

Like religion, for instance.

[guillaumeb]

35. Or patriotism?

Or language?

Or color?

[marylandblue]

36. Why do you compare apples and oranges?

Last edited Sat Oct 14, 2017, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)

It's hard to change your language and impossible to change your color, but you can change or drop your religion anytime.

[guillaumeb]

37. Why did you ignore patriotism? Another belief system.

The poster talked of things that make one feel special. Any difference, of color, of language, or belief systems, can all be used to make people feel special.

[marylandblue]

38. Fine, so let's get rid of patriotism and religion

We will have two less things to divide us and poster suggested that would be good. What do you plan do about color? Hand out bottles of shoe black?

[guillaumeb]

40. There are many colors, not just black and white.

If we could only look past color.

[marylandblue]

41. Maybe we should just drop religion then

I don't have any problem with it myself, in fact I find religious ceremonies and spiritual practices quite uplifting, but since we tend to argue about it so much maybe we are better off without it.

[guillaumeb]

42. I do not generally feel a need to argue,

but I must admit to responding to what I see as simplistic framing of issues, including religion.

[marylandblue]

43. I didn't mean you personally

But among people in general, religion seems to generate a lot of heated discussion and much worse as well.

[guillaumeb]

44. Nor was I referring to you.

Which generates more heat: theist versus non-theist, or Sanders versus Clinton?

[marylandblue]

45. both are nothing compared to Muslim vs. Christian

[trotsky]

39. So religion is like color to you?

Just a thing, no meaning outside a person's mind?

[trotsky]

32. Weak attempt at framing. n/t

[guillaumeb]

34. Once again, I am honored to be your inspiration.

No need to thank me.